Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

MICHAEL W. STOVALL

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-400C (Judge Allegra)

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE UNITED STATES MOTION TO DISMISS AND REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE SURREPLY

Michael Stovall ("PLAINTIFF") files this Motion for Leave to File Surreply To Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to The United States' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Enlargement of Time to File Surreply and shows the Court the following: 1. Defendant has presented to the Court a seventeen (17) page reply with

forty-four cited cases and four cited federal statutes. 2. Defendant is intent on trying to convince the Court that it does not have

jurisdiction in this matter. More, however, Defendant has revealed to the undersigned that it views the Court's jurisdictional decision in this single case as a watershed matter because the Defendant is aware that there are many other settlement agreements with other black farmers that have been breached by the Defendant. Defendant is keenly aware that if this Court decides, at it should, that it has jurisdiction in this matter, other cases will follow. 3. It is imperative to this plaintiff and others like him, that he have the full

1

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 2 of 4

opportunity to brief the matter. Should the Court decide against its jurisdiction authority in this matter, this plaintiff, and others like him, will have no remedy at law, particularly since the DC District Courts have opined that jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to the Tucker Act and not in the District Courts. 4. This Court's rejection of jurisdiction would result in placing this plaintiff,

and others like him, in sort of a "no mans' land," judicially, for he will have a right without a remedy ­ an absurdity in the law. 4. DEFENDANT will not be prejudiced by the filing of the Plaintiff's

Surreply, nor by allowing said Surreply to be filed on or before September 22, 2005, and same will advance the efficient adjudication of the case at bar. 5. PLAINTIFFS request the Court grant leave for Plaintiff to file his

Surreply to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the United States' Motion to Dismiss and that the Surreply be filed no later than September 22, 2005. 6. Counsel conferred with the Defendant's counsel, Douglas K. Mickle, who

indicated no opposition to this Motion. PLAINTIFF prays the Court grant this Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Surreply to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the United States' Motion To Dismiss that Plaintiff's Surreply be due no later than September 22, 2005 and for further relief PLAINTIFF may show himself entitled.

Respectfully submitted, James W. Myart, Jr., P.C. 306 Preston Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78210 Phone: (210) 533-9561 Fax: (210) 533-4815

2

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 3 of 4

By:_/s/_____________________ James W. Myart, Jr. D. C. Bar No. TX 0021 Attorney for Plaintiff

DATE:__________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

All parties have been notified of this motion via ECF.

/s/_______________________________ James W. Myart, Jr.

3

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 4 of 4

IN THE UNITED COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

MICHAEL W. STOVALL

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-400C (Judge Allegra)

PROPOSED ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiffs= Motion for Leave to File Sureply to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and the entire record of this case, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion should be and is hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiffs Sureply to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on or before September 22, 2005. _________________, 2005. _________________________ JUDGE PRESIDING

4