Attached files
| file | filename |
|---|---|
| 8-K - FORM 8-K 6-14-2012 - AMBASE CORP | frm8k62012.htm |
2012-5047,-5048,-5049
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AMBASE CORP., et. al,
Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal From The United States Court Of Federal Claims In 93-CV-280
Senior Judge Loren A. Smith
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION Of TIME
The United States, defendant-appellant, respectfully requests a 40-day extension of time, to and including July 28, 2012, within which to file our initial brief on appeal. This request is made under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Federal Circuit Rule 26(b). Our initial brief is due June 18, 2012. This is our third request for an extension for this purpose. Counsel for plaintiffs-cross appellants have stated that they do not oppose this motion.
As explained in the attached declaration of Jeanne E. Davidson, Director of the National Courts Section , Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice, the parties have been engaged in settlement negotiations since November 2011 and have reached a tentative agreement among counsel that, if approved, would resolve this appeal and any further proceedings in this case. Because of the amount at issue, the Acting Associate Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General must approve the settlement. The matter is currently before the Acting Assistant Attorney General for his decision. Absent unforeseeable events, we believe this process can be completed within the time frame requested in this motion for enlargement.
Although we had hoped this could be accomplished during the previous 60-day and 30-day extensions, this proved impossible because of the press of other business and the parties' involvement in continuing settlement discussions. Further, in the event the proposed settlement is not approved by authorized officials, we will require the time encompassed in this motion to complete our internal supervisory review and revision process regarding this appeal and our initial brief. Specifically, the Office of the Solicitor General , which must approve all appeals, has not yet completed its internal review of our proposed appeal , and will only do so if advised that
2
authorized officials have been unable to approve the anticipated settlement. An extension of the briefing schedule will allow the parties time to complete the final negotiations relating to the settlement, obtain supervisory approval, and hopefully reach a settlement without the need to expend the time and resources required to engage in the briefing of the appeal.
As we noted in our prior motions for an extension of time, counsel working on this appeal have been pressed, and continue to be pressed, by filing deadlines, trial activities, supervision, and oral arguments in Winstar related and other cases, including: G4S Technology L.L.C. v. United States, No. 12-8CV (Fed.Cl.) (response to First Amended Complaint due March 5, 2012); Alvarian, Inc. v. United Stat es, No. 2-9CV (Fed.Cl.) (response to Complaint due March 5, 2012); Midwest Tube Fabricators, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-774C (Fed. Cl.) (motion to dismiss and for judgment upon the administrative record filed Feb. l 0, 2011 ); Anne Marie Wilburn v. United States, 11-856C (Fed. Cl.) (motion to dismiss filed Jan. 27, 2012); First Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States, No. 94-522 (Fed. Cl.) (bill of costs filed Nov. 18, 2011); Maher and Gravee v. United States, No. 2010-5130 (Fed. Cir.) (oral argument held Dec. 8, 2011); United States v. American Casualty Co., No. 10-119 (Ct. Int'l Trade) (continung written discovery and
3
depositions); and United States v. Rupari Food Services, Inc., No. 11-203 (Ct. Int'l Trade) (written discovery commencing Nov. 2011).
The undersigned principal attorney supervises a 200-person litigating section of the Department of Justice, and also advises various Executive Branch agencies concerning litigation risk avoidance.
A 40-day extension is necessary to ensure that the parties have sufficient time to complete their settlement negotiations and permit reviewing officials to approve whatever settlement may be reached by the negotiating personnel. In addition, in the event the settlement is not approved by supervisory officials, the 40-day extension will ensure that the Office of the Solicitor General has sufficient time to complete its internal supervisory review, and that we are able to complete our internal review and revision process, which has been delayed by the press of other business.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that our motion for a 40-day extension of time to file our initial brief in this appeal be granted.
|
|
Respectfully submitted,
STUART DELERY
|
Acting Assistant Attorney General
4
OF COUNSEL:
SCOTT D. AUSTIN
Assistant Director
DAVID A. LEVITT
Trial Attorney
JEANNE E. DAVIDSON
Director
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
Department of Justice
PO Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 514-7300
June 11, 2012 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant
5
2012-5047,-5048,-5049
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AMBASE CORP., et. al,
Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants,
V.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal From The United States Court OfFederal Claims In 93-CV-280
Senior Judge Loren A. Smith
|
|
DECLARATION OF JEANNE E. DAVIDSON
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION Of TIME
|
1. I am the Director of the National Courts Section, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice. I am the principal attorney for the United States in this appeal. I offer this declaration in support of the accompanying motion for a 40-day extension of time, to
and including July 28, 2012, within which to file our initial brief on appeal.
