Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00542-LB

Document 44

Filed 09/24/2003

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS L. W. MATTESON, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 01-542C ) (Judge Lawrence J. Block) ) )

PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Comes now Plaintiff L.W. Matteson, Inc. ("Matteson") by and through its attorneys of record and respectfully requests a brief 10 day extension of time to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. In support of its Motion, Plaintiff states as follows: 1. On or about July 16, 2003 Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and served it on Plaintiff. 2. One prior extension was requested and granted. Plaintiff's response to the Motion for Summary Judgment is currently due on or before September 30, 2003. 3. Plaintiff respectfully requests a brief 10 day extension until October 10, 2003 to submit its response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The extension of time is needed because the record in the case is complex and voluminous. In addition, Plaintiff's counsel has been pressed with other matters, including a trial that carried into early September and depositions and other matters in California which has required Plaintiff's counsel to be away from the office. A brief 10 day extension through October 10, 2003 is needed to adequately review the record and prepare the response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Case 1:01-cv-00542-LB

Document 44

Filed 09/24/2003

Page 2 of 3

4.

This matter is not currently set for trial and there are no other deadlines currently pending. No party will be prejudiced by the requested extension of time. The extension is sought not for the purposes of delay, but in the interest of justice and to allow Plaintiff adequate time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

5.

Counsel for Defendant has been consulted and does not oppose Plaintiff's requested extension.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant it additional time up to and including October 10, 2003, to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Respectfully submitted, MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.

__s/Stephen R. Miller________ Stephen R. Miller, Mo. Bar #33344 Michael T. Metcalf, Mo. Bar #45304 4310 Madison Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Telephone: (816) 531-0755 Facsimile: (816) 561-6361 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

2

Case 1:01-cv-00542-LB

Document 44

Filed 09/24/2003

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the above and foregoing was served upon the following persons by facsimile and United States Mail, postage prepaid, this 24th day of September, 2003. Patricia M. McCarthy John Einstman Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Dept. of Justice Attention: Classification Unit 8th Floor, 1100 L Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-0164 ­ P. McCarthy Facsimile: (202) 514-8624 ­ P. McCarthy Telephone: (202) 307-0361 ­ J. Einstman Facsimile: (202) 514-7965 ­ J. Einstman

__s/Stephen R. Miller________ Attorney for Plaintiff
mot 2 extend disc deadline apr 25.doc

3