United States District Court, S.D. New York
December 1, 2004.
In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge
We represent Louis Glick & Company and Louis Glick Diamond
Corporation ("Louis Glick"), class members in the above
referenced litigation. In March 2004, we submitted an application
to have Louis Glick's claims be deemed timely and valid given
that its failure to submit a timely claim was the result of
excusable neglect and a failure of the mails. I have primary
responsibility for this matter and appeared before Magistrate
Judge Ronald L. Ellis to argue the application.
On November 19, 2004, I received the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge denying Louis Glick's motion for its
claim to be treated as a valid and timely claim. The only party
that objected to Louis Glick's motion was the Boies & Schiller
firm, which is lead counsel for the class action plaintiffs. I am
in the process of preparing an objection to the decision and have
calculated the filing deadline to be December 6, 2003 under Rules
6(a), 6(e), and 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By this letter, I request a brief adjournment of the objection
filing date from December 6th to December 20th. I am requesting
this adjournment because this past Sunday my 62 year-old father
unexpectedly has become critically ill and I am unable to finish
preparing the objection or to interface fully with my client. For
this reason, my available time this week has been devoted to
ensuring he receives the appropriate care. This is Louis Glick's
first adjournment request. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court grant Louis
Glick an extension until December 20, 2004 to file its objection.
I have consulted with the Boies & Schiller firm and they have
consented to our request.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.