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

Case 1:07-cv-00435-SLR Document 17 Filed O9/O4/2007 Page 1 of 3 i
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
I ROBERT QUILL, :
Plaintiff, :
v. :
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF WILMINGTON, : C.A. No. 07-435-SLR
INC., a Delaware corporation; ST. :
ELIZABETH’S CATHOLIC CHURCH, a :
Delaware corporation; Rev. FRANCIS G. : Jury Trial Demauded
DELUCA, individually and in his official :
capacity; and Rev. MICHAEL A. :
SALTARELLI, in his official capacity, :
Defendants.
DEFENDANT ST. ELIZABETH’S CATHOLIC CHURCH’S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ST. ELIZABETH’S
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD
U Plaintiff’ s opposition to Defendant, St. Elizabeth’s Catholic Church ("St.
Elizabeth’s"), motion for an extension of time to plead relies upon facts, parties,
scheduling circumstances, and arguments unrelated to the present matter. The only basis
upon which St. Elizabeth’s seeks an extension to Answer to September 28, 2007, as the
time within which St. Elizabeth’s must plead, relates to a short-term press of other
litigation which prevents belovwsigned lead counsel from conferring with and advising
St. Elizabeth’s with respect to this matter. To that end, below-signed counsel has
conferred by telephone and directly written to plaintiffs counsel the following:
"I am hopeful we might speak today about my requested extension. I want
to convey that my request is absolutely g tied to any plan to delay. My i
request is solely based on the facts that I was retained by St. Elizabeth’s in
ear1y—August, and since then I initiated only preliminary interviews,
document searches and insurance evaluations. Apart from that, my staff
and I have been preoccupied full time on finalizing our preparation for a
l

Case 1:07-cv-00435-SLR Document 17 Filed O9/O4/2007 Page 2 of 3
looming trial in the Superior Court. That trial is scheduled to conclude on
September 21, 2007, thus my requested extension for the time to answer
the complaint in Quill as September 28, 2007."
(See Mark L. Reardon E-mail sent to Plaintiffs counsel on August 27,
2007 and attached to Plaintiff s Opposition as p. 4)
l Plaintiffs counsel rejected St. Elizabeth’s requested extension. Counsel for St.
Elizabetlfs regrets this intrusion on the Court resulting from the unfortunate inability of
U counsel to agree in a manner consistent with the tradition of the Delaware Bar on a basic
scheduling issue.
Beyond the primary basis for the requested extension noted above, St. Elizabeth’s
further notes the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of extending the time to
plead for St. Elizabeth’s to September 28, 2007. As of this date, it appears no counsel
has entered an appearance for co-defendant Rev. Francis G. DeLuca. Therefore,
plaintiffs application for an immediate entry of a Scheduling Order requiiing the parties
p to exchange pre—discovery disclosures by September 7, 2007, is impractical.
WHEREAS, given St. Elizabeth’s recent retention of below-signed counsel’s
A firm to represent its interests, and given the fact that below-signed counsel has initiated
several preliminary fact-finding processes, and given that below-signed counsel is
A actively preparing for a Superior Court trial in mid—September, St. Elizabeth’s
respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant its Motion for an Extension until
September 28, 2007, to Answer or Otherwise to Respond to Plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00435-SLR Document 17 Filed O9/O4/2007 Page 3 of 3
Respectfully Submitted,
ELZUFON AUSTIN REARDON
TARLOV & MONDELL, P.A.
/s/ Mark L. Reardon
MARK L. REARDON (#2627)
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1700
P,O, Box 1630
n Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 428-3181
mreardon@,e1zut`on.com
Dated: September 4, 2007 Attorney for St. E1izabeth’s Catholic Church
I 3