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

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 210

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case No. 03-cv-2669-MSK-PAC

LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. - CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation; BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Utah corporation; BIG-D CORPORATION, a Utah corporation; BIG-D CAPITAL CORP., a Wyoming corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants/Counterclaimants,

BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. - CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation; BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Utah corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Third Party Plaintiffs, v. MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dba UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL, a California corporation, Third Party Defendant.

MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dba UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL, a California corporation, Third Party Plaintiff/Counterclaimant, v. BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. - CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation; and Roes 20 through 80, inclusive, Counterdefendant/Third Party Defendants.

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 210

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 2 of 5

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ­ AND ­ MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION OF REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ­ AND ­ CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1D AND D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A

Plaintiff Leprino Foods Company ("Leprino"), through its attorneys, Campbell Bohn Killin Brittan & Ray, LLC, respectfully moves this Court for a four (4) business day enlargement of time to and including Tuesday, February 21, 2006, to file its reply brief in support of its Motion for Summary Adjudication and requests an order allowing its reply brief to exceed the ten-page limit. As grounds therefor, Leprino states as follows: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A AND D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1D Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., counsel for Defendant Big-D Construction Corp.-California, Christopher Hersey, and counsel for Marelich Mechanical Co., Inc., Peter Ippolito, were contacted before filing this motion. Mr. Hersey objects to the

requested enlargement of time, but does not object to Leprino exceeding the page limitation by an additional ten pages. Mr. Ippolito has no objection to any of the relief requested herein. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1D, a copy of this motion is being served upon Plaintiff Leprino Foods Company.

2

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 210

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 3 of 5

1.

Leprino's reply brief in support of its Motion for Summary Adjudication is

due on or about February 14, 2006. However, Leprino requires an enlargement of time of four (4) business days to and including February 21, 2006, within which to file its reply brief in further support of its Motion for Summary Adjudication. 2. As good cause for this enlargement, Leprino states as follows: Mr.

Markham and Mr. Bohn have had primary responsibility for the Motion for Summary Adjudication and the reply brief in support thereof. The deadline for Leprino to file its reply brief in support of its Motion for Summary Adjudication falls on the same date that both Mr. Markham and Mr. Bohn are in a deposition for this case, which was scheduled before the due date for the reply brief could have been ascertained. The conflict was unavoidable. Additionally, Mr. Markham and Mr. Bohn are also preparing Leprino's portion of the Final Pretrial Order, along with witness and exhibit lists (there are over 1000 deposition exhibits), which are due February 28, 2006. Accordingly, Mr. Markham and Mr. Bohn have been unavailable to assist with the preparation and completion of Leprino's reply brief. Although a draft of Leprino's reply brief has been started,

Leprino's counsel requires additional time to fully evaluate and address the legal issues raised in Big-D's voluminous response to Leprino's Motion for Summary Adjudication. 3. Leprino also seeks leave of the Court to file a reply brief that exceeds the

ten-page limitation set forth in MSK Civ. Practice Standard V.H.3.a. by an additional ten pages. Big-D sought and was granted permission to file a response to Leprino's Motion for Summary Adjudication that exceeded the Court's page limitation. Leprino did not object to Big-D's request to exceed the page limitation. Big-D's response was 30

3

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 210

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 4 of 5

pages in length, but the text of all the affidavits attached thereto increases to 75 the number of pages in Big-D's response. Leprino's reply brief must be allowed to exceed the page limitation so that arguments raised in Big-D's response can be fully and properly addressed in Leprino's reply brief. Accordingly, Leprino requests that it be allowed to exceed the page limitation and file a reply brief totaling twenty pages. 4. The extension will not unduly delay these proceedings or otherwise

interfere with the administration of justice. WHEREFORE, Leprino respectfully requests an enlargement of time to and including February 21, 2006, within which to file its reply brief in support of its Motion for Summary Adjudication, and requests leave of the Court to file a reply brief that exceeds the page limitation set forth in MSK Civ. Practice Standard V.H.3.a. by ten pages for a total length of twenty pages. Respectfully submitted this 13th day of February, 2006. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY

By:

s/ Bret M. Heidemann One of Its Attorneys Michael G. Bohn Bret M. Heidemann Campbell Bohn Killin Brittan & Ray, LLC 270 St. Paul Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80206 Telephone: (303) 322-3400 Facsimile: (303) 322-5800 [email protected] [email protected]

4

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 210

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 5 of 5

Patrick T. Markham, Esq. Jacobson & Markham 8880 Cal Center Drive, #100 Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone: (916) 854-5969 Facsimile: (916) 854-5965 [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 13th day of February, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ­ AND ­ MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION OF REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ­ AND ­ CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1D AND D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: Francis (Frank) J. Hughes at [email protected] Patrick Quinn Hustead at [email protected] Peter J. Ippolito at [email protected] Richard Carl Kaufman at [email protected] Patrick T. Markham at [email protected] John David Mereness at [email protected] Daniel James Nevis at [email protected] Laurence R. Phillips at [email protected] Christopher J. Hersey at [email protected] and I hereby certify that I have served the document to the following non-CM/ECF participants by depositing said document in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, properly addressed to: Richard Russeth, Esq. Leprino Foods Company 1830 W. 38th Avenue Denver, CO 80211 s/ Cori Atteberry Cori Atteberry, Legal Assistant

5