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

Case 1:06-cv-00144-MBH

Document 26

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

No. 06-144C (Judge Horn)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 15 days, to and including February 28, 2007, within which to file its summary judgment reply brief. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated opposition to this motion. Our reply brief is currently due on February 13, 2007.1 This is

our second request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. In our first motion for enlargement, we listed the obligations in addition to our reply brief in this case that intervened between the filing of PCL's summary judgment opposition brief on December 15, 2006, and the previously enlarged deadline. Since the filing of our first enlargement

request we have met the intervening deadlines but have been unable also to prepare and file our reply brief in this case. Particularly time consuming was our post trial reply brief in

We intended and attempted to file this motion on February 13, 2007, but were unable to do so due to a combination of remote-access computer problems and the closing of the Federal Government on February 13, 2007, due to inclement weather conditions. We understand that, due to the closing of the Government, that this motion is not considered out of time although it is being filed on February 14, 2007.

1

Case 1:06-cv-00144-MBH

Document 26

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 2 of 4

Moreland v. United States, Fed. Cl. 03-2154C (due January 29, 2007 but enlarged to February 12, 2007, and filed on that date) because of the volume of plaintiff's 159-page post trial brief. We are now prepared to complete our reply brief in this case, however cannot do so in a shorter period of time than we are requesting due to out of town pretrial activities in Metric Construction v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 04-954C (February 1517, 2007, and again on February 26-28, 2007)(the Metric trial begins on March 19, 2007, and was only recently assigned to defendant's counsel to handle the trial), as well as an out of town obligation in GASA v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 01-642C (February 21-23, 2007). In addition, as we have prepared our reply brief in this case, we have determined that we did not fully address the applicability to our motion for summary judgment of 28 U.S.C. § 2519 (1994) which states: "A final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims against any plaintiff shall forever bar any further claim, suit, or demand against the United States arising out of the matters involved in the case or controversy." We believe a discussion of this statute is in the best interests of full consideration of our motion by the Court. The enlargement is necessary to facilitate the completion of our summary judgment reply brief, provide adequate time for supervisory approval, and to ensure that it is thorough and of the most benefit to the Court. The enlargement period that is

Case 1:06-cv-00144-MBH

Document 26

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 3 of 4

requested is also designed to account for defendant's counsel's intervening obligations, described above. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that this motion for an enlargement of 15 days be granted. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director s/Deborah A. Bynum DEBORAH A. BYNUM Assistant Director s/Brian S. Smith BRIAN S. SMITH Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attention: Classification Unit 1100 L St. NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 616-0391 Attorneys for Defendant February 14, 2007

Case 1:06-cv-00144-MBH

Document 26

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on February 14, 2007, a copy of foregoing "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT 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/Brian S. Smith