Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

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

Document 195

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 00-cv-02098-REB-MJW KELLY FINCHER, by her guardian, JAMES FINCHER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiff, KELLY FINCHER, by her guardian, JAMES FINCHER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, by and through her attorneys of record, The Carey Law Firm, submits the following Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendant's Memorandum In Opposition to Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification. 1. On Friday, June 16th, counsel for Kelly Fincher filed an Unopposed

Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendant's Memorandum In Opposition to Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification, seeking a one week extension of time. 2. On that same day, this Court denied the motion, citing Plaintiff's failure to

comply with this division's Practice Standard II.G.2., which indicates that a motion for extension of time must be requested three days or more before the due date of the brief.

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

Document 195

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 2 of 4

3.

The Carey Law Firm has always been respectful of the Court's rules, and

often downloads the frequent revisions to those rules in order to remain current, both as to the local rules and the division practice standards. However, even then, our staff and attorneys did not take cognizance of the modification of this division's rules to include the three day limitation. 4. Nonetheless, counsel for Ms. Fincher respectfully states to this Court that

the circumstances surrounding this request are sufficiently emergent, are clearly valid, and not occasioned by inattention to deadlines. The author of the Reply brief, Robert Carey, had his opportunity to write the brief slowed by the delays that have occurred in the briefing by both sides in this matter, resulting in deadlines overlapping with the recent birth of his second child, which was twelve days overdue; and then finally by his trial preparation for the case of Hill v. Western Door, 04-cv-00332-REB-CBS, which was to begin as a three week trial in this same division today until the case settled last week. 5. Finally, a senior attorney in The Carey Law Firm who is active on the

Fincher file has submitted his resignation, placing additional burden upon Mr. Carey to complete the Fincher reply brief alone by last Friday. 6. As this Court will note from its review of Prudential brief in opposition,

despite the page limitations imposed upon the defense, that brief is almost as lengthy as the one originally proposed to be filed by Prudential in excess of the page limitation, given the footnotes and spacing, and a suitable Reply brief will take considerable effort. 7. This case has been pending as one with class allegations since 2000, and

is also one that the undersigned firm has pursued diligently for Ms. Fincher through appeals, motions, and hearings since that date, and will continue to do so through the 2

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

Document 195

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 3 of 4

trial date of October of 2007 in this Court. As such, the importance of providing this Court an adequate Reply brief cannot be overemphasized. Given that this motion for extension of time was unopposed, it is requested that this Court reconsider its denial of that request for an extension, and allow the filing of that Reply brief by this Friday, June 23, 2006. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Kelly Fincher, requests that this Court reconsider its ruling denying her request for an extension of time, dated June 16, 2006, and grant the motion as stated above. Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June, 2006.

s/L. Dan Rector L. Dan Rector Robert B. Carey Leif Garrison The Carey Law Firm 2301 East Pikes Peak Ave. Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909 Phone: (719) 635-0377 Fax: (719) 635-2920 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

3

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

Document 195

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 19th day of June, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notification to the following email addresses: [email protected]

And a copy was mailed to the following: Kelly Fincher 436 Longleaf Ct. O'Fallon, IL 62269 s/L. Dan Rector L. Dan Rector The Carey Law Firm

4