Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cv-02098-REB-MJW

Document 196

Filed 06/21/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 00 CV 2098-REB-MJW KELLY FINCHER, by her guardian, JAMES FINCHER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY

Plaintiff Kelly Fincher has asked the Court to reconsider its denial of her request for additional time to file a reply brief in support of her motion for certification of the case as a class action. Although defendant Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company ("Prudential") did not oppose the request for additional time, it is compelled to address several inaccurate comments in plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff argues that "a suitable reply brief will take considerable effort" because Prudential's brief in opposition to the class certification motion "is almost as lengthy as the one originally proposed to be filed by Prudential in excess of the page limitation." Motion, ¶6. In fact, Prudential substantially cut its originally-filed opposition brief to reach the 15-page limit; a word count by the software used to draft the two versions of the brief reveals that Prudential cut the number of words in the document (including footnotes and the certificate of service) from 11,307 to 6,663.

Case 1:00-cv-02098-REB-MJW

Document 196

Filed 06/21/2006

Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff claims that the author of the reply brief "had the opportunity to write the brief slowed by the delays that have occurred in the briefing by both sides in this matter." Motion, ¶4. Prudential timely filed its request to file a brief in excess of the 15page limit and timely filed its brief in opposition when that request was denied. Plaintiff also filed its initial brief in excess of the page limit (but without a timely request for leave to do so) and was required to file a shorter version. In any event, the briefing schedule was extended primarily by plaintiff's filing of a motion for leave to amend the class action allegations of the complaint, which it withdrew in the face of Prudential's opposition. Finally, plaintiff argues that a senior attorney in the Carey Law Firm has submitted his resignation, requiring Mr. Carey to complete the reply brief alone by last Friday. Motion, ¶5. Plaintiff does not state that the attorney had actually left the firm, or explain why that attorney , whose electronic signature appears on the motion for reconsideration, could not have assisted Mr. Carey from June 2 until June 16 when the brief was due. Respectfully submitted this 21th day of June, 2006,

Bryan Cave LLP Bruce C. Oetter 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 (314) 259-2000 Attorneys for Defendant

Campbell, Latiolais & Ruebel, P.C. By:__/s/Clifton J. Latiolais, Jr.________ Clifton J. Latiolais, Jr., #13765 825 Logan Street Denver, CO 80203-3114 (303) 861-7760 (phone) (303) 861-7767 (fax)

2

Case 1:00-cv-02098-REB-MJW

Document 196

Filed 06/21/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21st day of June, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY was filed and served electronically via CM/ECF to the following: [email protected]

THE CAREY LAW FIRM Robert B. Carey, #17177 L. Dan Rector, #7568 Leif Garrison, #14394 & HAGENS BERMAN, LLP Steve W. Berman, #12536 C/o THE CAREY LAW FIRM 2301 East Pikes Peak Colorado Springs, CO 80909 Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/Denise L.Albares______

3