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

Case 1:04-cv-00541-CCM

Document 165

Filed 03/19/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ____________________________________ ) STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) No. 04-541 L ) v. ) Judge Christine Odell Cook Miller ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF On March 7, 2007, Plaintiffs' filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to amend or modify decision. The Court, on March 12, 2007, entered two scheduling orders related to Plaintiffs' motions. The Court ordered Defendant to file a response to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on or before March 20, 2007, Defendant to file a response to the motion to amend or modify on or before March 23, 2007, and Plaintiffs to file a reply to Defendant's response regarding the motion to amend or modify on or before March 30, 2007. The Court's orders did not address a reply brief by Plaintiffs to Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On March 13, 2007, Defendant filed a motion for an enlargement of time in which to file its opposition briefs. The Court granted that motion. In light of the extension granted to Defendant and the Court not addressing whether Plaintiffs will be given the opportunity to reply to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs move for: (1) a seven-day enlargement of time to and including April 6, 2007, in which to file their reply to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to amend or modify decision; and (2) for leave to

Case 1:04-cv-00541-CCM

Document 165

Filed 03/19/2007

Page 2 of 3

file a reply to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, on or before April 10, 2007. Plaintiffs' need the extension of time to respond to Defendant's opposition in order to fully address whatever arguments Defendant may make in its opposition--under the current schedule Plaintiffs' must file their reply on the same day Defendant's opposition is due. Pursuant to RCFC 6.1, Plaintiffs discussed the motion for an enlargement of time with Defendant and Defendant does not oppose the granting of the motion for an enlargement of time. This is the first such extension Plaintiffs have sought. Moreover, Plaintiffs believe they will need the opportunity to file a reply regarding Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have expended a great deal of time and resources prosecuting this case. Furthermore, the issues presented by this case and raised in Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration are complicated. Therefore, Plaintiffs would like the opportunity to address any arguments raised by Defendant in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request an enlargement of time in which to file their reply to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to amend or modify decision and leave to file a reply to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Roger J. Marzulla Roger J. Marzulla Nancie G. Marzulla MARZULLA & MARZULLA 1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-6760

-2-

Case 1:04-cv-00541-CCM

Document 165

Filed 03/19/2007

Page 3 of 3

(202) 822-6774 (facsimile) Dated: March 19, 2007 Of Counsel: Jeanne M. Zolezzi Jennifer L. Spaletta HERUM CRABTREE BROWN 2291 West March Lane Suite B100 Stockton, CA 95207 (209) 472-7700 (209) 472-7986 (facsimile) Counsel for Plaintiffs

-3-