Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00701-LTB-MJW

Document 66

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-00701-LTB-MJW NICOLAS MEDRANO, Plaintiff, v. KARL SCHERCK, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________________ Defendant, KARL SCHERCK, by his attorneys, THOMAS S. RICE and GILLIAN M. FAHLSING of the law firm SENTER GOLDFARB & RICE, L.L.C., and pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(B), hereby moves this Court for a 7-day extension of time to May 1, 2006 to file his Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. AND IN SUPPORT THEREOF, Defendant states as follows: 1. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(A), counsel for Defendant attempted to confer

with counsel for Plaintiff, Mr. William Meyer, prior to the filing of this motion by contacting him by telephone and by electronic mail. Mr. Meyer had not responded at the time of the filing of this motion, but Defendant anticipates he will not object to the relief requested herein as Defendant previously allowed him two extensions to file his Response to Defendant' Motion for s Summary Judgment.

1

Case 1:04-cv-00701-LTB-MJW

Document 66

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 2 of 3

2.

Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendant' Motion for Summary Judgment on s However,

April 5, 2006, rendering Defendant' Reply due on or before April 24, 2006. s

Defendant requires a brief extension to adequately respond to the "factual background" in Plaintiff' Response, which, in sentence form, consumes five full pages of Plaintiff' Response. s s 3. Plaintiff previously sought an 11-day extension to file his Response to

Defendant' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 54), which the Court granted (Doc. # 55). s Plaintiff then sought an additional 5-day extension to file his Response (Doc. # 56), which the Court again granted (Doc. # 57). Defendant has not previously sought any extensions to submit his Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, nor have any extensions been agreed to. Moreover, the trial in this matter is not currently scheduled to commence for over a year, or until August 27, 2007. Thus, none of the parties will be prejudiced by this brief extension. 4. D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(B) provides that a party may file a motion for an extension

of time. The present motion comports with the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(C) and (D). Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(D), undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a copy of this motion has been served upon Defendant via U.S. Mail, first class postage pre-paid. 5. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has shown good cause to allow the

requested brief 7-day extension, or up to and including May 1, 2006 to submit his Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.

2

Case 1:04-cv-00701-LTB-MJW

Document 66

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 3 of 3

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion for Extension to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, permitting undersigned counsel to file same on or before May 1, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Gillian M. Fahlsing Gillian M. Fahlsing Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C. 1700 Broadway, Suite 1700 Denver, CO 80290 Telephone: (303) 320-0509 Facsimile: (303) 320-0210 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24th day of April, 2006, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: William D. Meyer, Esq. [email protected] David J. Bruno, Esq. [email protected] s/ Kathleen Bertz Kathleen Bertz

3
00221235