Diamond Hands Consulting Ltd. v. Bongers et al

Filing 110

ORDER granting 108 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 8/1/2022) (ate)

Download PDF
Case 1:21-cv-11223-RA-SN Document 110 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 2 Edward H. Rosenthal 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 T (212) 826-5524 F (212) 593-9175 erosenthal@fkks.com July 30, 2022 VIA ECF The Hon. Ronnie Abrams United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Diamond Hands Consulting Ltd. v. Bongers et al. Case No. 1-21-cv-11223 (RA) (SN) Dear Judge Abrams, We represent the defendants Kyle Bongers and Hurley Blake Starling (collectively referred to herein as the “Defendants”) in the above-captioned action. We write pursuant to Rule 1(D) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases to request a one-week extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration or reargument of the Court’s July 20, 2022 Order granting a preliminary injunction against Defendants (the “July 20 Order”), with a corresponding one-week extension of time for Plaintiff Diamond Hands Consulting Ltd (“DHC”) to file any opposition to such a motion. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, the time for Defendants to file a motion for reconsideration or reargument of the July 20 Order is August 3, 2022. Defendants have not previously requested an adjournment or extension of time to file such a motion. Defendants have conferred with DHC, and DHC consents to the requested one-week extension of time to file the motion, provided that DHC receives a corresponding one-week extension of time to oppose the motion. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court extend Defendants’ time to file a motion for reconsideration or reargument of the July 20 Order to August 10, 2022 and DHC’s time to file an opposition to such a motion to August 31, 2022. Case 1:21-cv-11223-RA-SN Document 110 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 2 The Parties have agreed that this extension and the anticipated motion for reconsideration should not impact or delay the Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s pending application for contempt against Defendants, nor should it be construed as a waiver of Defendants’ contention that they are in full compliance with the preliminary injunction order. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Edward H. Rosenthal Edward. H. Rosenthal cc: All counsel (via ECF) Application granted. SO ORDERED. _________________________ Hon. Ronnie Abrams 08/01/2022

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?