Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I ?
”`“‘—"
I _ as§_3:O3-cv-O05?6.-CFD Document 28 Filed O4/15I2004 Page 1 of1
I M)
I /\
I
I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
I
I = I
I PETER GIRARD, : cAs@0.: 3:03CV0566(CFD) I
I Z
Plaintiff, ; I
I V- : I I I.__ ,
: -“*#.‘i‘·; é`£s·
THE ARROW LINE, lNC.ICOACH : I
USA, . i*;’,§‘· ;¤~ .,_
I I I
I Defendant. : APRIL 13, 200l4 W EIM I
‘ U It I
E ·C Ig
¤> cd °*> 2
"U I , -. I
25* O? II DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION -OF TIME WITHIN I
& I
.,... ¤> |
m _ I I The defendant, The Arrow Line, Inc./Coach USA, respectfully requests from the
• I _
R {ji I Court an extension of time of 8 days, until April 30, 2004, in which to respond to
0.)
.421 I
m* I plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint in the above—captioned case. The response was I
U originally due on April 22, 2004.
5 Degsndant requests this extension for the reason that although this Motion to I
I Amgnd Céeinplaint was filed on or about March 31, 2004 defendant’s counsel did not I
I '*· g·__3€%?
· I recgive afégpy until April 8, 2004. In addition, defendant’s counsel has an extensive ,
CE IEE: I
It Ieg_c`a;_i_ brief? on April 23'“I in a different, pending client matter.
N Ffiaiintiffs counsel has been contacted and he has no objection to this request for
additional time.
This is the second request for an extension of time in connection with this matter.
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
I
e-,... IIIIIIIIII
-a-.. IIIIIIIIII