Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

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

Document 189

Filed 05/22/2006

Page 1 of 3

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 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMITATIONS

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, KELLY FINCHER, by her guardian, JAMES FINCHER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, through their counsel of record, THE CAREY LAW FIRM, and submits the following opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Response Brief in Excess of Page Limitations with regard to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and in support thereof, states as follows: 1. In her initial filing of the Motion for Class Certification, Ms. Fincher

inadvertently filed a brief in excess of the page limitations established by this Court in its division rules, and thus had the brief rejected. Subsequently, Fincher adequately laid out her Motion for Class Certification in the required fifteen (15) pages. Now, it is Prudential who wants to exceed the page limitation imposed upon it, even though Fincher met this Court's page requirements.

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

Document 189

Filed 05/22/2006

Page 2 of 3

2.

Furthermore, Prudential's basis for requesting a waiver of this

Court's page limitations involves responding to more than that which Fincher presents in her Motion for Class Certification. Prudential need only contest any perceived inaccuracies in Fincher's application of the law to this case, and doing so would save room in its brief by avoiding addressing issues that are not existing disputes. 3. As part of this "overkill" by Prudential, it insists upon challenging the

class definition contained in the complaint, despite Fincher's offer to stipulate that she is not attempting to certify such a class. It is Prudential that is addressing non-issues that it then cites as a basis for needing additional pages. 4. Ultimately, the expansion of the page limits on a response brief will

only, in equity and good conscience, require a request for an increase by Fincher for the pages needed to reply. This matter is adequately handled in the page allocations provided in the division's rules. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kelly Fincher prays for an Order of this Court, denying Prudential's Request, and ordering that Prudential stay within the page limitations imposed by this Court, as was required by Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of May, 2006. THE CAREY LAW FIRM s/L. Dan Rector Robert B. Carey L. Dan Rector The Carey Law Firm 2301 East Pikes Peak Ave. Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909 Phone: (719) 635-0377 Fax: (719) 635-2920

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

Document 189

Filed 05/22/2006

Page 3 of 3

Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on 22nd day of May, 2006, electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: [email protected]

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