This is the first of the documents received Friday--"Ex Parte Motion" etc.




Elaine M. Seid, SBN 72588 MCPHARLIN, SPRINKLES & THOMAS LLP Ten Almaden Blvd., Ste. 1460 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 293-1900
Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048 Leslie Holmes, SBN 192608 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN Ten Almaden Blvd., Ste. 535 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 292-7600
Samuel D. Rosen, Esq. PAUL, HASTINGS, TANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 75 East 55th Street New York, NY 10022-3206 Telephone: (212) 318-6000
Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546 MOXON & KOBRIN 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 487-4468
Attorneys for Creditor RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re H. KEITH HENSON, ) U.S.D.C. No. C 01-20493 RMW
CASE NO.: 98-51326ASW-13
Debtor. ) (Chapter 13)
EXPARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE REPLY
Date: August 3,2001
Time: N/A Ctrm: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
Creditor Religious Technology Center ("RTC") hereby moves the Court for leave to file its reply brief late on the ground that the Clerk's Order setting the briefing schedule did not afford adequate notice to the Debtor to file a timely Opposition, and consequently, RTC could not file a timely reply. The basis for this motion is more fully set forth below.
EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE REPLY [end of p.] 1 ----------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The Court's Clerk issued an Order on July 12, 2001 setting August 3, 2001 as the date on which RTC's motion to withdraw the reference would be under submission without a hearing. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rules 7-3 (a) and (d), the Debtor's Opposition was due on July 13, 2001, and RTC's reply was due on July 20, 2001.[1]
RTC is cognizant that the Clerk's Order stated that no late-filed papers would be accepted. However, the circumstances created by the timing of the Order require RTC to seek an exception in the instant situation, which is not of its own making.
RTC's counsel did not receive the Order until July 16, 2001, and consequently was unable to give notice until that date. Per his Opposition, the Debtor's attorney did not receive notice of the Order until July 17, 2001, at which time the date of July 13 for filing a timely Opposition had already passed. Henson's Opposition brief therefore was only filed and served on July 20, 2001, the date that RTC's reply brief was due.
As the untimeliness of the Opposition is a result of the late issuance of the scheduling order, RTC has no objection to the Court's acceptance of the late Opposition, subject to its own arguments in reply. However, it does request that it be afforded enlarged time, pursuant to Local Rule 7-8(a), within which to file its reply. The Reply is being lodged herewith.
RTC's attorney certifies that he attempted to confer with counsel for the Debtor, who is not available until next week. ---------------------- [1] RTC is assuming that the district court's local rules are applicable to this motion t withdraw the reference, and not the local rules of the bankruptcy court, pursuant to which both the Opposition and Reply would be timely.
EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE REPLY 2 [end of page] ------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The Court's Clerk issued an Order on July 12, 2001 setting August 3, 2001 as the date on which RTC's motion to withdraw the reference would be under submission without a hearing. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rules 7-3 (a) and (d), the Debtor's Opposition was due on July 13, 2001, and RTC's reply was due on July 20, 2001.[1]
RTC is cognizant that the Clerk's Order stated that no late-filed papers would be accepted. However, the circumstances created by the timing of the Order require RTC to seek an exception in the instant situation, which is not of its own making.
RTC's counsel did not receive the Order until July 16, 2001, and consequently was unable to give notice until that date. Per his Opposition, the Debtor's attorney did not receive notice of the Order until July 17, 2001, at which time the date of July 13 for filing a timely Opposition had already passed. Henson's Opposition brief therefore was only filed and served on July 20, 2001, the date that RTC's reply brief was due.
As the untimeliness of the Opposition is a result of the late issuance of the scheduling order, RTC has no objection to the Court's acceptance of the late Opposition, subject to its own arguments in reply. However, it does request that it be afforded enlarged time, pursuant to Local Rule 7-8(a), within which to file its reply. The Reply is being lodged herewith.
RTC's attorney certifies that he attempted to confer with counsel for the Debtor, who is not available until next week. ----------------------- [1] RTC is assuming that the district court's local rules are applicable to this motion to withdraw the reference, and not the local rules of the bankruptcy court, pursuant to which both the Opposition and Reply would be timely.
EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE REPLY 2 [end of document]