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


File Size: 73.2 kB
Pages: 4
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 607 Words, 4,042 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/21023/16.pdf

Download Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims ( 73.2 kB)


Preview Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:06-cv-00116-NBF

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2006

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
CALIFORNIA OREGON BROADCASTING, INC., Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. No. 06-CV-00116-NBF Plaintiff California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendant's Motion for (Third) Enlargement of Time ELECTRONICALLY FILED: 6/16/06

Plaintiff California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. ("COBi") hereby opposes Defendant's motion for third enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff filed its complaint in this matter on February 17, 2006. As a result, Defendant's response was due on April 18, 2006. Shortly before April 18, Defendant requested a 35-day extension (until May 23, 2006), which Plaintiff did not oppose. On May 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. On May 19, 2006, Defendant sought a second extension of 22 days (until June 15, 2006), such that Defendant would file its response to the complaint at the same time that its opposition to Plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion was due. Because this dispute relates to a lease agreement with an initial term that ends on July 31, 2006, Plaintiff opposed the extension.1 On May 25, 2006, the Court granted Defendant's motion. Yesterday (the due date for Defendant's response), Defendant contacted Plaintiff to request a third extension. As with the motion for a second extension, Plaintiff
1

Plaintiff advised Defendant that it opposed the motion for a second extension but did not file a formal opposition. 1
248455.1

Case 1:06-cv-00116-NBF

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2006

Page 2 of 4

advised Defendant that it would oppose the motion. Although Plaintiff does not dispute that other matters have required the attention of Defendant's counsel, because of the nature of the dispute, it is imperative that litigation of this dispute move forward. Specifically, Plaintiff's position is that the lease agreement's Option term gives Plaintiff the unilateral right to extend the terms of the agreement beyond July 31, 2006, while Defendant contends that Plaintiff's option is contingent on Defendant's continued willingness to offer the property up for lease. Thus, because the dispute relates to what rights the parties have when the initial term of the lease agreement ends in approximately six weeks, time is of the essence in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion for a third enlargement of time. Plaintiff realizes that because Defendant filed its motion on the due date of its response and because Defendant seeks an extension of five days, for practical purposes, Defendant will not be filing its substantive response until approximately June 20, 2006, regardless of whether or not the Court grants Defendant's motion. Thus, to ensure that litigation of this dispute moves forward in a timely fashion, Plaintiff requests that the Court specify in its Order that "no further extensions will be granted."

Dated: June 16, 2006

Respectfully submitted, _s/Neil H. O'Donnell________ NEIL H. O'DONNELL ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL & PHILLIPS 311 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Tele. (415) 956-2828 Fax (415) 956-6457 Attorneys for Plaintiff California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc.

2

248455.1

Case 1:06-cv-00116-NBF

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2006

Page 3 of 4

OF COUNSEL: Mark A. Kahn ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL & PHILLIPS 311 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Tele. (415) 956-2828 Fax (415) 956-6457

3

248455.1

Case 1:06-cv-00116-NBF

Document 16

Filed 06/16/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 16th day of June, 2006, a copy of the foregoing "Plaintiff California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendant's Motion for (Third) 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/Neil H. O'Donnell_________

4

248455.1