Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02341-RPM

Document 106

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 03-cv-02341-RPM-MJW LEGACY MANUFACTURING, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. STEVE BODEN, DANIEL W. LOYER, MVM PRODUCTS, LLC and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ______________________________________________________________________________ Defendants, by their undersigned counsel, hereby object to Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)on the following grounds: 1. Plaintiff's motion for extension should be denied at the outset because Plaintiff has

failed to comply with D. Colo. Local Rules 6.1 and 7.1. 2. Plaintiff's motion for extension should also be denied because Plaintiff has not shown

good cause for an extension. It is unclear what unidentified "transcription service" Plaintiff is referring to in paragraph 2 of its motion or what unexplained "mechanical difficulties" it has encountered. The transcript was prepared by the Federal Reporting Service and has been on file with

Case 1:03-cv-02341-RPM

Document 106

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 2 of 4

the District Court for at least two weeks. Plaintiff does not explain why the transcript on file could not have been used to prepare the proposed findings of fact. 3. In addition, Plaintiff's motion for extension should be denied because Plaintiff has

not provided sufficient information about the "scheduling conflicts" referenced in paragraph 2 of its motion. Unidentified "scheduling conflicts" do not constitute good cause for an extension of time under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) or Local Rule 6.1. 4. In reality, Plaintiff once again seeks an unfair advantage in this case. Rather than do

their own work, Plaintiff's counsel simply want to wait until Defendants have filed their proposed findings, and then copy Defendants' work. Because the Court provided ample time for the preparation of the proposed findings by February 13, 2006, to which the parties agreed, no further time should be allowed, particularly given the insubstantial grounds advanced by Plaintiff for its requested extension. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law be DENIED. Respectfully submitted this 13th day of February, 2006, s/ John R. Mann John R. Mann KENNEDY CHILDS & FOGG, P.C. 1050 17th Street, Suite 2500 Denver, Colorado 80265 (303) 825-2700 [email protected]

-2-

Case 1:03-cv-02341-RPM

Document 106

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 3 of 4

s/ Stewart McNab Stewart McNab CARVER KIRCHOFF SCHWARZ McNAB & BAILEY, LLC 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1700 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 893-1819 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants

-3-

Case 1:03-cv-02341-RPM

Document 106

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on this 13th day of February, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Andrew Snyder, Esq. HOPP & SHORE, P.C. 333 W. Hampden Ave., #500 Englewood, CO 80110 [email protected] Gregory Jones, Esq. 707 N. Franklin St., #801 Tampa, FL 33602 [email protected] Stewart McNab, Esq. CARVER KIRCHOFF SCHWARZ McNAB & BAILEY, LLC 1600 Stout St., #1700 Denver, CO 80202 [email protected]

:

/s/ John R. Mann John R. Mann KENNEDY CHILDS & FOGG, P.C. 1050 17th Street, Suite 2500 Denver, Colorado 80265 (303) 825-2700 (303) 825-0434 FAX [email protected]

-4-