BANKS v. YORK et al

MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to 3rd Amended Complaint

D.D.C.September 6, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) SIMON BANKS ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1514 (ESH) ) S. ELWOOD YORK, JR. ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) ) MOTION OF DEFENDANTS, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, GREGORY PANE, AND N. TALLY TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., Defendants Williams, Pane and Tally, by counsel, hereby respectfully request an enlargement of time to respond to the plaintiff’s third amended complaint or supplemental third amended complaint, if leave is granted to file it. 1. On August 25, 2006, Plaintiff caused the civil clerk to docket his third amended complaint in the above-captioned matter. 2. On Friday September 1, 2006, as defendants’ response to plaintiff’s third amended complaint was being prepared, counsel for defendants received an email from plaintiff requesting consent to file a “supplement motion for leave to file third amended complaint.” 3. On the basis of the email, counsel for the defendants stopped her preparation of defendants’ response since Plaintiff indicated he would be filing the above-referenced motion shortly. Case 1:05-cv-01514-RCL Document 51 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 5 2 4. Defendants move this Court for an enlargement of time to respond until ten (10) days after the Court rules on the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental third amended complaint for the following reasons: a) Should the court grant the plaintiff’s motion to amend, the defendants will have to prepare another responsive pleading. b) Defendants would need a brief enlargement of time to obtain and review Plaintiff’s supplement to the third amended complaint, and to talk with key personnel, some of whom work on evening shifts, should the Court grant the plaintiff’s third motion to amend. c) Even if plaintiff’s motion to amend is not granted, defendants need a brief enlargement of time to finalize the motion they were preparing at the time they received plaintiff’s email requesting consent to again amend his complaint. 5. This enlargement will not prejudice any party. 6. Defendants contacted the Plaintiff via email to request consent to the relief requested in this motion, however, no response has been received. WHEREFORE, Defendants request an enlargement of time to file an answer or other responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint or Supplemental to his Third Amended Complaint until ten (10) days after the Court issues an order with respect to Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Supplement to Third Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Attorney General for the District of Columbia GEORGE C. VALENTINE Case 1:05-cv-01514-RCL Document 51 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 5 3 Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division RICHARD S. LOVE [340455] Chief, Equity I _______________________________ DENISE J. BAKER [493414] Assistant Attorney General, DC 441 Fourth Street, NW Sixth Floor South Washington, DC 20001 202-442-9887 Case 1:05-cv-01514-RCL Document 51 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 5 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 6th day of September, 2006 true copies of the foregoing Motion, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and proposed Order were filed electronically with the Court for ECF service, and mailed, U.S. mail, postage prepaid to: Simon Banks P.O. Box 17052 Alexandria VA 22302 ________________________________ Denise J. Baker Case 1:05-cv-01514-RCL Document 51 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 4 of 5 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) SIMON BANKS ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 05-1514 (ESH) ) S. ELWOOD YORK, JR., ETAL. ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT OR SUPPLEMENT TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 2. The record herein. 3. Absence of prejudice to the parties. 4. The equitable powers of this Court. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Attorney General for the District of Columbia GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division RICHARD S. LOVE [340455] Chief, Equity I ____________________________ DENISE J. BAKER [493414] Assistant Attorney General, DC 441 Fourth Street, NW Sixth Floor South Washington, DC 20001 202-442-9887 Case 1:05-cv-01514-RCL Document 51 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 5 of 5