Pasco v. Zimmerman et al

Filing 16

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 11 Brief / Memorandum in Support, 4 MOTION to Dismiss, 9 Brief / Memorandum in Support, 10 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 13 Brief / Memorandum in Support, 5 Brief / Memorandum in Support by Robert L. Pasco. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Roanoke Division

ROBERT L. PASCO,
Plaintiff,
v.
HANK ZIMMERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:11CV00087

CONSENT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
The plaintiff Robert L. Pasco, by counsel and pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and with the consent of the Defendants, through their counsel, moves the Court
for an extension of time through and including January 17, 2012 within which to respond to and
file his opposition to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, and shows the Court as follows:
1.

Defendant Moore electronically filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint

with an accompanying brief on December 7, 2011. Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum would
otherwise be due on the date of this motion. The remaining Defendants filed their motions to
dismiss and accompanying briefs on December 22, 2011. Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition
to those motions to dismiss is due on January 9, 2012.
2.

The parties previously have agreed to February 7, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. as the date

and time for hearing on all of the motions to dismiss.
3.

Due to scheduling issues in other matters, Plaintiff’s counsel has requested, and

the Defendants, through their counsel, have consented to, an extension of time through and

including January 17, 2012 within which Plaintiff’s responses and memoranda in opposition to
the Defendants’ motions to dismiss may be filed.
4.

The short extension requested by Plaintiff’s counsel will provide ample time for a

reply from the Defendants prior to, and will not result in a delay of, the hearing on the
Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves the Court to extend the time through and including
January 17, 2012 for Plaintiff to respond to and oppose the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.

ROBERT L. PASCO
By: s/Timothy E. Cupp
Timothy E. Cupp (VSB #23017)
Cupp & Cupp, P.C.
1951 Evelyn Byrd Avenue, Suite D
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
Email: [e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] (facsimile)
Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that on the 27th day of December, 2011, the foregoing Consent Motion
was filed electronically with the Clerk through the CM/ECF system, which will cause electronic
copies to be served on the parties, by sending same to their attorneys of record as follows: Julia
B. Judkins, Esquire, Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath, & Judkins, P.C., 3920 University Drive,
Fairfax, VA 22030 and MelisaG. Michelson, Esquire and J. Jay Litten, Esquire, Litten & Sipe,
LLP, 410 Neff Avenue, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801-3434.
s/Timothy E. Cupp

2