Free Motion for Leave to File Out of Time - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00387-LB

Document 15-2

Filed 10/18/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ____________________________________ ) INFORMATION SYSTEMS & ) NETWORKS CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 06-387C v. ) Judge Block ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant, ) ____________________________________) PLAINTIFF'S COMBINED OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OUT OF TIME Comes now the plaintiff and counter-defendant, Information Systems & Networks Corporation (`plaintiff" or "ISN"), by and through its undersigned counsel, and hereby opposes the defendant and counter-plaintiff's ("defendant") Motion for Entry of Default ("Default Motion") combined with the Motion for Leave to File Out of Time ("Leave Motion"), and as grounds therefor states as follows: 1. On September 7, 2006, defendant filed its Answer and Counterclaim to plaintiff's Complaint. The Answer was originally due on June 28, 2006, but was extended by agreement of the parties to September 8, 2006 (See Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Answer-document 7). 2. Pursuant to the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), plaintiff's Reply to the Counterclaim was due on October 10, 2006-30-days from September 7, 2006 plus an additional 3 days under RCFC 5(b)(2)(D) and RCFC 6(c). Thus, when the Default Motion was filed, plaintiff was 6 days late in the filing of the Reply. 3. Pursuant to RCFC 6(b), the Court for cause shown and upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period may permit the act to be done where the failure

Case 1:06-cv-00387-LB

Document 15-2

Filed 10/18/2006

Page 2 of 3

to act was the result of excusable neglect. Plaintiff's failure to file the Reply on a timely basis was the result of excusable neglect due the travel and case load of plaintiff's counsel. 4. Attached to this Combined Motion is the proposed Reply which the plaintiff requests the Court to deem filed on the granting of the Leave Motion. 5. The Counterclaim, other than referencing decisions of the ACO, which were also referenced in the Complaint, contains no substantive allegations for the defendant's claim for damages. 6. No prejudice will be caused the defendant if the Reply is allowed to be filed less than two weeks after its due date. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the plaintiff requests this Court to DENY the Motion for Entry of Default and to GRANT the Motion for Leave to File Out of Time and deem the Reply attached to this Combined Motion filed as of the date of this Court's Order. Respectfully Submitted, s/ Norman H. Singer Norman H. Singer, Esq. Singer & Associates, P.C. 10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 725 Bethesda, MD 20817 (O) 301-469-0400 (F) 301-469-0403

Case 1:06-cv-00387-LB

Document 15-2

Filed 10/18/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 18, 2006, a copy of plaintiff's Combined Opposition to Motion for Default and Motion for Leave to File Out of Time was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/ Norman H. Singer Norman H. Singer, Esq.