Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS BANK ONE, MICHIGAN (formerly NBD BANK), Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No. 01-325C (Judge Block)
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RESCHEDULE ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to Rule 7(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, defendant, the United States, respectfully requests that oral argument upon the parties crossmotions for summary judgment be rescheduled until July 14, 2003 or afterwards. Oral argument is currently scheduled for May 28, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. Counsel for plaintiff, Charles Milne, has indicated that he opposes this request because the Government will not agree to waive any interest Bank One may potentially be liable for during the period of the requested extension. We submit this request that oral argument be rescheduled for the following reasons. Oral argument was previously scheduled to be held on April 18, 2003. However, the Court was unable to hold the argument on that date and the argument was rescheduled for May 28, 2003. On March 27, 2003, undersigned counsel of record for the Government was assigned a bid protest in Guam Industrial Services, Inc., d/b/a Guam Shipyard v. United States Fed. Cl. No. 03-706C.1 Since March 27, 2003, undersigned has been working full-time on the Guam Shipyard bid protest and according to the schedule ordered by the Court, the parties do not expect to complete briefing and oral argument until either the last week in May or the first week in June The bid protest in Guam Shipyard is time-sensitive and must be resolved by the Court prior to June 9, 2003.
Page 2 of 3
2003. In addition, undersigned currently has briefs due in the following cases during the months of May and June 2003: 1) Ervin & Associates, Inc. v. United States Fed. Cl. No. 01-153C (defendant's reply and response to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment due May 12, 2003); 2) Adarabe, et al. v. United States Fed. Cl. No. 01-683C (defendant's reply and response to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment due May 19, 2003); 3) Dureiko, et al. v. United States Fed. Cl. No.97-44C (defendant's post-trial brief due June 5, 2003); and 4) Kennedy Heights Ltd. I and Wilshire-Washington Heights Limited Partnership v. United States Fed. Cl. No 00-23C (defendant's motion for summary judgment due June 30, 2003). Due to undersigned's full-time commitment to resolving the Guam Shipyard bid protest, along with her other obligations, undersigned will be unable to adequately prepare for and proceed with oral argument as currently scheduled. Defendant anticipates that the proposed extension for rescheduling argument until July 14, 2003 or afterwards, will be sufficient to allow undersigned the opportunity to review the previous pleadings submitted by the parties and be prepared for argument. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that this motion be granted.
Page 3 of 3
Respectfully submitted, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director s/ Franklin E. White, Jr FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: PAUL VITRANO TACOM General Legal Division 6501 E. 11 Mile Road Warren, Michigan 48397-5000 CPT DARYL WITHERSPOON U.S. Army Litigation Division 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22203 s/ Carolyn J. Craig CAROLYN J. CRAIG Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit, 8th floor 1100 L St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 305-7562 Fax: (202) 305-7644 e-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant
May 7, 2003