Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[TII]

Fairholme just filed...UNOPPOSED, SECOND MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS

(see bolded text for reason)

Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 219 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) No. 13-465C
v. ) (Judge Sweeney)
)
THE UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED, SECOND MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT’S
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to RCFC 6.1(a), Plaintiffs respectfully move for an enlargement of time of 30
days to file a response to the Government’s supplemental motion to dismiss, Doc. 161. On June
17, Plaintiffs moved to stay briefing (Doc. 164) on the Government’s supplemental motion, and
briefing on Plaintiffs’ stay motion is now complete, see Docs. 182 and 210.
Without an enlargement of time, Plaintiffs’ response to the Government’s supplemental
motion would be due on Monday, August 10. This is Plaintiffs’ second request for an
enlargement of time to respond to the Government’s supplemental motion, and the same good
cause that supported Plaintiffs’ first 30-day request (which this Court granted on July 8, see Doc.
191) supports their present motion. This Court is currently considering Plaintiffs’ motion to stay
briefing on the Government’s supplemental motion, and the stay motion would be rendered moot
if Plaintiffs had to file a response to the Government’s supplemental motion before this Court
has an opportunity to rule on the stay motion. To preserve the status quo and provide the Court
additional time to consider Plaintiffs’ stay motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court
enter an order enlarging the amount of time Plaintiffs have to file their response to the
1
Government’s supplemental motion by 30 days, such that Plaintiffs’ response would be due on
September 9, 2015.
The parties have been consulting on possible dates for a status conference, and Plaintiffs
are hopeful that a date in late August will be convenient for both parties. See Doc. 208. A status
conference held before September 9th would give the parties and the Court an opportunity to
address Plaintiffs’ stay motion (assuming the stay motion is still pending at that time) before the
new deadline proposed by this motion for enlargement.
In accordance with RCFC 6.1(b), Plaintiffs have consulted with opposing counsel,
and the Government does not oppose this motion.
Date: August 6, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
Of counsel:
Vincent J. Colatriano
David H. Thompson
Peter A. Patterson
Brian W. Barnes
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
Counsel of Record
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served upon all
counsel of record on this 6th day of August, 2015, via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system.
s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper