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

Case 1:04-cv-01009-EWN-MEH

Document 106

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-1009-EWN-MEH MARIAN J. BARCIKOWSKI, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF'S THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS ______________________________________________________________________________ COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC, and respectfully moves that this Court grant him a fourteen-day extension of time, to and including July 7, 2006, to file a stipulated motion to dismiss this case. AND FOR CAUSE, Plaintiff shows unto the Court: 1. 2006." 2. The parties have exchanged drafts of a settlement agreement. However, they have a On May 31, 2006, this Court entered a Minute Order, directing the parties, Plaintiff,

"[p]ursuant to the settlement in this case, ... to submit a stipulation of dismissal on or before June 7,

disagreement about certain terms of that agreement. 3. On or about May 31, 2006, Plaintiff's undersigned attorney telephoned Mag. Judge Judge Hegarty informed Plaintiffs' undersigned attorney that he would

Michael E. Hegarty to request his assistance in mediating the parties' dispute over those terms of the settlement agreement. contact Steven J. Merker, lead counsel for Defendant in this case, to attempt to help the parties resolve those differences. 4. On June 2, 2006, Judge Hegarty left a telephone message for Plaintiff's undersigned

attorney. He stated in that message that he had attempted to speak to Mr. Merker by telephone, but to no avail, and that he would not be available to continue those efforts during the week of June 5, 2006. Mr. Merker informed Plaintiff's undersigned attorney, on June 5, 2006, that he and Judge Hegarty had exchanged telephone messages but had not spoken to each other about the parties' differences concerning certain terms in the settlement agreement.

Case 1:04-cv-01009-EWN-MEH

Document 106 -2-

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 2 of 4

5.

On June 7, 2006, Plaintiff requested that this Court grant him an additional nine (9)

days, to and including June 16, 2006, to submit a stipulated motion for dismissal of this case. Plaintiff understood at that Judge Hegarty again would be available, during the week of June 12, 2006, to try to help the parties resolve their differences. 6. During the early evening of June 16, 2006, Mag. Judge Hegarty informed Plaintiff's

undersigned attorney that he had spoken to Mr. Merker and that he believed he had resolved the parties' differences. He suggested that Plaintiff's undersigned attorney telephone Mr. Merker the morning of June 19, 2006, to finalize the language in the parties' settlement agreement. 7. Plaintiff's undersigned attorney telephoned Mr. Merker the morning of June 19,

2006. Mr. Merker stated in that telephone conversation that all he had informed Mag. Judge Hegarty the late afternoon or early evening of June 16, 2006, was that he would contact his client to determine whether his client was willing to agree to language that would resolve the parties' differences. He told Plaintiff's undersigned attorney in that telephone call that he would contact his client later that day to find out whether his client was willing to do so. 8. Plaintiff's undersigned attorney left follow-up voice-mail messages for Mr. Merker

on June 21 and 22, 2006, to attempt to determine the status of this matter. Mr. Merker did not respond to that message. An employee in Mr. Merker's law firm stated on June 22 that Mr. Merker is out of town for a meeting with other attorneys, apparently other attorneys in that law firm, and would not be back in the office until Monday, June 26, 2006. On Friday, June 23, 2006, Diana from Mr. Merker's office left a voice-mail message for Plaintiff's undersigned attorney, in which she advised him that Mr. Merker had tried to reach his client on several occasions, but that his client's representative was out of town during the week of June 19, 2006, apparently on vacation. 9. Plaintiff's undersigned attorney is in San Francisco for the annual convention of the

National Employment Lawyers Association, held this year between June 23 and 26, 2006, inclusive. Plaintiff's undersigned attorney then will be on vacation in California, in part to visit with his 88year-old mother, and will be returning to his office on July 6, 2006. While he will remain in contact with his office by telephone and electronic mail during that time, it will be difficult for him to consult with his client and to sign the parties' settlement agreement, assuming that they can resolve their differences.

Case 1:04-cv-01009-EWN-MEH

Document 106 -3-

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 3 of 4

10.

Plaintiff requests that this Court grant him an additional fourteen-day extension of

time, to and including July 7, 2006, to file a stipulated motion for dismissal of this case. As of the date and time of the filing of this Motion, Plaintiff does not know whether the parties will be able to resolve their differences concerning the terms of the settlement agreement. 11. Plaintiff's undersigned attorney certifies that he has attempted to confer with

opposing counsel concerning the extension of time requested this Motion before filing it. Specifically, Plaintiff's undersigned attorney left a voice-mail message on that subject with Mr. Merker on July 22, 2006. Mr. Merker has not indicated what his client's position is in connection with this Motion for Extension of Time. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves that this Court grant him a fourteen-day extension of time, to and including July 7, 2006, to file a stipulated motion to dismiss this case. Respectfully submitted, ROSEMAN & KAZMIERSKI, LLC s/Barry D. Roseman BARRY D. ROSEMAN 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1607 Denver, Colorado 80203 303/839-1771 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:04-cv-01009-EWN-MEH

Document 106 -4-

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the twenty-third day of July, 2006, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Plaintiff's Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Stipulated Motion to Dismiss was sent via CM/ECF electronic filing, addressed to the following party: Steven J. Merker, Esq. R. Stephen Hall, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4700 Denver, Colorado 80202-5647

s/Karin C. Bailey Karin C. Bailey

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the twenty-third day of June, 2006, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Plaintiff's Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Stipulated Motion to Dismiss was sent via electronic mail, addressed to the following party: Marian J. Barcikowski 8757 Fawnwood Drive Castle Rock, CO 80108-8248

s/Karin C. Bailey Karin C. Bailey