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


File Size: 59.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 348 Words, 2,223 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/21914/9.pdf

Download Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims ( 59.8 kB)


Preview Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:07-cv-00004-TCW

Document 9

Filed 04/16/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

LAUDES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Plaintiff Laudes Corporation opposes the United States' Second Motion for an Extension of Time to respond to the Complaint. Defendant requests a second enlargement of time so that it may coordinate with various executive branch agencies its response to allegations regarding the status of the Coalition Provisional Authority. However, defendant has already had more than three months to coordinate its response. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff requests that the Court deny defendant's motion and direct it to file its responsive pleading no later than April 19, 2007. Further delay by defendant will prejudice plaintiff. Unlike many contract cases, the majority of the amount claimed by plaintiff in this case is not subject to the Contract Disputes Act. Accordingly, plaintiff is likely not entitled to interest on the vast majority of its claim. As a result, further delay by defendant will have a direct financial impact on plaintiff. In addition, counsel for defendant indicated that defendant's need for additional time is to prepare a partial motion to dismiss. In such a motion, the facts as alleged as plaintiff in the No. 07-4C (Judge Thomas C. Wheeler)

Case 1:07-cv-00004-TCW

Document 9

Filed 04/16/2007

Page 2 of 2

Complaint are presumed to be true. Accordingly, the fact that counsel only recently received the litigation report is irrelevant. Finally, to the extent that defendant's proposed motion is jurisdictional, it can be brought at any time. Thus, there is no need to prejudice plaintiff by further delaying this case. Accordingly, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny defendant's motion for a further extension of time. DATED this 16th day of April, 2007. LAUDES CORPORATION

By:__s/Mark G. Jackson___________ Mark G. Jackson, WSBA #18325 GARVEY SCHUBERT BARER 1191 Second Avenue, Suite 1800 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 464-3939 (206) 464-0125 ­ fax Counsel of Record for LAUDES CORPORATION
SEA_DOCS:842875.1

2