Free Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00141-LAS

Document 13

Filed 07/05/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

SHELL OIL COMPANY, UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, and TEXACO INC., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 06-CV-141 (Senior Judge Smith)

PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT Plaintiffs Shell Oil Company, Union Oil Company of California, Atlantic Richfield Company, and Texaco Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") respectfully move to exceed the forty (40) page limit under RCFC 5.2(b)(1) for its Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and in Support of their Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on June 30, 2006. Government's counsel has informed Plaintiffs' counsel that the Government does not oppose this Motion. The grounds for this Motion are set forth below: 1. Complaint. 2. On May 11, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension On April 17, 2006, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'

of Time to File Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on or before July 3, 2006.

Case 1:06-cv-00141-LAS

Document 13

Filed 07/05/2006

Page 2 of 4

3.

In response to the Government's Motion to Dismiss, on June 30, 2006, Plaintiffs

filed their (i) Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability; (ii) Brief in Opposition to the Government's Motion to Dismiss and in Support of their Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability; (iii) Appendix in Support of their Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability; and (iv) Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact in Support of their Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability. 4. On July 5, 2006, the Court's law clerk informed Plaintiffs' counsel that Plaintiffs'

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment could not be considered a cross-motion because the Government had not moved for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court's law clerk requested that Plaintiffs re-file the Motion without the word "Cross" in the title. Plaintiffs have done so today. 5. To the extent Plaintiffs are considered movants under RCFC 5.2(b)(1), subject to

a forty (40) page limit, rather than cross-movants, subject to a fifty (50) page limit, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court grant them leave to exceed the page limit. Specifically, Plaintiffs' Brief is forty-five (45) pages in length. Plaintiffs have made every effort to be concise, but in order to adequately brief Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability, and oppose the Government's Motion to Dismiss, it is necessary to exceed the forty (40) page limit imposed on movants under RCFC 5.2(b)(1).

2

Case 1:06-cv-00141-LAS

Document 13

Filed 07/05/2006

Page 3 of 4

Dated: July 5, 2006

Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Michael W. Kirk Michael W. Kirk Counsel of Record COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 750 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 220-9600 (202) 220-9601 (fax)

Of Counsel: Nicholas A. Oldham COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 750 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 220-9600 (202) 220-9601 (fax)

3

Case 1:06-cv-00141-LAS

Document 13

Filed 07/05/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I certify that on July 5, 2006, the attached document was filed electronically. I understand that service is complete upon filing and that parties may access this filing through the Court's ECF system.

s/ Michael W. Kirk Michael W. Kirk Counsel of Record COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 750 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 220-9600 (202) 220-9601 (fax)

Of Counsel: Nicholas A. Oldham COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 750 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 220-9600 (202) 220-9601 (fax)