Lets see what we have here. We have a defendant, represented by a lawyer firm, who suddenly appeared at the last two days before the deadline for filing its response brief and asked for a time extension of 30 days which is equal to a repetition of the entire time period originally given to it to respond. Although the local rules require that extension requests for more than seven days should be submitted at least seven days before the deadline the defendant submitted his request only two days before the deadline. the defendant did not explain what prevented it from submitting its request earlier. In addition local rules require that the entity submitting such request state with particularity the reasons why it needs that extension of time. The defendant's motion did not list any significant thing for why it needed the time extension it was requesting. Despite all that the time extension request, to which I myself agreed before the motion requesting it became available, was granted (see Deeper Corruption at the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeal).
Then the defendant filed a very frivolous motion in direct contradiction with one of the most basic rules for filing an appeal which requires a final judgment ending the case before an appeal could be filed (see Frivolous Motion).
Then ,again, one or two days before the extended deadline for filing its brief, the defendant made a new request for additional extension of 14 days. Despite the fact that motion was a second time extension request which the court emphasizes how rarely it can be granted, it also came having all the failures and shortcomings mentioned above for the first time extension motion (see Motion for more time extension ).
The new time extension motion requested the 14 days to start from after the date the court rule on the dismissal motion mentioned above. So in effect it was a request for an indefinite time extension that is guaranteed to be at least 14 days. Had such a request ,if ever made, ever granted in the court system of this country? If yes, then was that granting also based on no grounds other than that the court can make a ruling on a motion that would render the defendant's brief unnecessary? If such reasoning justifies this kind of time extension then courts would have been flooded with similar requests. Finally, assuming the answer to that last question is also yes, is the motion for which the defendant made his case of waiting for a ruling by the court before he files his response brief also based on a very clearly frivolous reasoning that made something from nothing like the dismissal motion of this defendant?
It is only if that request is denied by the court then the defendant would then take 14 days from the due date of the first extension.But the court did grant that request (see Granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion ) .
So as you can see here, the court has granted a second time extension to a party who did not even file his first or second time extension requests in a way even close to what the court requires and without stating any reason for that failure, in the unheard of way of starting the new extension time from after it rules on a previous motion without any good reason for waiting for ruling on that motion which , if all that is not enough, is in itself a very clearly frivolous motion.
In addition, one factor that is usually determinant to granting any time extension request ,let alone second request which also doesn't start counting the additional time until a ruling on a previous motion comes out, is the agreement of the adversary party to that extension. I agreed to the first request and did not agree to anything after that. But still the corrupt judge did not care and granted that very unjustified request.
No comments:
Post a Comment