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


File Size: 55.5 kB
Pages: 2
Date: July 15, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 358 Words, 2,314 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/19889/10-1.pdf

Download Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims ( 55.5 kB)


Preview Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:05-cv-00490-TCW

Document 10

Filed 07/15/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SSA MARINE, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 05-490C (Chief Judge Damich)

Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer On July 14, 2005, defendant, United States, filed a motion seeking a second enlargement of time until August 17, 2005, to file an answer. Plaintiff, SSA Marine, Inc., respectfully objects to defendant's characterization of plaintiff's response to defendant's request for consent to its motion. A copy of the actual e-mail exchange between counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff invited government counsel to discuss the matter of a further extension, but received no response prior to the motion itself. Plaintiff does not object to an enlargement of time if it is truly necessary to prevent the United States from filing an unfounded motion to dismiss. Plaintiff carefully considered the applicable jurisdictional issues prior to filing its complaint and has offered to assist government counsel with his analysis in this regard. Indeed, on June 22, 2005, plaintiff's counsel shared applicable case law and analysis with opposing counsel in an effort to resolve the government's questions in a timely manner.

Case 1:05-cv-00490-TCW

Document 10

Filed 07/15/2005

Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff understands the importance of establishing proper jurisdiction. Plaintiff further understands the burdens of a heavy case load. It is for these reasons that plaintiff consented to the government's initial extension request. Plaintiff nevertheless believes that less than four months should be needed to file a responsive pleading. As such, while plaintiff does not object to defendant taking additional time, if necessary, to conclude that admiralty jurisdiction does not exist, any additional requests will be opposed as clearly excessive.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ John W. Butler John W. Butler SHER & BLACKWELL, LLP 1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-2510 (tel) (202) 463-4950 (fax) Of counsel: Heather M. Spring SHER & BLACKWELL, LLP 1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-2516 (tel) (202) 463-4950 (fax) Dated: July 15, 2005

2