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

Case 3:03-cv-01011-AWT

Document 91

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT _____________________________________________ : NICHOLAS CAGGIANIELLO, NEIL : CASE NO. 303CV1011(AWT) HOWARD and THOMAS FALCO, on : behalf of themselves and all other similarly : situated employees of FSG PrivatAir, Inc. : : PLAINTIFFS, : VS. : : FSG PRIVATAIR, INC. and in their : individual and official capacities DAVID C. : HURLEY, HUGH F. REGAN, THOMAS H. : MILLER and THOMAS L. CONNELLY : : DEFENDANTS. : _____________________________________________ DECEMBER 1, 2005

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION Defendants FSG PrivatAir, Inc. ("PrivatAir"), David C. Hurley, Hugh F. Regan, Thomas H. Miller and Thomas L. Connelly, by their attorneys, hereby move this Court for an order granting Defendants an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendants' Second Renewed Motion for Sanctions. On October 27, 2005, Defendants served and filed with this Court their Second Renewed Motion for Sanctions. On Friday, November 18, 2005, Plaintiffs responded to such motion by way of an Objection, which objection was apparently served, by mail, with delivery to our former office address of 183 Sherman Street, Fairfield, CT 06824 (Exhibit A). Our firm has not been located at such address in nearly a full year ­ which fact was well known by Plaintiffs' counsel who have both mailed and hand-delivered documents to our new address in Westport on many occasions. 1

Case 3:03-cv-01011-AWT

Document 91

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 2 of 3

After Plaintiffs' objection was forwarded by the postal service to our office ­ even slower than usual because of the holiday last week, we finally received the objection on November 28, 2005, a full ten (10) days after such document was purportedly mailed. Clearly, this address "error" was either procedurally convenient for the Plaintiffs, or a calculated scheme to hinder this firm's ability to reply to the objection in a timely fashion. To further compound matters, Attorneys Russell J. Sweeting and Joseph C. Maya, who are handling the instant matter, are currently actively engaged on a jury trial in Los Angeles, California. Such trial is in its third week, and is expected to continue well into next week. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the time for which Defendants might serve and file a reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition be extended and enlarged, through and including December 20, 2005, approximately ten (10) days after counsels' out-of-state jury trial is expected to conclude.

Respectfully Submitted, THE DEFENDANTS

By: _______________________ H. Daniel Murphy, Esq. ct/26671 Maya & Associates, P. C. 266 Post Road East Westport, CT 06680 Telephone: (203) 221-3100 Fax No: (203) 221-3199

2

Case 3:03-cv-01011-AWT

Document 91

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed this 1st day of December 2005 to:

James T. Baldwin, Esq. Coles, Baldwin & Craft, LLC 1261 Post Road, P.O. Box 577 Fairfield, CT 06824 Richard J. Diviney, Esq. 65 Jesup Road P.O. Box 390 Westport, CT 06881-0390

_________________________ H. Daniel Murphy, Esq.

3