MOTION FOR FOUR-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

(Appeal from Poonja v. Sevak & Sons, L.P. et al. (In re San Jose Airport Hotel, LLC), Bankr. N.D. Cal. (San Jose) Case No. 09-51045 SLJ Ch. 7, Adv. No. 11-05236)

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

Defendant-appellant Chandrakant Shah, through his counsel, hereby moves the Court for a four-day extension of time, from July 31, 2017, to and including August 4, 2017, to file his reply brief in this matter.

In support of this motion, Dennis P. Riordan declares under penalty of perjury as follows:

1. I am counsel for Mr. Shah in this appeal.

2. This appeal challenges the Bankruptcy Court's order awarding appellee more than $11 million in damages.

3. Appellant's opening brief was originally due on April 3, 2017. With the consent of counsel for appellee, appellant moved for a 30-day extension of time to file his brief, to and including May 3, 2017. Doc. No. 8. The Court granted appellant's motion. Doc. No. 9. Appellant filed his opening brief on May 3, 2017. Doc. Appellee then moved for a 30-day extension of time to file his responsive brief, with the consent of undersigned counsel. Doc. No. 12. The Court granted the motion and appellee filed his responsive brief on July 3, 2017.

4. Per Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8018, appellant's reply brief was due 14 days after appellee's responsive brief, which was July 17, 2017.

5. Appellant previously sought an unopposed 14-day extension of brief, Dkt. 15, which the Court granted, making the reply brief due July 31, 2017. Dkt. 16.

6. Appellant now seeks an additional extension of time of four days to file his reply brief. This motion is founded on the extraordinary press of business in our office. In addition to the items listed in our first motion for an extension (see Dkt. 15), we have, in the last two weeks, been required to: file a sentencing memorandum in connection with a federal bid-rigging case, United States v. Roemer, 15CR00228 (N.D. Cal.); prepare for and attend Mr. Roemer's sentencing hearing; prepare for and argue a case, People v. Jo, C079280, in the Third District of the California Court of Appeal; prepare for and attend a discovery hearing in connection with an upcoming evidentiary hearing on our motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 challenging our client's federal district court convictions for offering material support to terrorists and making false statements, United States v. Hayat, E.D. Cal. No. CR S-05-0240 GEB DB; and prepare for and argue various pretrial motions in connection with our client's upcoming trial for conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, and false statements, United States v. Baker, Fifth Cir. No. 14-51012 (W.D. Texas Criminal No. 1:13-CR-346-SS).

7. My office contacted James A. Hennefer, counsel for appellee, this morning and, as of the time we filed this motion, had not heard back from him.

8. We have exercised diligence in this matter and will file the reply brief on the requested date should the present motion be granted.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the Court grant us a four-day extension of time, to and including August 4, 2017, to file appellant's reply brief.

Executed this 28th day of July, 2017, at San Francisco, California.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR FOUR-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS REPLY BRIEF

On unopposed motion of appellant and good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ordered that appellant be permitted to file his reply on or before August 4, 2017.