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

I _ L,. Case 3:03-cv-OOO56CA§WE Document 36 Filed O3/2%%/$004 Pageglcof tgzp M6/`
I 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT "
I O R DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT mm I
I MAI? I
I DAVID E. CHARDAVOYNE, : U 8 D 3* 35
I 2 -8- Dlsr
' Plaintiff, : BRmGEPgI;cyTggg}? T
I 2 NO. O3-CV—56 ·
‘ V. :
I THAMES WATER HOLDINGS
Q INCORPORATED and THAMES WATER : _
I NORTH AMERICA, INC., :
I I ` Defendants. March 18, 2004 I
I I MOTION ON CONISENT FOR EXTENSION '
I gi OF TIME TO FILE REPLY MEMORANDUM I
I ~ . ·‘ .. "·‘ " The defendants Thames Water Holdings Incorporated and Thames Water North
I O 6
I QL ` I m §America, Inc. move for an extension oftlme, to and including April 1, 2004, to file their
I N K; B éeply memorandum in support of their Motion To Dismiss Or Transfer in this matter. In ·
M ggsupport of this motion, counsel for defendants represents as follows: I
I yr 1. Plaintiff filed his Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Defendants’ I
` i4` 1 .
I ·~ Motion To Dismiss Or Transfer on March 8, 2004. Defendants reply memorandum is
I
I presently due on March 22, 2004. I
2. Along with his Opposition, Plaintiff filed the Supplemental Affidavit of
I
David E. Chardavoyne. This affidavit includes several assertions of fact which had not '
ca
previotgy bgg raised by Plaintiff with respect to Thames Water Holdings I
CDC!
@>rpcfBated,<'.$.,l"§lotion To Dismiss PIaintiff’s Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction I
<-Ju:
LII lmgopégenue. ,
|_|_ § Re I
E vfrgorder to respond adequately to Plaintiffs Opposition, Defendants must
.,.., 3
respond both to the legal arguments raised and to the factual assertions made by I
I