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

M ,_ Case 3:03-cv-009?3§AWT Document 22 Filed 10/15/2003 Page 1 of 2
0 to O N
I "{.\?i» l @$1..
-e.1 `/a / , fg I
3w.i 4* ‘1—= ‘Qm .
fEiQt ·Kb -lj£ ‘4·’"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Q _ a,· ; 5 ifi? n
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT if%§¤ rl! l
NICHOLAS SICINOLFI : DN. 3:03 CV 929 (AWT)
pi .3 1 ¤ 2; i rr, ; }
v. :
TOWN OF TRUMBULL, ET AL, :
Defendant. : OCT. 14, 2003
MOTION_FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff moves for an extension of time nunc pro tunc until
Friday, October 17, 2003, to respond to defendant’s motion to
dismiss.
Plaintiff’s counsel has had numerous lengthy matters to
complete, including a summary judgment reply, and could not file
the brief on this motion. This is plaintiff’s first request for
an extension of time. On October l4, 2003, the undersigned
called Atty. Raymond Hassett, one of the counsel for defendants, i
to ask whether defendants would object to the motion. Attorney
Hassett said he could not speak to the issue since the matter was K
being handled by his partner, Attorney Louis George. The under 3
1
Q
l
’ l

F"“'”"’=”““*!!ZZZZZZZZZ:;:jftj::jti;itji”“""'”_—_"_`_—_"—*”-"”__—_—__-”_—___ml



_"*`”==*":ZTZZZZIIIIZIZITgitIZijjt”_`_____""""“—___——_—___”””d*___“"_“


1.; ~ Case 3:03-cv-OOQQEQTAWT Document 22 Filed 10/F/2003 Page 2 of 2 I
signed then called Attorney George, but he was not in and was not I
in and was not expected until the following day. The plaintiff E
thus does not know the position of the defendants with regard to
the extension.
THE PLAINTIFF _
NICHOLAS SICINOLFI §
BY:_____________m#WW“_______*___
WILLIAM B. BARNES, ESQ.
{CT00268)
Rosenstein & Barnes
P.O. Box 687
1100 Kings Hwy. East,
Fairfield, CT 06432
(203) 367—7922
CERTIFICATION I
A copy of the foregoing was faxed and mailed first class
mail on October 14, 2003 to:
Louis N. George, Esq.
Raymond M. Hassett, Esq.
Michelle D. Killion, Esq.
Hassett & George, P.C.
555 Franklin Ave.
aarrrara, cr 06114 .
WILLIAM B. BARNES, ESQ.
I
2 E
1