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


File Size: 23.2 kB
Pages: 5
Date: May 29, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 944 Words, 6,160 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/8265/291-1.pdf

Download Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Federal Claims ( 23.2 kB)


Preview Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:93-cv-00531-LAS

Document 291

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS __________________________________________ ) AMBASE CORPORATION AND ) CARTERET BANCORP, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) and ) ) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ) CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff-Intervenor, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 93-531 (Judge Loren Smith)

PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR MODIFICATIONS TO POST-TRIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE Plaintiffs AmBase Corporation and Carteret Bancorp, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") hereby respectfully move for an 11-day extension of the deadline, as set forth in the Court's April 25, 2008 Scheduling Order ("April 25 Order"), for the filing of Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff-Intervenor FDIC's ("FDIC") post-trial brief and proposed findings of fact, which are currently due on June 6, 2008. Plaintiffs also request corresponding adjustments, specified below, to the remaining deadlines established in the order. Finally, Plaintiffs request a clarification to the April 25 Order to reflect the Court's decision, announced during the telephone status conference held on April 23, 2008, to allow Plaintiffs to file a surreply to the FDIC's reply brief at the same time that Defendant files it surreply. Counsel for Defendant and for the FDIC have informed Plaintiffs that they do not oppose

Case 1:93-cv-00531-LAS

Document 291

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 2 of 5

this motion. A proposed order reflecting the parties' agreement with respect to a revised briefing schedule is appended hereto as Attachment 1. Plaintiffs have neither sought nor received any previous extensions of the abovereferenced deadlines. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs state that, due to the press of other litigation matters being handled by Plaintiffs' counsel, including matters that were not anticipated at the time the deadlines reflected in the April 25 Order were agreed to, and due to the substantial amount of work involved in drafting, editing, and reviewing the post-trial brief and proposed findings of fact, Plaintiffs need an additional week to complete work on those submissions. However, when Plaintiffs' counsel contacted counsel for the FDIC and the Defendant to discuss the possibility of a short extension, counsel was informed that, due to the fact that one of the counsel for the FDIC has been suffering from an illness over the last few weeks, the FDIC likely needed more than a week of additional time to complete its own submissions, which are currently due on the same date Plaintiffs' submissions are due. After further discussions, all parties agreed to an 11-day extension, i.e., until June 17, of the deadline for these submissions.1 Of course, any extension of the deadline for the filing of Plaintiffs and the FDIC's posttrial briefs and proposed findings will necessitate a corresponding adjustment to the deadline for Defendant's post-trial brief and proposed findings. After discussing the matter, the parties have

Counsel for the FDIC has informed the parties that while counsel currently believes that the FDIC should be able to file its post-trial brief and proposed findings by June 17 (assuming the present motion is granted), it is possible that it may need to seek a further short extension of this deadline (which could require corresponding extensions to Defendant's August 8 deadline and to later deadlines).

1

-2-

Case 1:93-cv-00531-LAS

Document 291

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 3 of 5

agreed to a 21-day extension of that deadline, i.e., from July 18 until August 8.2 In addition, the attached proposed order reflects extensions of the remaining briefing deadlines that correspond to the 21-day extension sought for Defendant's brief and proposed findings. Thus, the proposed order provides for the filing of replies by Plaintiffs and the FDIC on September 5, 2008, and for the filing of a surreply by Defendant on October 3, 2008. Finally, during the April 23 status conference, the Court indicated that Plaintiff would be allowed to file a short surreply to the FDIC's reply brief on the same date that Defendant's surreply was due. Although the April 25 Order provides for the filing of Defendant's surreply, it does not provide for the filing of Plaintiffs' surreply. The parties have agreed to Plaintiffs' request to seek correction of this apparent oversight. The attached proposed order therefore reflects that Plaintiffs may file a surreply on October 3, 2008. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order revising and clarifying the briefing deadlines established in the April 25 Order, as reflected in the attached proposed order.

Counsel for Defendant has informed the parties that while counsel currently believes that Defendant should be able to file its post-trial brief and proposed findings by August 8 (assuming the present motion is granted), it is possible that, due to the travel schedule of a reviewing attorney at the Department of Justice, Defendant may need to seek an extension of August 8 deadline (which could require corresponding extensions to later deadlines). -3-

2

Case 1:93-cv-00531-LAS

Document 291

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 4 of 5

May 29, 2008

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jesse Panuccio ________________________ Charles J. Cooper Counsel of Record David H. Thompson Vincent J. Colatriano Jesse Panuccio COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601

-4-

Case 1:93-cv-00531-LAS

Document 291

Filed 05/29/2008

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 29th day of May 2008, I caused to be served by the Court's electronic filing system copies of the foregoing on the following counsel: David Levitt, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division 1100 L Street, N.W.--Room 12006 Attn: Classification Unit--8th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Andrew Gilbert, Esq. Ashley Doherty, Esq. FDIC Legal Division 550 17th Street, N.W. Room 2098 Washington, DC 20429

/s/Jesse Panuccio ____________________________

-7-