Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-00413-JLK-BNB

Document 280

Filed 10/18/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 01-cv-00413-JLK-BNB M.D. MARK, INC., Plaintiff, v. KERR-McGEE CORPORATION and ORYX ENERGY COMPANY, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b) OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, FOR REMITTITUR, AND/OR TO ALTER AND AMEND THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59 AND 59(e) ______________________________________________________________________________ CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 7.1A Counsel for Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for Defendants, Greg Goldberg, regarding the filing of this motion. requested herein. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, M.D. Mark, by and through its attorneys, Pelz & Associates, P.C., and moves this Honorable Court for an order permitting an extension of time within which to respond to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50(b) or alternatively, Motion for New Trial, for Remittitur, and/or to Alter and Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59 and 59(e). As grounds for this Motion, Plaintiff shows unto the Court as follows: Counsel for Defendants does not object to the relief

Case 1:01-cv-00413-JLK-BNB

Document 280

Filed 10/18/2007

Page 2 of 4

1.

Defendants filed their Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to

Rule 50(b) or alternatively, Motion for New Trial, for Remittiur, and/or to Alter and Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59 and 59(e) on October 12, 2007 and Plaintiff's counsel received it on Monday, October 15, 2007. This Motion is an extensive motion totaling fifty pages. 2. The Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of

Law pursuant to Rule 50(b) or alternatively, Motion for New Trial, for Remittiur, and/or Alter and Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59 and 59(e) is due no later than October 26, 2007. 3. Plaintiff requests an extension of time within which to respond to Defendants' Renewed

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50(b) or alternatively, Motion for New Trial, for Remittiur, and/or Alter and Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59 and 59(e) for the following reasons: a. The subject matter involved in Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of

Law pursuant to Rule 50 (b) or alternatively, Motion for New Trial, for Remittiur, and/or Alter and Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59 and 59(e) involves a complexity of issues and involves the application of specific legal issues to equally complex facts. b. Plaintiff's counsel has not yet had an opportunity to review the Motion for

Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50 (b) or alternatively, Motion for New Trial, for Remittiur, and/or Alter and Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59 and 59(e). Plaintiff's counsel will not have an ample opportunity to review Defendants' Motion and provide a response to Defendants' counsel by October 26, 2007, because they will be outof-town on business from October 18-20, 2007.

2

Case 1:01-cv-00413-JLK-BNB

Document 280

Filed 10/18/2007

Page 3 of 4

c. d.

Defendants have had ample time to prepare and research the instant Motion. Plaintiff has had to prepare its Bill of Costs, Motion to Amend the Judgment,

Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Motion to Stay the Proceedings and is also in the process of preparing its Objection to Bill of Costs, which Objection should be filed no later than October 23, 2007. e. Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel attended on all day mediation on Monday,

October 15, 2007, which required counsel's immediate attention. 4. 5. No other extensions regarding this Motion have been requested. Neither party will be prejudiced by the granting of this extension. Conversely, Plaintiff

will sustain prejudice should Plaintiff be required to respond to the instant Motion without the benefit of ample time to review the Motion and research the legal arguments. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff M.D. Mark respectfully requests a five (5) day extension of time, or until November 2, 2007, within which to respond to Defendants' Motion for Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50(b) or alternatively, Motion for New Trial, for Remittitur, and/or to Alter and Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59 and 59(e). DATED: October 18, 2007. Respectfully submitted, PELZ & ASSOCIATES, P.C. s/ Dan Bonifazi Daniele W. Bonifazi Harlan P. Pelz 1873 South Bellaire Street, Suite 1401 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: 303-691-5600 Facsimile: 303-691-5606 3

Case 1:01-cv-00413-JLK-BNB

Document 280

Filed 10/18/2007

Page 4 of 4

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 18th day of October, 2007, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b) OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, FOR REMITTITUR, AND/OR TO ALTER AND AMEND THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59 AND 59(e) was faxed and placed in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: M. Antonio Gallegos, Esq. Scott S. Barker, Esq. Gregory E. Goldberg, Esq. HOLLAND & HART, LLP 555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200 Post Office Box 8749 Denver, CO 80201-8749 303-295-8261 Fax

s/ Allison E. Goldstein Allison E. Goldstein

4