LAUTENBERG FOUNDATION, THE et al v. MADOFF

Filing 49

BRIEF in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendant's Cross-Motion to Stay the Litigation filed by PETER MADOFF. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Declaration of Charles T. Spada, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S, # 22 Exhibit T, # 23 Exhibit U, # 24 Exhibit V, # 25 Exhibit W, # 26 Exhibit X, # 27 Exhibit Y, # 28 Exhibit Z, # 29 Exhibit AA, # 30 Exhibit BB, # 31 Exhibit CC, # 32 Exhibit DD, # 33 Exhibit EE, # 34 Exhibit FF, # 35 Exhibit GG, # 36 Exhibit HH, # 37 Notice of Defendant's Cross-Motion to Stay the Litigation, # 38 Text of Proposed Order)(MADERER, WILLIAM)

Slber
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

William F. Maderer
973.6454814

wmadererWsaiber. corn

April 21, 2010 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND FIRST CLASS MAIL The Honorable Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J. United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Frank R. Lautenberg United States Post Office & Courthouse Building Room 417, P.O. Box 999 Newark. New Jersey 07101-0999 Re: The Lautenberg Foundation, et at. v. Madoff Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-00816 (SRC-MCA)

Dear Judge Chesler We, along with LankIer Siffert & Wohl LLP, represent defendant Peter Madoff in the above-captioned action. As Your Honor is aware, on March 12, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment (the "Rule 56 Motion"). Defendant plans to file his opposition to the Rule 56 Motion and cross-move for this action to he stayed (the "Stay Motion") on Monday, A p ril 2 6 , 2 0 1 0 . Under Local Civil Rule 7.2(d), briefs are limited to 30 pages in 12-point proportional
fbnt. As a result. Defendant understands that he would he entitled to file by April 26 a 30-page

brief in opposition to the Rule 56 Motion and a 30-page brief in support of his motion for a stay. for a total of 60 pages. Given the overlapping facts and principles involved in the two motions, Defendant believes it would be more efficient and convenient for the parties and the Court if Defendant addresses the two motions together in one consolidated brief rather than in separate redundant briefs.

Saiber U.C

.

8 Columbia Turnpike

.

Sute 200

.

Rorham Park. New Jersey
*

.

07932

Tel [phone]

.

Fax [phone]

www.sather.com

Florham Park

Newark

New York

Atlantic City

Pøtnt Pleasant Beach

The Honorable Stanley R. Chesler. U.S.D.J. April 21. 2010 Page 2 Accordingly, Defendant intends to file one brief in opposition to the Rule 56 Motion and in support of the cross-motion for a stay. Defendant respectfully requests permission to combine the page limits for two briefs (30 pages each) and file one brief not to exceed 60 pages. in opposition to the Rule 56 Motion and in support of the cross-motion for a stay. We have consulted with Plaintiffs counsel, who has informed us that Plaintiffs do not object to our request. We appreciate Your Hono?s consideration of this request.

Respectfully submitted,

(s William F. Maderer
William F. Maderer

WFM cc: Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, U.SM.J. [via electronic filing and First Class Mail] Ronald J, Riccio, Esq. [via electronic filing] Michael R. Griffinger, Esq. [via electronic filing] Charles T. Spada, Esq, [via electronic filing]

So ORI)ERED:

irE
HONORABLSTANLEY R. CHESLER UNITED STATE.S DISTRICT JUDGE