Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01415-JJF Document 10 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 1 of 3
I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
In re: ) District Court
) Civil Action No. 04-01415 (JJF)
AMERICAN CLASSIC VOYAGES CO., et al., )
) Chapter ll
Debtors. ) Bankruptcy Court
) Case No. 01-10954 (LHK)
(J ointly Administered)
)
AMERICAN CLASSIC VOYAGES CO., et al., )
DEBTORS, by and through PAUL GUNTHER, )
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, )
) Adv. Pro. No. 03-56886 (PBL)
Plaintiff/Appellee, )
)
v. )
) Related C.A. Docket Nos. 7, 8
WESTAFF, )
)
Defendant/Appellant. )
)
APPELLANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
Westaff (USA), Inc., the Appellant herein, respectfully submits this Reply to the
Appellee’s Opposition to the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File
Appellant ’s Brief (the "Motion to Extend") in the above-noted appeal.
BRIEF REPLY
1. The matter at hand is simple and was set forth clearly in the Motion to
Extend: Appellant’s counsel recently (a) changed law firms and (b) had major surgery
7l4954_1 1

Case 1:04-cv-01415-JJF Document 10 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 2 of 3
requiring an extended hospitalization and recovery period. Accordingly, Appellant
requested a short extension of the briefing schedule set forth in this appeal.
2. As required by local rules, Appellant requested that Appellee consent to
the relief sought in the Motion to Extend, however Appellant refused.
3. Reviewing the Opposition, the Court will strain mightily to find any
prejudice whatsoever that might befall Appellee should the Motion to Extend be granted.
No such prejudice is alleged or shown.
4. The balance of Appellee’s Opposition consists largely of`
mischaracterizations of facts and procedural history entirely irrelevant to the relief
requested in the Motion to Extend, and of course personal attacks upon Appellant’s
counsel. Appellant shall not respond to same in detail (unless requested by the Court) as
doing so appears to be a complete waste of time — for the parties and this busy Court.
5. Appellant’s request is simple and common and concise. Appellee does not
even allege that it would be prejudiced thereby, let alone specify how. Accordingly, the
Motion to Extend should be granted.
714954_1 2

Case 1:04-cv-01415-JJF Document 10 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 3 of 3
WHEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests entry of an order granting it
an extension until June 25, 2005 to file and serve its opening brief
Respectfully submitted, .
HARVEY, PENNINGTON .
Dated: June 7, 2005 By: /s/ James E. Hugg tt L5
James E. Huggett,
"J" Jackson Shrum, Esq.
· John Hartley, Esq.
913 N. Market Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 351-1125 (telephone)
(302) 428-0734 (fax)
[email protected]
Counsel to Westaf (USA), Inc. / Appellant
714954_1 3