Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 13

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)

ISMAEL JOHN, et al., For themselves and For a Class Consisting of the People of Enewetak,

No. 06-289 L

Hon. Christine O.C. Miller

P A N IF ' N P O E MO I NF RA E L R E N O TME L I TF S U O P S D TO O N N A G ME T F I I WH C T R S O DT D F N A TSMO I NT D S S N IH O E P N O E E D N ' TO O IMIS Plaintiffs hereby move pursuant to RCFC 6(b) for an enlargement of time of sixty (0 dy u tad nl i D cm e 1,06 n h h o epn t D f dn s 6) as po n i u n ee br 820 i w i t r od o e nat cdg c s e ' Motion to Dismiss. A response to the Motion to Dismiss currently is due on October 19, 2006. T iiPa tf fsr usfrn x ni o t e h s ln f 'ite eto a et s n fi . s i is r q e o m Counsel for Defendant has authorized counsel for Plaintiffs to represent that Defendant does not object to this motion for enlargement of time. Defendant United States initially requested and obtained a sixty (60) day et s n o epn tPa tf C m lnt. After the Amended Complaint was filed, x ni t r odo ln fs o p i e o s i i' a Defendant requested and obtained a twenty-two (22) day extension to respond to the Amended Complaint. Defendant requested and obtained a third extension of time to respond to the Amended Complaint on September 15, 2006. lo D f dn s o os Al f e nat m t n e ' i for enlargement of time were unopposed. Consequently, Defendant had, in essence, from mid-April to mid-Sp m e(vr 5 dy)o om letr pneo ln f ' et broe10 ast fr u ti e os t Pa tf e a s s i is claims.

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 13

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 2 of 2

D f dn s 7 e nat 3-page Motion to Dismiss covers a broad range of complex and e ' interconnected legal theories that go to the heart of this case. It also makes numerous references to litigation stretching back more than 25 years. Plaintiffs thus require this ad i at eo ei t df dn s rief, conduct additional research, and develop dio li tr e h e nat b tn m vw e e ' an appropriate response. This enlargement of time is necessary to permit Plaintiffs to fully consider the Motion to Dismiss. Respectfully submitted,

s/ Davor Pevec _____________________________ Davor Pevec, Attorney of Record Law Offices of Davor Pevec American Savings Bank Tower 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1360 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Fax: 310-402-5983 Phone: 808-599-5655 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: October 3, 2006 Of Counsel: Jon Van Dyke 2515 Dole Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Fax: 808-956-5569 Phone: 808-956-8509 Email: [email protected]

2