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

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 190

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 04-cv-1067-REB-CBS WILLIAM R. CADORNA, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, Defendant.

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ONE WEEK ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 15(b) AND 16(e) TO AMEND PRETRIAL ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant, City and County of Denver, Colorado ("Denver"), by and through their counsel, Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C. ("BH&F"), hereby move for an unopposed enlargement of time, up to and including October 10, 2006, in which to respond to "Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) and 16(e) to Amend Pretrial Order to Conform to the Evidence and/or Prevent Manifest Injustice" ("Plaintiff's Motion to Amend"). In support of this unopposed motion, Defendant states the following: 1. Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR. 7.1(A), counsel for Denver consulted with counsel

for Plaintiff, William R. Cadorna ("Mr. Cadorna") regarding this motion. Counsel for Mr. Cadorna stated that his client did not object to the one-week enlargement of time sought by this motion. 2. BH&F recognizes that the Court's rules require a motion for enlargement of time

to be filed three days before a filing's deadline, and that the parties do not have the authority to

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 190

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 2 of 4

enlarge the deadline for a filing by agreement. BH&F requests that the Court grant the motion for an enlargement of time, despite the fact that it was not filed three days before Denver's response to the Motion to Amend is due, for the following reason. BH&F has only very recently been retained by Denver to act as its lead counsel with respect to post-trial proceedings. In that capacity, BH&F agreed only yesterday to prepare the response to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. Thus, it was not possible for BH&F to seek an enlargement of time that complied the Court's requirement. BH&F will work diligently to ensure compliance with the Court's rule in the future. 3. Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 6.1(C) and (D), counsel for Denver certifies that

(a) Denver has not previously sought an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend; and (b) a copy of this unopposed motion has been served upon the Defendant. 4. The reason for the requested enlargement of time is as follows: As noted

previously, BH&F has only very recently been retained by Denver to act as its lead counsel with respect to post-trial proceedings. The requested one-week enlargement of time is necessary to allow BH&F to respond properly to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, and to address fully the issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. ACCORDINGLY, Denver requests that the Court grant an extension of time, up to and including October 10, 2006, for Denver to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 190

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of October, 2006. BROWNSTEIN HYATT & FARBER, P.C.

s/ Richard Barkley Richard P. Barkley Hamid M. Khan 410 17th Street, 22nd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 223-1100 Christopher J. Lujan, Esq. Asst. City Attorney, Employment Div. City and County of Denver 201 West Colfax, Department 1108 Denver, Colorado 80202 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

3

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 190

Filed 10/03/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 3rd day of October, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ONE WEEK ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 15(b) AND 16(e) TO AMEND PRETRIAL ORDER was served via the CM/ECF system to the following: Mark E. Brennan, Esq. Mark E. Brennan, P.C. P.O. Box 2556 Centennial, Colorado 80161 Email: [email protected]

s/____________________________ Melissa Brenneman

4