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

Case 1:04-cv-01122-LTB-MJW

Document 27

Filed 06/22/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-CV-1122-LTB-MJW DEBORA K. RUDD, Plaintiff, v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE OF COLORADO, INC., a Colorado corporation, and MICHAEL NEUMAN, individually and in his capacity as supervisor, Defendants.

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff, by and through her attorney, Kara T. Birkedahl of the Silvern Law Offices, P.C., requests that she be allowed a second extension of time up to and including July 5, 2005 to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. As grounds therefor, Plaintiff states as follows: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(A) The undersigned is authorized to state that counsel for Defendants, Jan Montgomery, has advised that Defendants have no objection to this requested extension and that an extension to July 5, 2005 is more convenient to her schedule than an earlier date. 1. On May 2, 2005, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) on all of Plaintiff's claims. 2. Pursuant to the Court's previous Order of May 20, 2005, Plaintiff's response is

due tomorrow, June 22, 2005.

Case 1:04-cv-01122-LTB-MJW

Document 27

Filed 06/22/2005

Page 2 of 3

3. 4.

Plaintiff needs additional time to properly respond to summary judgment. This is an employment case in which the Plaintiff claims, inter alia, that she was

terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As with many such cases, Plaintiff's response to summary judgment will involve detailed factual issues and complicated legal argument. 5. On June 9th and 10th, Plaintiff completed depositions with the depositions of two

former employees of Defendant-employer both of whom had to be located through investigation. The depositions were scheduled for the first available dates on Defendants' attorney's calendar after her return from a trip out of the country. 6. Transcripts of the depositions were received by Plaintiff this past Friday, June 17,

2005. The deponents' testimony is significant regarding the issues raised in the subject dispositive motion. 7. Plaintiff therefore requests that she be allowed an extension of time, up to and

including July 5, 2005, to file her response pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1. 8. Plaintiff will be prejudiced if not allowed extra time to adequately respond. No

party will be prejudiced if this motion is granted. 9. This is Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time regarding this matter.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests she be allowed a second extension up to and including July 5, 2005, to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of June, 2005

Case 1:04-cv-01122-LTB-MJW

Document 27

Filed 06/22/2005

Page 3 of 3

SILVERN LAW OFFICES, P.C.

s/Kara T. Birkedahl Kara T. Birkedahl Steven Silvern Attorneys for Plaintiff 1801 Broadway, Suite 930 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 292-0044 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was served this 21st day of June, 2005, on the following: Jan E. Montgomery, Esq. Hamilton and Faatz, P.C. 1600 Broadway, Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80202 Debora Rudd 814 West Clark Street Livingston, Montana 59047

s/Teresa A. Neyman