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


File Size: 50.2 kB
Pages: 1
Date: June 7, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 341 Words, 2,261 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/19819/163.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 50.2 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
- ' ` " Case 3:02-cv-O227%iAVC Document 163 Filed 06/O7§OO4 Pggé t1l$&l,m“~•¤L¢*’~Q ,
UNITED smras Drsrmcr coiirii
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I`II ` .
QEQZLA1 it --1.1 IU lé-= @3 l
CROWN THEATRES, L.P., ) _ _ __ __4_ N __! _ __
) . ._ _? t ti _;._ 4;
Plaintiff, ) . 1 ‘ 2 Q 3 ips ls. 5 I
> A
v. ) Case N0. 3:02CV2272AVC
) Jury Trial Demanded
MILTON L. DALY, TAYLOR-LEIGH, )
INC., ANNE E. DALY, JAMES C. )
CELLA, G.U.S. DEVELOPMENT, INC., ) JUNE 4, 2004 E
JAMES T. MARTINO AND JAMES ) `
THOMAS MARTINO, ARCHITECT, ) j
P.C., and RCD HUDSON, LLC, ) .
> l
Defendants. ) l
PLAINTIFF CROWN THEATRES, L.I’.’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME -
Plaintiff Crown Theatres, L.P. ("Crown Theatres") hereby moves this Court to
allow Crown Theatres and the Martino Defendants an additional seven days to file their reply _
briefs in support of their respective motions for summary judgment. The briefs are currently due _
on June 7, 2004. If this motion is granted, the new due date would be June 14, 2004. The briefs j
.5 in question are: (1) Crown Theatres’ Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary
. _·j· P-:
'f Judgmég Ag%"'g1"_ags.t Defendants James T. Martino and James Thomas Martino, Architect, P.C.’s I
up Eb if
( @llectBely flglgéitino Det`endants"); (2) Crown Theatres’ Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion ,
·-I r··· fi; C3
{ E ·tbdSun1$ary iiicifgment on the Martino Defenclants’ First and Third Counterclaims; (3) Crown `
" `U "" :3 .L.... L"}.;
CQ] cli,. ;
·e:- 5 \llTéatresFé{eply5;]?»i·ief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment against Milton L. Daly ’
L ”<’ E :.5
,§ and Taylor-Leigh, Inc. (the "Daly Defendants”); and (4) the Martino Defendants’ Reply Brief in
Fil {LI ;
t—• ni ·
E Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment against Crown Theatres. Neither the Martino
cs
ai _ Defendants nor the Daly Defendants obj ect to the requested extension of time. j
0 Q _
N_ E In further support of this motion, Crown Theatres states as follows:
" E2
GJ O
e
¤ o
" “’“ Jzcrszsroxzxssraerwr
osxcmousaarr ,
l