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

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

Document 26

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-B-1122 (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.

UN OPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFEN D AN TS' MOTION FOR SU MM ARY JU D GMEN T

The Plaintiff, by and through her attorney, Kara T. Birkedahl of the Silvern Law Offices, P.C., requests that she be allowed an extension of time up to and including June 22, 2005 to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. As grounds therefor, Plaintiff states as follows: 1. This is an employment case. Plaintiff claims that she was wrongfully and illegally

terminated form her employment with Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Colorado, Inc., in violation of Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. She has also stated a claim against Michael Neuman for intentional interference with contractual relationship and against all Defendants for intentional interference with a prospective business relation. 2. On May 2, 2005, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) asking for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. Pursuant to D.C. COLO.LCivR 56.1(A), Plaintiff's response is due on or before May 23, 2005.

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

Document 26

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 2 of 3

3.

Plaintiff needs time to complete additional discovery before responding to

Defendants' motion. To date, Plaintiff has completed the depositions of Defendant Neuman and of another supervisorial employee of the institutional defendant. Defendants have responded to Plaintiff's first set of discovery (with the exception of some documents that the parties are arranging for Plaintiff's counsel to view on site), and responses to Plaintiff's second set of discovery are not yet due. Defendants' counsel is currently out of the country, but the parties are in the process of scheduling several depositions in June when Defendants' counsel returns. 4. Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Watanabe's Order of February 3, 2005, the

discovery cutoff is July 1, 2005. 5. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) and D.C. COLO.LCivR 6.1, Plaintiff requests a

thirty-day extension of time, up to and including June 22, 2005. Said extension will not prejudice any party and will not interfere with any other deadlines. 6. Plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if not allowed the extra time to obtain the

evidence she needs to properly respond to Defendants' summary judgment motion. 7. The undersigned is authorized to state that she has been advised by counsel for

Defendants that Defendants have no objection to an extension of time up to thirty days. 8. This is Plaintiff's first request for an extension of time regarding this matter.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests she be allowed a thirty-day extension, up to and including June 22, 2005, to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Respectfully submitted this ______ day of May, 2005

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

Document 26

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 3 of 3

SILVERN LAW OFFICES, P.C.

__________________________________ 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 U N OPPOSED
MOTION FOR EXTEN SION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFEN D AN TS' MOTION FOR SU MM ARY JU D GM EN T

was served this ________ day of May, 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

___________________________________