Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01157-LMB

Document 8

Filed 01/09/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS TAMMERLANE THREE, LIMITED Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-1157C (Judge Baskir)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME OUT OF TIME Defendant respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 15 days, to and including January 11, 2006, within which to respond to plaintiff's complaint. Defendant's answer was due on December 27, 2005. This is our first request for an enlargement of time for this purpose. Plaintiff's counsel has authorized us to state that plaintiff does not oppose this motion. This case is one of approximately 200 related suits filed in this Court since August 6, 2004. Approximately 160 of these suits were filed prior to this case. Almost every judge of this Court has been assigned one or more of these cases. Eight of these cases were referred to Judge Horn for ADR pursuant to the Court's ADR pilot program in 2004. Of the cases filed in 2005, more than 20 were referred to Judge Horn or to another judge for ADR pursuant to the ADR pilot program. Eight additional cases were referred to Judge Horn for ADR by a series of orders issued on August 3, 2005. The parties have jointly requested stays in all but one of the referenced cases that were filed prior to this one, and are also likely to do so in this and many if not all of the other similar cases. (The one exception ­ Carpenter v. United States, No. 04-1740C (Fed. Cl.) ­ is the

Case 1:05-cv-01157-LMB

Document 8

Filed 01/09/2006

Page 2 of 3

subject of a pending motion to dismiss.) All of these requests have been granted or are still pending. In the cases filed in 2004, the joint motions to stay were filed subsequent to the filing of the defendant's answer to the complaint. In the cases filed in 2005, the parties generally filed joint motions to stay prior to the date when the answer became due. We expected to do the same in this case as well. As a result of an oversight, however, the due-date for the answer in this case was not properly recorded in our tracking system for these cases, and neither an answer nor a stay motion was filed. Government counsel first discovered this error on Friday, January 6, 2006. If, as we anticipate, a joint motion to stay this case is filed on or before January 11, 2006, the request will be to stay all proceedings, which would defer responsive pleading until the expiration of the stay. In any event, the enlargement of time that we are requesting will not cause any delay in the resolution of this action. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that our motion for an enlargement of time be granted. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

s/David M. Cohen DAVID M. COHEN Director

2

Case 1:05-cv-01157-LMB

Document 8

Filed 01/09/2006

Page 3 of 3

s/Shalom Brilliant SHALOM BRILLIANT Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-7561 Facsimile: (202) 305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant Filed Electronically January 9, 2006

3