Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00860-WDM-PAC

Document 240

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-00860-WDM-PAC ROBERT ALWARD Plaintiff, v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., a Colorado corporation; VAIL CORPORATION, INC. D/B/A/ VAIL ASSOCIATES INC., a Colorado corporation; VR HOLDINGS, INC., a Colorado corporation; and WILLIAM JENSEN, individually and in his official capacity as Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Vail Resorts, Inc. Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO VACATE HEARING SET FOR JULY 28, 2005 ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff's counsel, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, hereby moves the court for an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause why the $100 sanction imposed on counsel December 16, 2004 should not remain, and to vacate the hearing set for July 28, 2005. In support of this motion, plaintiff's counsel states: 1. In compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, counsel for plaintiff contacted

counsel for defendants by telephone in a good faith attempt to resolve this issue without intervention of the court, however counsel for defendants did not return the call or otherwise respond. 2. According to the Court's July 12 and July 15, 2005 orders, plaintiff's counsel was

to respond in writing by July 26, 2005 to the order to show cause why the $100 sanction imposed on plaintiff's counsel on December 16, 2004 should not remain.

Case 1:04-cv-00860-WDM-PAC

Document 240

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 2 of 4

3.

In light of the fact that the court is considering imposing sanctions in an amount

in excess of $30,043.00, counsel for plaintiff has a right to be represented by counsel and present expert testimony on all the pending sanctions issues, and on the issue of the reasonableness of the amount of sanctions, should the court determine that sanctions are appropriate. Counsel for plaintiff desires to be represented by counsel on these issues. She has made diligent efforts to secure counsel, but has been unable to do so. Counsel for plaintiff had secured an attorney in the community to testify regarding the reasonableness of the fees at issue, however, at 4:30 this afternoon, that individual notified counsel for plaintiff that he was unable to testify in this capacity due to a conflict of interest that had just surfaced. 4. Thus, an extension of time is necessary to allow plaintiff's counsel to obtain

counsel to represent her regarding these issues, to permit such counsel to review the file and prepare the response regarding the $100 sanction, to review and possibly amend the response to the order to show cause and objections to the attorneys' fees which plaintiff's counsel filed on July 19, 2005, and to obtain expert testimony on all relevant issues. 5. In addition, counsel for plaintiff was unable to otherwise meet the July 26

deadline, or to file this Motion on or before July 26, 2005, because on July 22 and again on July 26, 2005, her computer totally crashed and would not operate in any fashion. As a result of this technical failure, plaintiff's counsel's draft of the response, along with other work, was lost. The total crash shut down the software programs required to connect to the internet and to draft documents, and access to all documents stored on counsel's hard drive (which included the documents plaintiff's counsel needed to reference in order to redraft the response). Plaintiff's counsel did not regain access to her computer after the July 26 crash until late this morning.

2

Case 1:04-cv-00860-WDM-PAC

Document 240

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 3 of 4

6.

Moreover, plaintiff's counsel was traveling from July 22 through July 26, 2005,

and did not have access to any other computers, or the hard copies of the necessary documents. 7. Also as a result of the crash, plaintiff's counsel was unable to complete the

submissions due for a final pretrial order on another matter pending before Judge Krieger. Plaintiff's counsel was required to devote most of the day today to work with opposing counsel on that matter, and to prepare for the hearing scheduled in this matter for July 28, 2005. 8. Plaintiff's counsel submits that these reasons constitute good cause for the

requested extension of time, and to vacate the hearing scheduled for July 28, 2005. WHEREFORE, plaintiff's counsel requests that the court (1) grant her an extension of time of 45 days to secure proper representation and submit responses to the orders to show cause and objections to defendants' attorneys' fees affidavit; and (2) vacate the hearing regarding sanction, which is currently set for July 28, 2005. Dated this 27th day of July 2005. McCLAIN DREXLER, LLC By: /s/ Nina H. Kazazian Nina H. Kazazian Of Counsel 1700 Lincoln Street Suite 3850 Denver, Colorado 80203-4538 Telephone: (303) 860-8400 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3

Case 1:04-cv-00860-WDM-PAC

Document 240

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 27h day of July 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO VACATE HEARING SET FOR JULY 28, 2005 with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the defendants addressed to the following email address: Sherri Heckel Kuhlmann Christopher Ottele Holme Roberts & Owen LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203 [email protected] /s/ Nina H. Kazazian

4