§Why CasetextPricing

HARRIS et al v. SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA et al

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

10 Cited authorities

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership

    507 U.S. 380 (1993)   Cited 7,860 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys

  2. First Chi. Intern. v. United Exch. Co.

    836 F.2d 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 381 times
    Holding that appellant's failure to file an affidavit specifically outlining the facts that it hoped to uncover with additional discovery did not preclude it from challenging the summary judgment order because other filings were sufficient to notify the district court of the need for further discovery

  3. Smith v. District of Columbia

    430 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that it is an abuse of the court's discretion to consider an untimely filing in the absence of a motion to enlarge demonstrating excusable neglect

  4. In re Minister Papandreou

    139 F.3d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 125 times
    Holding "substantial contact" required by 28 U.S.C. § 1603(e), which defines "commercial activity," requires more than the "minimum contacts" necessary to satisfy due process requirements

  5. Yesudian ex Rel. U.S. v. Howard University

    270 F.3d 969 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 90 times
    Holding district courts can grant even after-the-fact deadline extensions without finding excusable neglect if the other party was not prejudiced

  6. Practical Concepts, v. Republic of Bolivia

    811 F.2d 1543 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 98 times
    Finding commercial activity existed where the “basic exchange” at issue was a sale of goods or services, and the nation's agreement to expedite the entrance of personnel and supplies into the country amounted to merely “facilitating features” of the contract

  7. Owens v. Republic of Sudan

    374 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005)   Cited 31 times
    Finding that a complaint was "simply too conclusory to satisfy § 1605"

  8. Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Auth

    239 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    David J. Strachman, McIntyre, Tate, Lynch & Holt, Providence, RI, for Plaintiffs. Maher H. Hanania, Falls Church, VA, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLYER, District Judge. Avigail Lewis Biton, individually and on behalf of her children, and Rachel Asraf bring suit under the Antiterrorism Act of 1991 (" ATA" ), 18 U.S.C. § 2333, and various tort theories against the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, also known as the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian National Authority ("

  9. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 50,129 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  10. Section 1608 - Service; time to answer; default

    28 U.S.C. § 1608   Cited 943 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing service "through diplomatic channels"