Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00165-JFM

Document 21

Filed 12/17/2007

Page 1 of 3

1

2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

HERNANDEZ, KROONE AND
4 ASSOCIATES, INC.,
5

CASE NO. 07-165 C
**********

Plaintiff,

6

The Hon. Judge James F. Merow
vs.

7 THE UNITED STATES,
8

Action Filed:

March 13, 2007

Defendant.

9

C/ 10 w.
? U

PLAINTIFF HERNANDEZ KROONE AND ASSOCIATES. INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
Hernandez Kroone And Associates, Inc. objects to Defendant The United States' Motion
For Enlargement of

w Z ~ i- 11
Z ~Oooo :r .. -; ."
?- -o::õ¡2 12

--ObS

r.",¡:=(Õ i: ¿ r-C"N
.. t..q::
0. o ~õ . z 3 u.

Time as follows:

-o o' :: - ¡: 13
Defendant's Motion For Enlargement of

Time is mainly based on two reasons: first

z z.q::g 14

z ..:: lî "; - ¡i..", "' '" ei.q 0

because Defendant claims that the allegations in Plaintiffs complaint are vague and lack factual
details, second because of counsel's workload and scheduling conflicts.

~ -o~~! 15

~O~~~
L.~;;;:.. C-CQ'" 0.
;:

o -o z C/ ~ 16

Z ..:i 17 :i
18

Defendant's "vagueness" argument regarding the complaint is not a valid ground for the
enlargement. First, Defendant has not challenged the validity of

Plaintiffs complaint. Second,

any alleged "vagueness" in Plaintiffs complaint has existed for months and is not a surprise to
19

Defendant justifying a time enlargement. Plaintiff filed its complaint on March 13,2007. Mr.
20
Solomson filed a Notice of Appearance for Defendant on March 23,2007. On May 14,2007,
21
Defendant filed an unopposed Motion To Extend Time to Answer. On June 4,2007, Plaintiff

22
23

filed

its Amended Complaint, mainly to add voluminous records not accepted by the Court when the

complaint was filed. On August 8, 2007, Defendant filed an unopposed Motion to Extend the
24

Deadline to File the Joint Preliminary Status Report ("JPSR"). Counsel for Plaintiff and
25

Defendant met and conferred regarding the JPSR, including the proposed deadlines to be included
26
therein. When Defendant proposed the deadlines in the JPSR, it was well aware of

27
28
129129.1 MeA 3291.002
1

the allegations

in Plaintiffs complaint and had the opportunity to evaluate the time it needed to conduct

HKA's Initial Disclosure
i

1-

Case 1:07-cv-00165-JFM

Document 21

Filed 12/17/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 discovery, hire experts and prepare for triaL. After a meet and confer, the parties filed the JPSR on

2 August 31, 2007. Now, Defendant uses the "vagueness" argument to seek an enlargement.
3 Also, although Plaintiff is understanding and sympathetic to opposing counsel's workload,
4 scheduling conflicts and time constraints - and has previously granted Defendant two time

5 extensions - it cannot agree to an enlargement which creates significant scheduling conflicts for
6 Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counseL. Specifically, Plaintiff is concerned that pushing deadlines to June,
7 July, and September when clients, witnesses, experts and counsel will

likely be taking summer

8 vacations will create additional delays, scheduling impediments and possibly further delays to the
9 Court ordered deadlines. Therefore, Plaintiff

Hernandez Kroone and Associates, Inc. respectfully

10 requests that Defendant's motion be denied, or alternatively, if granted that the deadlines be
C/

~ U 11
w z ~ i- - os:=

scheduled so that deadlines within the summer months are avoided.
DATED: December/22007

Z ~OooO 12 :: -;"7 ""

?- --~õ¡2

~¿t:;;~ .. t.4;::
2 u. 0. 0 z~o.

13

-- o':: - ¡:

14

Z Z4;:: g

z :ï;2~~ 15

~ 60S o--zii~ '- CQ '" 0. ~õ;:.. ,
Z :i :i .. ;:

'-o¡:¡iG

"' "' ..~;g ¿; .. "' z

-- ei4; U ¿,

16 17
18 19

Laurence P. Lubka SBN 103752 HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY NIEVES LUBKA DARLING & MAH, INC. 301 North Lake Avenue, 7th Floor Pasadena, California 91101-1807
Phone: (626) 440-5200
Fax: (626) 796-0107

20
21

Attorney for Plaintiff Hernandez, Kroone & Associates

22
23
Of Counsel:

Joseph J. Pertrillo, DC Bar No. 184986 24 PERTRILLO & POWELL, P.L.L.c. 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 440 25 Washington, D.C. 20015
26 27
28
129129.1 MeA 3291.002

Phone: (202) 887-4848
Fax: (202) 478-1656

2 HKA's Opposition to Motion To Enlarge

Case 1:07-cv-00165-JFM

Document 21

Filed 12/17/2007

Page 3 of 3

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 301 North Lake
Avenue, 7th Floor, Pasadena, California 91 10 1-1807.

4
5

On December 17, 2007, I served PLAINTIFF HERNANDEZ KROONE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT 6 OF TIME, via first class mail on:
7
8

Matthew H. Solomson

Civil Division, USDOJ 1100 L Street, N. W., Room 12106
Washington, D. C. 20005

9

10
C/

w

?

mailing with postage thereon fully prepaid at Pasadena, California, on that same day following Z ~OooO 12 ordinary business practices. :I-.-;.:---u.;;g:
- - õs:=

w Z"" i-

U

BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Lubka Darling & Mah, Inc.'s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service
that same day in the ordinary course of

11

business. Such envelope(s) were placed for collection and

r.¿t:=(Õ i: r- 0. N

0. 0 ~ o. 14 Z Z4; ~ g

.. . '" 13 ¡i4;~ -- o' ~ ~ .f

I declare under penalty of

perjury under the laws of

the State of

foregoing is true and correct.

California that the

Z:ï;24;~

Executed on December 17, 2007, at Pasadena, California.

-o ei4; U ¿,

E- 0 ¡- ¡i ~

~ -o ::z~ ..~;g

15

ei ~ O4;~ 16 0 '"

o -- z C/ 0 ~ _4; ~

Z :i :i .. ;:

~co M 0. ~ 00. ..

17
18

~~

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27 28

119242.1 TARTlS

1