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

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 25

Filed 05/05/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS No. 05-367 L into which have been consolidated Nos. 05-484 L; 05-537 L; 05-1082 L; 05-1083 L; 05-1173 L; and 05-1175 L ( E-filed: May 5, 2006) GERALD E. ROTH, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

Judge Emily C. Hewitt

the current deadline, or to and including Friday, May 19, 2006 in which to respond to Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RCFC 12(B)(1) and RCFC 12(b)(6) AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF. The response is currently due on Friday, May 5,

motion until approximately two weeks ago due to misunderstandings concerning registration for electronic filing. Counsel had registered on February 28, 2006 but only completed the testing on April 6, 2006. Counsel could not obtain a password because the system dropped off his registration 30 days after his initial registration. Calls to help lines were unavailing until counsel was directed by court personnel to the proper person to understand and explain why his initial

PD

2006. This is Plaintiffs' first request for an extension of time. The enlargement of time is necessary because Plaintiffs' counsel did not receive the

F

C w

w

re w

.s

ns

Plaintiffs hereby move pursuant to RCFC 6(b) for an enlargement of time of 14 days from

at ca

ft.

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

e! o

co

3 m

Tr ia

l

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 25

Filed 05/05/2006

Page 2 of 2

registration was no longer in the system. By the time these issues were resolved, the defendant has already E-filed the Motion to Dismiss, but the automatic notice of such filing was not delivered. Accordingly, counsel had to search for, find and download the motion. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are scattered across the nation and counsel is required to gather affidavits and documents from each of them, as their ownership is being challenged. Finally, the Plaintiffs are experiencing difficulty in locating official records in the Churchill County official records of ownership. (Although the tax assessor shows the Plaintiffs as owners, the documents showing chain of title have not yet been located.)

Counsel for Defendant has authorized counsel for Plaintiff to represent to the Court that Defendant does not object to the granting of this motion for an enlargement of time.

Dated: May 5, 2006

C w

PD

F

w

Attorney for Plaintiffs,

re w

.s

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Glade L Hall GLADE L HALL, Esq. 105 Mt. Rose St. Reno, Nevada 89509 (775) 324-6447

ns

the Motion to Dismiss.

at ca

ft.

days from the current deadline, or to and including Friday, May 19, 2006 in which to respond to

e! o

co

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully move for an enlargement of time of fourteen (14)

3 m

Tr ia

l