Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 18.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 4, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 455 Words, 2,775 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/3359/190-1.pdf

Download Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Colorado ( 18.1 kB)


Preview Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:00-cv-01841-LTB-KLM

Document 190

Filed 12/04/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 00-cv-01841-LTB-PAC RICKY EUGENE CLARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S [UNOPPOSED] MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED AMENDED CLASS DEFINITION

COMES NOW Plaintiff Ricky Eugene Clark, by and through his undersigned attorneys of record, and pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 6.1, moves for an extension of time to file a Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Class Definition, and in support thereof, states as follows: 1. Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1A, counsel for the moving part has conferred with

opposing counsel, and this motion is unopposed by counsel for Defendant State Farm. 2. The parties are at present briefing the issue of the definition of the proposed class,

and Clark filed his opening brief on October 27, 2006. State Farm filed its Response on November 20, 2006, and the Reply Brief is due from Clark on Tuesday, December 5, 2006. 3. The undersigned counsel is responsible for preparing the Reply Brief, and has

been in trial in the matter of Luna v. Viking Insurance in the District court of El Paso County

Case 1:00-cv-01841-LTB-KLM

Document 190

Filed 12/04/2006

Page 2 of 2

since Tuesday, November 28. That trial now will unexpectedly extend into at least Tuesday December 5, and thus Clark's counsel will require additional time to prepare the Reply Brief. 4. As noted above, counsel for State Farm does not oppose the granting of this

motion to extend the time for the filing of that brief until December 18, 2006, as no previous extensions have been requested. 5. No party will be prejudiced by this brief extension of time.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for an Order of this Court, granting him an extension of time up to and including December 18, 2006, within which to file a Reply in Support of his Proposed Amended Class Definition. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4th day of December, 2006. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: s/L. Dan Rector L. Dan Rector 5536 Library Lane Colorado Springs, CO 80918 Telephone: (719) 527-8000 Telecopier: (719) 550-3926 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 4th day of December, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected] s/L. Dan Rector L. Dan Rector

2