Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-cv-2306-RM-KLM - Perry V. State Of Colorado, Et Al - 035 - Motion For Extension To File Reply Re Mot DismissIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-02306-RM-KLM ROBERT LAWRENCE PERRY, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF COLORADO, THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, CSU BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR CSU, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY and STEVEN VASCONSELLOS, Judicial Administrator; Defendants. DEFENDANT CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ MOTION FOR ONE-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF 30] Defendant City of Fort Collins (“Defendant”), via counsel, Mark S. Ratner, Esq., and Katherine N. Hoffman, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., and under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 and related authorities, hereby submits this Motion for One-Week Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF 30], and respectfully seeks a one-week extension of time to do so until and including Monday, November 15, 2021, stating in support as follows: D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1: Undersigned counsel attempted to confer with pro se Plaintiff via email on Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:00 A.M. Undersigned counsel attempted to confer with pro se Plaintiff again via email on Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 6:22 A.M. Counsel has not received a response from Plaintiff regarding counsel’s attempts to confer. Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 35 Filed 11/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4 2 I. DISCUSSION 1. The current deadline for Defendant to file a Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is November 8, 2021. [See generally Docket]. 2. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) provides if a party moves for an extension of time to complete an act before the expiration of the period to complete that act, the court possesses the discretion to grant the sought-after extension of time. 3. As reason therefore, undersigned counsel requires additional time to review, analyze, and address the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Response. [ECF 33]. Significantly, counsel is confronted with a lengthy 20-page Response, which includes several pages of single-spaced text. Plaintiff’s Response appears to assert additional factual allegations for the first time, and counsel requires additional time to review these new allegations. [Id.]. In addition, Plaintiff addresses arguments in his Response which Defendant did not raise in its Motion to Dismiss (i.e. sovereign immunity), which require review, analysis, and an opportunity to respond. [Id. at 3]. 4. Additionally, undersigned counsel represents that she will be out of state on a previously scheduled vacation from November 4, 2021 to November 7, 2021. As such, additional time is needed to prepare a Reply. 5. Thus, Defendant requests a brief one-week extension to file a Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, until and including Monday, November 15, 2021. 6. This is Defendant’s first request for an extension of time respecting the deadline to prepare and file its Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 35 Filed 11/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4 3 7. This Motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay. 8. None of the Parties nor the Court will be prejudiced by granting this relief. 9. Defendant files this Motion in advance of the presumptive deadline pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A), which authorizes the Court to grant a motion for extension of time made before the expiration of the original period of time. 10. Hence, good cause exists for the Court to grant the requested relief. 11. Finally, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(c), undersigned counsel certifies this Motion is being served herewith on authorized representatives of Defendant. II. CONCLUSION In conclusion, for these reasons, Defendant City of Fort Collins respectfully seeks from the Court an Order: granting Defendant a one-week extension of time until and including Monday, November 15, 2021, to file and serve its Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint; and entering all other and future relief which the Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of November 2021. s/Katherine N. Hoffman Katherine N. Hoffman, Esq. Mark S. Ratner, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-628-3300 Fax: 303-628-3368 Ratnerm@hallevans.com Hoffmank@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 35 Filed 11/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4 4 ` CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of November 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the Court via CM/ECF and served on the below-listed party by email: Robert Lawrence Perry fort_scout@yahoo.com Pro se Plaintiff s/Sarah Stefanick, Legal Assistant to Mark S. Ratner, Esq. Katherine N. Hoffman, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-628-3300 Fax: 303-628-3368 Ratnerm@hallevans.com Hoffmank@hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 35 Filed 11/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4