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

1 2 3 4 5

Scot G. Teasdale (SBN: 019330) David L. O'Daniel (SBN: 006418) ANDERSON BRODY BUCHALTER NEMER 4600 East Shea Boulevard, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85028-6031 Telephone: (602) 234-0563 Facsimile: (602) 234-2952 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
I1749.0001 BNFY 701331v1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. IRT ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a PRECISION CLEANING SERVICES, and IAN TURNER, Defendant. No. CV-03-2460-PHX-MHM MOTION (UNOPPOSED) TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants IRT Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Precision Cleaning Services, and Ian Turner, by counsel, hereby move the court to allow Defendants IRT Enterprises, Inc. and Ian Turner until November 30, 2005 to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's counsel has orally stated that he would not oppose this extension since he is processing a settlement offer. The reason for this extension is that a settlement offer has been made to the Plaintiff by Defendants, which is in process of being evaluated by Plaintiff. In accordance with Plaintiff's procedures, after an proposal is made by a defendant, such proposals must be memorialized by Plaintiff in a letter setting forth certain details which is sent to defendants, who then sign the Plaintiff prepared "offer" and return it to Plaintiff, then the offer is sent for evaluation by Defendant's decision

-1Document 31 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02460-MHM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

makers. This multi step process has proved time consuming, and in addition, e-mails of initial proposals from Defendant's counsel were not received by Plaintiff's counsel John Snyder, causing a loss of time, and Plaintiff's counsel was out sick for a week, delaying the "offer" letter, which was only received on October 24th, and sent back to Plaintiff on the 25th of October. Due to the time lag between Defendants making an initial proposal, receiving the form of offer from Plaintiff and the need for this offer to be processed, Plaintiff has not yet received a response on its offer. If accepted, this will moot the need to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and both parties think it prudent to determine if a mutually agreeable settlement can be reached before further significant expenditures of attorney time in responding to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
DATED: October 28th, 2005 ANDERSON BRODY BUCHALTER NEMER

By: s/ Scot Teasdale Scot G. Teasdale 4600 East Shea Boulevard, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85028-6031 David L. O'Daniel Attorneys for Plaintiff

ORIGINAL e-filed and copies mailed this 28th day of September, 2005, to: Paul K. Charlton United States Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Attorney for Plaintiff John B. Snyder, III Anton L. Janik, Jr. Trial Attorneys, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 683 Ben Franklin Station

I1749.0001 BNFY 701331v1

-2Document 31 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02460-MHM

1 2 3

Washington, D.C. 20044-0683 Attorneys for Plaintiff

_/s/Jenifer K.L. Allen_____________ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
I1749.0001 BNFY 701331v1

-3Document 31 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02460-MHM