THIRD MOTION TO EXTEND PLAINTIFF'S TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.
COMES NOW plaintiff Lux Sterling Holdings, LLC ("Sterling"), by and through its attorney of record, Boris Avramski, Esq., and hereby files this motion pursuant to Rule 6(b)(A)(1) to extend by three business days Sterling's time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Action [Doc# 12] (the "Motion to Dismiss or Transfer") filed by defendants Philip Whelan, Anthony Manerbino, Dawna Manerbino, and CNW, LLC (the "Moving Defendants").
In support of this motion, Sterling states as follows:
1. The Motion to Dismiss or Transfer was filed on July 5, 2016 and Sterling's response was due on August 5, 2016, as stipulated and ordered by this Court on July 27, 2016 [doc #15].
2. On August 5, 2016, Sterling filed its Second Unopposed Motion to Extend, which sought to extend Sterling's response due date by additional two weeks, until August 19, 2016 [doc #16]. The Court has not yet ruled on that unopposed motion.
3. Sterling's prior motions for additional time were necessary because Sterling's manager, Phil Neuman, was unavailable due to a family medical emergency, which prevented Sterling's counsel from preparing a response to the Motion to Dismiss. See, e.g., Second Unopposed Motion to Extend (Doc #16) at ¶ 2.
4. On August 17, 2016, Sterling's counsel was able to speak with Mr. Neuman. Although Sterling believes the Motion to Dismiss lacks merit, it has decided not to oppose transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Colorado District Court") in order to avoid unnecessary litigation costs. See, infra, Griffith Dec. at ¶ 3.
5. On August 18, 2016, Sterling's counsel proposed resolving the Motion to Dismiss by entering into a Stipulation and Order transferring this action to the Colorado District Court. Defendants rejected that proposal because they want this Court to rule on that portion of their motion seeking dismissal based on alleged lack of standing. Griffith Dec. at ¶ 4.
6. In light of that response and the fact that Sterling's counsel was unable to speak with Mr. Neuman until August 17, 2016, Sterling requested defendants consent to a final extension of Sterling's time to respond. Defendants, however, have not consented to any additional extension. Griffith Dec. at ¶ 5.
7. Accordingly, Sterling now seeks a final extension of three business days, from Friday, August 19, 2016, to Wednesday, August 24, 2016, in order to allow Sterling's counsel with sufficient time to submit an opposition to that portion of the motion seeking dismissal for alleged lack of standing. In light of the vacation and work schedules of Sterling's counsel, it was impossible to prepare such a response by August 19, 2016, the due date requested pursuant to Sterling's Second Unopposed Motion to Extend.
CONCLUSION
The due date for Sterling to respond to the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer [Doc# 12] should be extended until August 24, 2016. A proposed Order is annexed as Exhibit A.
DECLARATION OF EDWARD GRIFFITH
EDWARD GRIFFITH declares pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 as follows:
1. I am co-counsel with Boris Avramski to plaintiff Lux Sterling Holdings, LLC ("Sterling"). I made this declaration in support of Sterling's Third Motion to Extend Plaintiff's Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Action [Doc #12].
2. Sterling's prior motions for additional time were necessary because Sterling's manager, Phil Neuman, was unavailable due to a family medical emergency, which prevented Mr. Avramski and me from preparing a response to the Motion to Dismiss. See, e.g., Second Unopposed Motion to Extend (Doc #16) at ¶ 2.
3. On August 17, 2016, I was able to speak with Mr. Neuman. Although Sterling believes the Motion to Dismiss lacks merit, it has decided not to oppose transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Colorado District Court") in order to avoid unnecessary litigation costs.
4. On August 18, 2016, Mr. Avramski proposed resolving the Motion to Dismiss by entering into a Stipulation and Order transferring this action to the Colorado District Court. Defendants rejected that proposal because they want this Court to rule on that portion of their motion seeking dismissal based on alleged lack of standing.
5. In light of that response and the fact that I was unable to speak with Mr. Neuman until August 17, 2016, Mr. Avramski requested defendants consent to a final extension of Sterling's time to respond. Defendants, however, have not consented to any additional extension.
6. Accordingly, Sterling now seeks a final extension of three business days, from Friday, August 19, 2016, to Wednesday, August 24, 2016, in order to allow Mr. Avramski and me sufficient time to submit an opposition to that portion of the motion seeking to dismiss for lack of standing. In light of Mr. Avramski's and my vacation and work schedules, it was impossible for us to prepare such a response by August 19, 2016, the due date requested pursuant to Sterling's Second Unopposed Motion to Extend.
7. Therefore, I respectfully request the Court extend Sterling's deadline to respond to the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Action [Doc #12] from August 5, 2016 to August 24, 2016.
ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFFS' TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS UNTIL AUGUST 24, 2016
Upon plaintiff's Second Unopposed Motion to Extend Plaintiff's Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss [Doc #16] and plaintiff's Third Motion to Extend Plaintiff's Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss [Doc #17], and in light of the Moving Defendants' consent to the Second Unopposed Motion; and for good shown, it is
HEREBY ORDERED that the due date for Sterling's response to the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Action [Doc# 12] is hereby extended from August 19, 2016, to August 24, 2016.
