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)
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?