Perez v. Hyannis Air Service, Inc. Dba Cape Air
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 EDWARD PEREZ, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:10-cv-86 v. 5 5 HYANNIS AIR SERVICE, INC. d/b/a 5 CAPE AIR, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Stephanie L. Adler, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of Court’s November 16, 2010 (Docket No. 7). This order is issued without necessity of response. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order denying his Motion For Extension of Time (Docket No. 6), entered November 16, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that when he filed his motion for extension, he was unaware that counsel had failed to notify the Court that Case: 1:10-cv-00086-RAM-EAH Document #: 9 Filed: 11/30/10 Page 1 of 3 Perez v. Hyannis Air Service 1:10-cv-86 Order Defendant had agreed to extend Plaintiff’s time for filing his response until November 15, 2010. Thus, Plaintiff claims that his motion for extension was not untimely. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_10-cv-00086/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_10-cv-00086-0.pdf
SHA-256 68856c0e5db07612ff2a1685822eace95db43541ce630f9d0bc03bef1e9d5219
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-68856c0e5db0
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 EDWARD PEREZ, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:10-cv-86 v. 5 5 HYANNIS AIR SERVICE, INC. d/b/a 5 CAPE AIR, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Stephanie L. Adler, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of Court’s November 16, 2010 (Docket No. 7). This order is issued without necessity of response. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order denying his Motion For Extension of Time (Docket No. 6), entered November 16, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that when he filed his motion for extension, he was unaware that counsel had failed to notify the Court that Case: 1:10-cv-00086-RAM-EAH Document #: 9 Filed: 11/30/10 Page 1 of 3 Perez v. Hyannis Air Service 1:10-cv-86 Order Defendant had agreed to extend Plaintiff’s time for filing his response until November 15, 2010. Thus, Plaintiff claims that his motion for extension was not untimely. 1 Because the Court finds that Defendant did agree to extend Plaintiff’s time for filing his response to November 15, 2010, the Court will modify its previous finding that Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension of Time (Docket No. 5) was untimely. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for further extending the time period. Defendant filed its motion to transfer on October 6, 2010. Plaintiff’s original time period for filing his response ran on October 20, 2010. Plaintiff then received a twenty-six (26) day-extension from Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff had nearly six (6) weeks within which to conduct the legal research he claims his response required. This matter is not so complex that additional time was necessary. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to explain why his witness’ affidavit was impossible to have been obtained within the extended period. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis for reconsideration. Plaintiff originally requested an extension to November 3, 2010, to which Defendant agreed. Mot. 1 at Ex. 1. On that date, Plaintiff requested an additional ten (10)-day extension, to which Defendant also agreed. Mot. at Ex. 2. The ten (10) day-period ended on November 13, 2010, which was a Saturday. The next business day was Monday, November 15, 2010. Case: 1:10-cv-00086-RAM-EAH Document #: 9 Filed: 11/30/10 Page 2 of 3 Perez v. Hyannis Air Service 1:10-cv-86 Order WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (Docket No. 7) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: November 30, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:10-cv-00086-RAM-EAH Document #: 9 Filed: 11/30/10 Page 3 of 3