Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00373-MCW

Document 8

Filed 06/14/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

_____________________________________ MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. _____________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-373C Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE OUT OF TIME ITS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Manhattan Construction Company ("Manhattan"), by counsel, respectfully seeks an enlargement of time out of time to file its Opposition to Defendant United States of America's (the "Government") Motion to Consolidate. Counsel for Manhattan failed to recognize that the Court, by its Order of March 16, 2005, designated this case as an electronic case. Counsel for Manhattan was, therefore, unaware that Defendant had filed a Motion to Consolidate on May 4, 2005 and failed to file its Opposition within the time prescribed under the Rules of the Court. Manhattan's Opposition was due on May 18, 2005 and the time for filing its Opposition has not been enlarged previously. Manhattan, therefore, respectfully requests an enlargement of twentyseven (27) additional days. Counsel for Manhattan accepts that it has a responsibility to comply with all Rules of this Court. To that end, counsel for Manhattan has taken steps to ensure that it will comply with the Court's electronic filing requirements. Immediately upon learning that Defendant had filed an Answer and a Motion to Consolidate, Counsel for Manhattan obtained the required CM/ECF account. Counsel for Manhattan regrets any inconvenience its failure to promptly comply with

Case 1:05-cv-00373-MCW

Document 8

Filed 06/14/2005

Page 2 of 2

the Court's March 16, 2005 Order may have caused and respectfully asks that this Court accept Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Consolidate, contemporaneously filed with this Motion, as timely filed. Counsel for Plaintiff has consulted with Counsel for Defendant regarding this Motion for Enlargement of Time Out of Time and she stated that she has no objection to the Motion.

Dated: June 14, 2005.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Henry D. Danforth Henry D. Danforth, Esq. Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP 8405 Greensboro Drive, Suite 100 McLean, Virginia 22102 (703) 749-1000 Counsel for Plaintiff, Manhattan Construction Company

2