2. Government counsel has discussed this motion with counsel for
|
|
plaintiffs-cross appellants, who advised that they do not oppose our request for a 40-day extension.
|
4. This is our third request for an extension of time for this purpose. Our initial brief is due June 18, 2012.
5. An extension is needed so that we can complete settlement negotiations, which have been ongoing since November 2011 and are now in the final stage. Counsel have reached an agreement that, if approved, would resolve this appeal and any further proceedings in this case. Because of the amounts at issue, the Acting Associate Attorney General and the Acting Assistant Attorney General must approve the settlement. The matter is cunently before the Acting Assistant Attorney General for his decision. Absent unforeseeable events, we believe this process can be completed with the time frame requested in our motion for enlargement.
6. Moreover, the enlargement is necessary to enable reviewing officials to approve any agreement that may be reached, thus obviating our need to pursue the appeal. Although we had hoped the settlement could be finalized and approved during our prior 60-day and 30-day extensions, that proved impossible because of the press of other business and continuing settlement negotiations. In addition, the Office of the Solicitor General, which must approve all appeals, has not yet completed its internal review of
2
our proposed appeal, and will only do so if advised that authorized officials have been unable to approve the anticipated settlement. Thus, in the
unlikely event that the anticipated settlement is not finalized or approved by authorized officials, an extension is necessary to allow the Office of
Solicitor General time to complete its internal review of our proposed appeal, and to allow us time to complete our internal review and revision process for our initial brief.
7. Counsel working on this appeal have been pressed , and continue to be pressed, by filing deadlines, trial activities, supervision, and oral arguments in Winstar-related and other cases, including, as we noted in our previous motions: G4S Technology L.L.C. v. United States, No. 1 2-8CV (Fed.Cl.) (response to First Amended Complaint due March 5, 2012; Alvarion, Inc. v. United States, No. 2-9CV (Fed.Cl.) (response to Complaint due March 5, 2012); Midwest Tube Fabricators, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-774C (Fed. Cl.) (motion to dismiss and for judgment upon the administrative record filed Feb.10, 2011); Anne Marie Wilburn v. United States, 11-856C (Fed. Cl.) (motion to dismiss filed Jan. 27, 2012); First Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States, No. 94-522 (Fed. Cl.) (bill of costs filed Nov. 18, 2011 ); Maher and Gravee v. United States, No. 2010-5130 (Fed. Cir.) (oral argument held Dec. 8, 2011 ); United States v. American
3
Casualty Co., No. 10-119 (Ct. lnt'l Trade) (continuing written discovery and depositions); and United States v. Rupari Food Services, Inc., No. 11-203 (Ct. Int'l Trade) (written discovery commencing Nov. 2011).
8. The undersigned principal attorney supervises a 200-person litigating section of the Department of Justice, and also advises various Executive Branch agencies concerning litigation risk avoidance.
9. A 40-day extension is necessary to allow the parties to complete their settlement negotiations and permit reviewing officials sufficient time to approve whatever settlement may be reached by the negotiating personnel. In addition, in the unlikely event that the anticipated settlement is not finalized or approved by authorized officials, the extension is necessary to ensure that the Office of the Solicitor General has sufficient time to complete its internal supervisory review of our proposed appeal , and that we are able to complete the internal review and revision process for our
opening brief, which has been delayed by the press of other business.
JEANNE E. DAVIDSON
Director
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
Department of Justice
June 11, 2012
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify under penalty of perjury that on this 11th day of June, 2012, I caused to be served by First Class Mail, postage prepaid and via E-mail, two copies of "DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME" addressed as follows:
David Thompson
Cooper & Kirk
1523 New Hampshire Ave.,
N.W.Washington, DC 20036
|
|
Attorney for Plaintiff
and
|
John Dorsey
Counsel
FDIC
3501 Fairfax Drive, VS-D-7022
Arlington, VA 22226
Attorney for Intervenor