Richardson v. District of Columbia et al

MOTION for Extension of Time to respond to complaint and motion for injunction

D.D.C.October 16, 2009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA T. CARLTON RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Civil Action No. 09-01856 (HHK) JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER OR RESPONSIVE PLEADING AND TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR INJUNCTION The Defendants District of Columbia, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Chief Judge Eric T. Washington and Associate Judges Vanessa Ruiz, Inez Smith Reid, Stephen H. Glickman, Noel A. Kramer, John. R. Fisher, Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, Phyllis D. Thompson, Kathryn A. Oberly, Board on Professional Responsibility, Office of Bar Counsel, D.C. Bar, Wallace Eugene Shipp, Jr., Leonard H. Becker, Elizabeth J. Branda, Catherine L. Kello, and H. Lallah Shiskevish (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”), through undersigned counsel pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 6(b), respectfully request that the Court extend the Defendants’ time both (1) to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint in the above- captioned case (Docket No. 1) and (2) to respond to plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Docket No. 2) to November 18, 2009, less than thirty (30) days from the date which such defendants, respectively, may otherwise have been required to answer or respond, if service had been effectuated on September 29, 2009.1 1. On or about September 29, 2009, the plaintiff caused a summons and complaint to be filed in the above captioned action. Apparently, service was attempted by certified mail, but 1 The Defendants do not concede that service has been properly effectuated with respect to all of them. Service has been made on some of them, and not all on the same day. Case 1:09-cv-01856-HHK Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 8 2 service of the summons and complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 has not been confirmed for all Defendants. An answer or responsive pleading may be due on or about October 20, 2009 with respect to certain Defendants, later for others, and not at all for those who have not yet been properly served. 2. Plaintiff’s fifty-six (56) paged complaint involves multiple parties and contains one hundred and thirteen (113) paragraphs with numerous factual averments. Moreover, the present action involves a long, complicated procedural and factual history of T. Carlton Richardson’s previous litigation involving a long series of collateral challenges to bar disciplinary proceedings dating back more than fifteen years and additional time is needed to prepare an adequate response to the present complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. See e.g. Richardson v. District of Columbia, et al., No. 1:06-cv- 01665-RJL (2007); Richardson v. District of Columbia, et al., No. 1:05CV0021 (D.D.C. 2005); Richardson v. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for D.C., et al., No. 99-0657 (D.D.C. 2001). See also Florida Bar v. Richardson, 574 So.2d 60 (Fla.1990) (revised opinion of February 14, 1991); Richardson v. Florida Bar, No. 90-984, 1990 WL 116727 (D.D.C. May 15,1990); In re Richardson, 602 A.2d 179 (D.C. 1992); Florida Bar v. Richardson, 604 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1992); In re Richardson, 692 A.2d 427 (D.C. 1997); In the Matter of Richardson, No. 95-BG-639 (D.C. June 27, 1995); Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 95-CV- 1272 (August 1, 1995); In re Richardson, No. 95-5241 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 10, 1995); In re Richardson, No. 95-8519 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29, 1995); Richardson v. D.C. Court of Appeals, 962 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. Mar 27, 1997); Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 97- 7085, 1997 WL 811754 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 1997). Case 1:09-cv-01856-HHK Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 Page 2 of 8 3 3. The additional time requested is also appropriate to give the Court time to (1) consider the transfer of this case to, e.g., Judge Leon pursuant to the Notice of Related Case, and (2) to give the Court time to consider taking sua sponte action, as Judge Huvelle did in Richardson v. District of Columbia, et al., No. 1:05CV0021. 4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) provides that, [w]hen by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done within a specified time, the court… may in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefore is made before the expiration of the period previously prescribed or extended by a previous order or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect…. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 (b). 5. This request is being made prior to the expiration of the prescribed period, and is for cause shown. 6. No party will be unduly prejudiced should the Court grant the requested relief. For all the above-stated reasons, additional time up to and including November 18, 2009, is requested to file an answer or responsive pleading to plaintiff’s complaint and to respond to the motion for an injunction, except for any Defendants who have not been properly served prior to that date. A memorandum of points and authorities in support of this motion is hereto attached. Respectfully submitted, PETER J. NICKLES Attorney General for the District of Columbia GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Case 1:09-cv-01856-HHK Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 Page 3 of 8 4 Division /s/ Ellen Efros______________ ELLEN EFROS [250746] Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division /s/ Leah Taylor____________________ LEAH BROWNLEE TAYLOR [488966] Assistant Attorney General 441 4th Street, N.W. Sixth Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-7854; (202) 727-6295 leah.taylor@dc.gov Counsel for the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Chief Judge Eric T. Washington and Associate Judges Vanessa Ruiz, Inez Smith Reid, Stephen H. Glickman, Noel A. Kramer, John. R. Fisher, Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, Phyllis D. Thompson and Kathryn A. Oberly and /s/ Timothy K. Webster Timothy K. Webster (D.C. Bar No. 441297) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Defendants Board on Professional Responsibility, Office of Bar Counsel, D.C. Bar, Wallace Eugene Shipp, Jr., Leonard H. Becker, Elizabeth J. Branda, and H. Lallah Shiskevish CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO RULE 7(m) I hereby certify that on or about October 15, 2009, the undersigned counsels did contact the plaintiff to discuss the relief sought in this motion. Plaintiff did not consent to the motion. See Exhibit A. Case 1:09-cv-01856-HHK Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 Page 4 of 8 5 ______/s/___________________________ LEAH BROWNLEE TAYLOR [488966] Assistant Attorney General - and- /s/ Timothy K. Webster Timothy K. Webster Case 1:09-cv-01856-HHK Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 Page 5 of 8 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA T. CARLTON RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Civil Action No. 09-01856 (HHK) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER OR OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADING AND TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR INJUNCTION In support of their Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Answer or Other Responsive Pleading, the defendants rely upon the following authorities: 1. Inherent Power of the Court. 2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). 3. The record herein. Respectfully submitted, PETER J. NICKLES Attorney General for the District of Columbia GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division /s/ Ellen Efros______________ ELLEN EFROS [250746] Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division /s/ Leah Taylor____________________ LEAH BROWNLEE TAYLOR [488966] Assistant Attorney General Case 1:09-cv-01856-HHK Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 Page 6 of 8 7 441 4th Street, N.W. Sixth Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-7854; (202) 727-6295 leah.taylor@dc.gov and /s/ Timothy K. Webster Timothy K. Webster (D.C. Bar No. 441297) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Case 1:09-cv-01856-HHK Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 Page 7 of 8 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following parties were served via first class mail, postage prepaid, on October 16, 2009: T. Carlton Richardson Pro se 1505 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20003-3117 All other parties were served through the Court’s ECF case filing system. /s/ Timothy K. Webster Case 1:09-cv-01856-HHK Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 Page 8 of 8