Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
CHERI L. McCRACKEN

Cheri L. McCracken, Esq.
State Bar # 006111 2402 North 24th Street Phoenix AZ 85008-1804 (602) 231-0595 Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Jose Castillo, Plaintiff, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 02 2043 PHX ROS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Third Request)

10
2402 NORTH 24TH STREET PHOENIX, AZ 85008-1804 (602) 231-0595 (PHONE) (602) 231-0841 (FAX)

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

COMES NOW the undersigned attorney for Plaintiff Jose Castillo ("Castillo"), and moves this Court for an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. This is Plaintiff's Third request. The response is presently due on September 30, 2005. Plaintiff moves for the extended date of October 31, 2005. Plaintiff's counsel spoke to the Defendant's counsel who has no objection. Plaintiff's counsel, having met with Plaintiff and discussed the Defendant's most recent settlement offer has made a good response settlement offer to Defendants' counsel, Jim Hair. Mr. Hair has been consulting with the agency lawyer in this matter but has been unable to get a final decision because the agency lawyer has been in training for the past week. It is anticipated that given more time, both parties will be able to work on the settlement in order to reach a successful

Case 2:02-cv-02043-DKD

Document 61

Filed 09/30/2005

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

conclusion. The difference in monetary settlement may very well be affected by any expense in answering the summary judgment motion. There are eleven (11) EEO complaints and investigative files at issue here. Mr. Hair cautions, however, that any settlement to which the parties agree will have been approved not only by the National Park Service Regional Director but must also be approved by Department of Interior officials in Washington, D.C., who have not been consulted during settlement negotiations. Defendants' reply will be due as set forth in Local Rule 1.10(l), 15 days after service of the response. It is therefore respectfully requested that time for Plaintiff's response be extended until October 31, 2005. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of September, 2005 . Cheri L. McCracken, Esq.

s/ Cheri L. McCracken Cheri L. McCracken 2402 N. 24th Street Phoenix AZ 85008-1804 Attorney for Plaintiff Electronically filed this 30th day of September, 2005

s/ Denise Adetokunbo

Case 2:02-cv-02043-DKD

Document 61

2 Filed 09/30/2005

Page 2 of 2