Inniss et al v. Aderhold et al

Filing 44

MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Reply in Support of Defendants Pending Motion to Dismiss and Proposed Order by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton. (Orland, Devon)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman; Rayshawn Chandler and Avery Chandler; Michael Bishop And Johnny Shane Thomas; and Jennifer Sisson, on behalf of Themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Deborah Aderhold et al, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action Number 1:14-CV-01180-WSD UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS COME NOW, Defendant Aderhold and Defendant Fenton (hereinafter Defendants), by and through Samuel Olens the Attorney General for the State of Georgia, and hereby move for an extension of time of thirty (30) days in which to file a reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Defendants’ response is currently due on September 22, 2014 and Defendants seek an extension until October 22, 2014. This case presents complicated issues with eight named Plaintiffs and unique and important constitutional issues. The matter at issue in this case is being litigated throughout the Country and the state of the law is in flux throughout the various state and federal courts. Defendants wish to appropriately capture and 1 address the rapidly evolving legal developments within their briefing while adequately responding to the issues addressed in Plaintiffs’ response. Additional time will facilitate this effort which may otherwise prove difficult. The undersigned has conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel and is authorized to state that Plaintiffs’ counsel has no objection to a thirty day (30) extension of time. No party will be prejudiced as a result of the extension of time requested. A proposed Order is attached for the Court’s convenience. Respectfully submitted, SAMUEL S. OLENS Attorney General 551540 KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS Deputy Attorney General 558555 Nels Peterson Solicitor General 101074 /s/ Devon Orland 554301 Senior Asst. Attorney General Counsel for Defendant Aderhold and Fenton 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I have electronically filed the foregoing UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND and Draft Order using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send electronic mail notification of such filing to counsel of record as follows: Tara Borelli William Custer Jennifer Odom Jennifer Dempsey Luke Lantta I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the following non-CM/ECF participants: NONE Done this 11th day of September, 2014. /s/ Devon Orland 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300 Telephone: (404) 463-8850 Facsimile: (404) 651-5304 E-mail: dorland@law.ga.gov 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman; Rayshawn Chandler and Avery Chandler; Michael Bishop And Johnny Shane Thomas; and Jennifer Sisson, on behalf of Themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Deborah Aderhold, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action Number 1:14-CV-01180-WSD ORDER THIS MATTER coming before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss, due notice to the parties and the Court being advised of the premises and good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall have an additional thirty (30) days, up to and including October 22, 2014, in which to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED, this ____ day of _______________, 2014. ____________________________ Hon. William S. Duffey Jr. United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?