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


File Size: 69.0 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 453 Words, 2,901 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22526/34.pdf

Download Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 69.0 kB)


Preview Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:03—cv—00409-DJS Document 34 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JOEL MENKES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, Civ. 3:03 CV 409 (DJS)
vs.
STOLT-NIELSEN SA, STOLT-NIELSEN
TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LTD.,
JACOB STOLT-NIELSEN,
NIELS G. STOLT NIELSEN,
SAMUEL COOPERMAN, and
REGINALD J .R. LEE,
December 16, 2003
Defendants.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Defendants Stolt-Nielsen SA, Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Ltd., Jacob Stolt-
Nielsen, Niels G. Stolt-Nielsen, Samuel Cooperman and Reginald J.R. Lee ("Defendants"), by
their attomeys, Finn Dixon & Herling LLP, hereby respectfully move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(l) and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)(l) for an extension of time to and including January 16,
2004 in which to reply to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action Complaint. In support of this motion, defendants
represent as follows:
l. This is the first request for an extension of time made by defendants with respect
to this time limitation.
2. Counsel for plaintiffs have indicated that plaintiffs do not oppose the requested
extension.
{00054158; 1:7104-4}

Case 3:03—cv—00409-DJS Document 34 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 2 of 3
3. Defendants seek this extension because (i) counsel for defendants needs more
time to adequately respond to all of plaintiffs arguments in this complex securities litigation,
and (ii) counsel for defendants have a heavy case load, especially in light of the holiday season.
For the reasons set forth above, defendants respectfully request that this Court grant an
extension to and including January 16, 2004 in which defendants may tile their reply
memorandum supporting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action
Complaint.
DEFENDANTS STOLT-NIELSEN SA, STOLT-
NIELSEN TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LTD.,
JACOB STOLT-NIELSEN, NIELS G. STOLT-
NIELSEN, SAMUEL COOPERMAN and
REGINALD J.R. LEE
By;
omia Nelson Heller(ct 06854)
Finn Dixon & Herling LLP
One Landmark Square
Suite 1400
Stamford, CT 06901-2689
Tel: (203) 325-5000
Fax: (203) 348-5777
Email: [email protected]
{00054158; 1; 7104-4}

Case 3:03—cv—00409-DJS Document 34 Filed 12/18/2003 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, United States
mail, first class, postage prepaid to the following on this the 16th day of December, 2003:
David Randall Scott, Esq.
Scott & Scott, LLC
108 Norwich Avenue
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
Schifhin & Barroway, LLP
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Samuel A. Rudman, Esq.
Cauley, Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP
200 Broadhollow Road
Suite 406
Melville, NY 11747
Z Donna Nelson Heller
{00054158; 1; 7104-4}