Shah v. Poonja et al

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING 17 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/31/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DENNIS P. RIORDAN, Esq., SBN 69320
[e-mail]
DONALD M. HORGAN, Esq., SBN 121547
[e-mail]
MATTHEW C. DIRKES
[e-mail]
RIORDAN & HORGAN
523 Octavia Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant
CHANDRAKANT SHAH

8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
13

In Re:

14

SAN JOSE AIRPORT HOTEL, LLC, dba
HOLIDAY INN SAN JOSE;
MOBEDSHAHI HOTEL GROUP,

15
16

Debtors.

17

_______________________________________

18

MOHAMED POONJA,

19
20

Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.

21
22
23

CHANDRAKANT SHAH,
Defendant-Appellant.

24
25

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-00858 EJD
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)

Defendant-appellant Chandrakant Shah, through his counsel, hereby moves the Court for

26

a four-day extension of time, from July 31, 2017, to and including August 4, 2017, to file his

27

reply brief in this matter.

28

In support of this motion, Dennis P. Riordan declares under penalty of perjury as
1

1

follows:

2

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

3

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

4
5

million in damages.
3. Appellant’s opening brief was originally due on April 3, 2017. With the consent of

6

counsel for appellee, appellant moved for a 30-day extension of time to file his brief, to and

7

including May 3, 2017. Doc. No. 8. The Court granted appellant’s motion. Doc. No. 9.

8

Appellant filed his opening brief on May 3, 2017. Doc. No. 11. Appellee then moved for a 30-

9

day extension of time to file his responsive brief, with the consent of undersigned counsel. Doc.

10
11
12
13
14
15

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 time to file his reply
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

16

brief. This motion is founded on the extraordinary press of business in our office. In addition to

17

the items listed in our first motion for an extension (see Dkt. 15), we have, in the last two weeks,

18

been required to: file a sentencing memorandum in connection with a federal bid-rigging case,

19

United States v. Roemer, 15CR00228 (N.D. Cal.); prepare for and attend Mr. Roemer’s

20

sentencing hearing; prepare for and argue a case, People v. Jo, C079280, in the Third District of

21

the California Court of Appeal; prepare for and attend a discovery hearing in connection with an

22

upcoming evidentiary hearing on our motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 challenging our

23

client’s federal district court convictions for offering material support to terrorists and making

24

false statements, United States v. Hayat, E.D. Cal. No. CR S-05-0240 GEB DB; and prepare for

25

and argue various pretrial motions in connection with our client’s upcoming trial for conspiracy

26

to commit wire and securities fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, and false statements, United

27

States v. Baker, Fifth Cir. No. 14-51012 (W.D. Texas Criminal No. 1:13-CR- 346-SS).

28

7. My office contacted James A. Hennefer, counsel for appellee, this morning and, as of
2

1
2
3
4

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

5

extension of time, to and including August 4, 2017, to file appellant’s reply brief.

6

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

7
8

/s/ Dennis P. Riordan
Dennis P. Riordan

9

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
CHANDRAKANT SHAH

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11

In Re:

12

SAN JOSE AIRPORT HOTEL, LLC, dba
HOLIDAY INN SAN JOSE;
MOBEDSHAHI HOTEL GROUP,

13
14

Debtors.

15

_______________________________________

16

MOHAMED POONJA,

17
18

Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.

19
20
21

CHANDRAKANT SHAH,
Defendant-Appellant.

22
23
24

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-00858 EJD
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
FOUR- DAY EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE HIS REPLY BRIEF

(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)

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

25
26

7/31/2017
Dated: _______________________

____________________________________

27

HONORABLE EDWARD J. DAVILA

28

United States District Court Judge