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

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 359

Filed 03/14/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ____________________________________ HOMER J. HOLLAND, ) HOWARD R. ROSS, and ) FIRST BANK, ) ) Case No. 95-524C Plaintiffs, ) ) (Judge George W. Miller) v. ) ) (Winstar-Related Case) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Pursuant to Rules 6 and 6.1 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests an enlargement of time to file its motion for leave to file an amended answer. We request the enlargement of time because, given the likely amount of damages connected with our proposed counterclaim, we must first obtain formal authorization from the Assistant Attorney General. In short, we do not have the authority in our office to file our counterclaim at the current time, and will only be able to do so after the completion of formal internal processes and authorization. In our proposed pre-trial schedule filed on March 12, 2007, we proposed a date of April 19, 2007, for our filing of our amended answer, noting that "in order to assert this counterclaim, counsel of record must first obtain proper authorization from his superiors." Def. Proposed Schedule (March 12, 2007) at 5. Our statement should have stated, more specifically, that we proposed a date of April 19, 2007, for our filing of a motion for leave to file our amended answer. Given that we must first obtain authorization from the Assistant Attorney General, we respectfully request an enlargement of time until April 19, 2007, or 30 days from the date our motion is now due pursuant to the Court's Order dated March 13, 2007. We will make every

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 359

Filed 03/14/2007

Page 2 of 4

effort to obtain this authorization at the earliest possible date, and if authorization is obtained prior to April 19, 2007, we will file our amended answer as soon as possible following that authorization. We note that, with the proposal for trial to start on December 10, 2007, as set forth in Court's Proposed Scheduling Order (March 13, 2007), our requested enlargement of time will have no delaying effect on the proposed date for the start of trial. We have discussed our proposed enlargement with plaintiffs' counsel and they have informed us that they do not oppose our motion for enlargement. There has been no prior enlargement of time requested to file our motion for leave to amend our answer. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons we respectfully request that the Court grant us an enlargement of time to file our motion for leave to file our amended answer until April 19, 2007. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL F. HERTZ Deputy Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director /s/ Kenneth M. Dintzer by Jeanne E. Davidson KENNETH M. DINTZER Assistant Director

-2-

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 359

Filed 03/14/2007

Page 3 of 4

Of Counsel: RICHARD B. EVANS ELIZABETH A. HOLT WILLIAM G. KANELLIS DAVID A. LEVITT JOHN J. TODOR March 14, 2007

/s/ John H. Roberson JOHN H. ROBERSON Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor, 1100 L Street Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 353-7972 Fax: (202) 514-8640 Attorneys for Defendant

-3-

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 359

Filed 03/14/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 14th day of March 2007, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

/s/ John H. Roberson John H. Roberson