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

Case 1:05-cv-00217-LAS

Document 30

Filed 12/21/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ARBITRAJE CASA DE CAMBIO, S.A. DE C.V., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-217C (Senior Judge Smith)

DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), defendant, the United States, respectfully submits this reply to the opposition to our motion for a 14-day enlargement of time, filed by plaintiffs, Arbitraje Casa de Cambio, S.A. DE C.V., et al. ("Arbitraje"). Arbitraje opposes our motion for enlargement of time until January 3, 2006 because, according to Arbitraje, if we file our reply on January 3, 2006, counsel for Arbitraje will not have enough time to prepare for oral argument on January 5, 2006. Certainly, counsel can begin preparation for oral argument before it receives our reply, particularly when the briefing concerns solely a legal issue. Additionally, Arbitraje states that the amount of additional time sought by the Government (in this motion and in our one previous motion) is "disconcerting." Pl. Opp. at 1. Arbitraje

Case 1:05-cv-00217-LAS

Document 30

Filed 12/21/2006

Page 2 of 4

neglects to remind the Court that it sought and was granted three motions of enlargement of time to respond to our motion to dismiss. Specifically, we filed our motion to dismiss on April

10, 2006 and Arbitraje filed its response on October 20, 2006 -- over six months after our motion was filed. Finally, as we demonstrated in our motion for enlargement of time, the undersigned counsel made every attempt to complete our reply in a timely fashion. country. However, counsel has been out of the

When counsel returned to the office from abroad on the

afternoon of December 12, 2006, she began work upon the three substantive briefs due between December 15, 2006 and December 21, 2006. Although counsel believed that it would be possible to

complete these briefs in a timely fashion, counsel has been unable to do so and requires additional time within which to complete our reply brief. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Court grant this motion for an enlargement of time.

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director

s/Mark A. Melnick MARK A. MELNICK Assistant Director

Case 1:05-cv-00217-LAS

Document 30

Filed 12/21/2006

Page 3 of 4

s/Claudia Burke CLAUDIA BURKE Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street Washington, D.C. 20530 tel: (202) 353-9063 fax: (202) 307-0972 December 21, 2006 Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:05-cv-00217-LAS

Document 30

Filed 12/21/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on this 21ST day of December, 2006, I filed electronically this "DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME", service of which will be electronically delivered to: Howard G. Slavit Saul Ewing 2600 Virginia Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

s/ Claudia Burke