, J..

PETER E. HESS. Esq. 2 - 300 Delaware Ave.

Suite 1130 3 Wilmington. DE 19801

ph: (302) 656-1203 4

ATTORNEY FOR 5 PLAINTIFFS

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

.7 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 CLIFTON B. CRAFT JACK DEAN FERGUSON

9 DONALD L. JERNIGAN MICHAEL PATRICK KING

10 THOMAS D. STOCKS and WILLIAM LEE WILSON,

11 Plaintiffs -v s.- C.A. No. CV 92-1769-SVW (Sx) 12 Notice of Motion THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,

13 THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,

14 THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15 Defendants.

16 NOTICE OF MOTION

17 Please be advised that the attached Motion for Enlargement of Time be

18 heard on Friday, October 9, 1992 at 1:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Honorable

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stephen V, Wilson.

) I

Dated: Qo~,~~~r iC 1Tj2 J PETER E. HESS, Esq.

300 Delaware Ave. · Suite 1130 Wilmington, DE 19801 ph: (302) 656-1203

OF COUNSEL: RICHARD BEADA, Esq. 100 Wilshire Blvd. Santa Monica, California

90401 ph: (310) 393-7536

RECTI SEP 11 1992

l

II I I

PETER E. HESS, Esq. 2 - 300 Delaware Ave.

Suite 1130 3 Wilmington. DE 19801

ph: (302) 656-1203 4

AITORNEYFOR 5 PLAINTIFFS

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

.7 FOR TIIE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 CLIFTON B. CRAFT JACK DEAN FERGUSON

9 DONALD L. JERNIGAN MICHAEL PATRICK KING

10 THOMAS D. STOCKS and WILLIAM LEE WILSON,

11 Plaintiffs -vs.- C.A. No. CV 92-1769-SVW (Sxf 12 Notice of Motion THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,

13 THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,

14 THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15 Defendants.

16 MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

17 Comes now, PETER E. HESS, Esq., attorney for Plainitffs in the above-

18 captioned litigation and moves for an Enlargement of Time within which to submit

19 the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. stating more fully that:

20 1) In a Status Conference held in Chambers on August 17, 1992, the

21 parties and this Court agreed that the Plaintiffs' Opening Brief in Support of its

22 Motion for Summary Judgment would be due three (3) weeks hence, .or on

23 September 8, 1992.

24 2) September 8 was the day following the Labor Day weekend and overnite

25 mail delivery was not available from Friday, September 4 until Wednesday

26 September 9, 1992.

27

28 3) Although the Plaintiff had intended on filing the Brief on Wednesday,

1

2 September 9, the large collating copier in his office broke down that evening,

3 thereby forcing him to miss the overnite mailing deadline.

4 4) The Brief is being filed one day later, accompanied by the instant

5 Motion.

6 5) The Plaintiffs attorney has contacted the lead United States Attorney in

"7 this litigation, Ms. Christine Perry, Esq. of Washington. D.C., and FAX'd her a

8 copy of the Summary Judgment brief on Thursday, September 10, with a hard copy

9 sent by overnite mail that evening.

10 6) The United States has no objection to the instant Motion~ Plaintiffs'

11 Counsel has agreed to maintain the extant Scheduling Order by granting the United

12 States an additional two (2) days to file its Answering Brief.

13 7) The Plaintiffs will submit their Response Brief at least one day prior to

14 the October 9, 1992 hearing on the Summary Judgment Motion.

15

16 WHEREFOR the Plaintiffs respectfully request that their Motion for

17 Enlargement of Time be granted by this Honorable Court.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c-.· \ \ ,.-11 '(;(.; ,, Dated: ~q~e'"~ v, I (Ji.

PETER E. HESS, Esq. 300 Delaware Ave. Suite 1130 Wilmington, DE 19801 ph: (302) 656-1203

OF COUNSEL: RICHARD BEADA, Esq. 100 Wilshire Blvd. Santa Monica, California

90401 ph: (310) 393-7536

. .. ,. ·-