Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 15.0 kB
Pages: 3
Date: January 4, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 729 Words, 4,301 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/19615/11.pdf

Download Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer - District Court of Federal Claims ( 15.0 kB)


Preview Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:05-cv-00217-LAS

Document 11

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 1 of 3

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 UNOPPOSED MOTION OUT-OF-TIME FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Defendant respectfully requests, out-of-time, the Court to grant an enlargement of time of 59 days, to and including February 24, 2006, within which to file its response to the complaint.1 The response is currently due on December 27, 2005. Counsel for plaintiff has informed counsel for the defendant that he does not oppose this request for an enlargement of time. No previous enlargements of time for this purpose have been requested or granted. Counsel of record promptly furnished a copy of the complaint to the United States Postal Service ("USPS"). While the USPS has been gathering the information necessary to provide the litigation report required by 28 U.S.C. ยง 520, the USPS has requested additional time to complete the litigation report. Undersigned counsel will then require a reasonable amount of time to prepare defendant's response to the complaint. In addition, counsel for the Government requests the additional time because counsel has other commitments that require a substantial amount of her time. In particular, counsel filed a

Leave to file out-of-time is requested because, on December 20, 2005, counsel for the defendant attempted to timely file a motion for enlargement of time, but she neglected to file the motion electronically, and, therefore, the motion was rejected by the office of the clerk. A copy of the motion was served on counsel for the plaintiff on December 20, 2005.

1

Case 1:05-cv-00217-LAS

Document 11

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 2 of 3

motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment in Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. United States, 154-05-751, on October 27, 2005, and her reply brief is due on January 23, 2006. Counsel had an oral argument on defendant's motion for summary judgment in Medgar Evers Houses Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 96-809C, on October 31, 2005. Counsel was required to file a brief in Stephens v. DVA, Fed. Cir. No. 05-1606, on November 4, 2005. Counsel is currently defending a bid protest action in Precision Standard v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 05-1125C, and she was required to file briefs on November 10, November 16, and November 21, 2005, and to participate in oral argument on November 29, 2005. On November 18, 2005, counsel was required to file a brief in Smith v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 05-5146. On November 23, 2005, counsel filed a reply brief in support of a motion for judgment on the administrative record in Peoples v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 05-214C. Counsel had an oral argument in Discenza v. Navy, Fed. Cir. No. 05-3078, on December 9, 2005. Counsel was required to file a post-trial brief in Spodek v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 031444C, on December 16, 2005; a reply post-trial brief is due to be filed on January 11, 2006, and a closing argument is scheduled for January 17, 2006. She is required to file an answer to the complaint in Silver State Construction Co. v. United States, Fed.Cl. No. 05-978, on December 23, 2005, and she is required to file a brief in Kokenge v. DVA, Fed. Cir. No. 05-7184, on December 28, 2005. Finally, on January 30, 2006, counsel is required to file a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss in American Floor Consultants & Installations, Inc. v. Untied States, Fed. Cl. No. 05-921C.

2

Case 1:05-cv-00217-LAS

Document 11

Filed 01/04/2006

Page 3 of 3

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request the Court to grant defendant's motion for an enlargement of time. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director

s/ Mark A. Melnick by/ Harold D. Lester, Jr. MARK A. MELNICK Assistant Director

s/ Doris S. Finnerman DORIS S. FINNERMAN Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Department of Justice Tel: (202) 307-0300 Fax: (202) 305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant January 4, 2006

3