Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Plaza Properties, LLC v. Jenkins Displays Co.

June 11, 2008

PLAZA PROPERTIES, LLC AND PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, LLC, APPELLANTS,
v.
JENKINS DISPLAYS CO., ET AL., APPELLEES.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants Plaza Properties, LLC (Plaza Properties) and Property Consultants, LLC (Property Consultants) motion for extension of time (Doc. 3), to which appellee Jenkins has filed an objection (Doc. 6). Also before the Court is appellants' motion to supplement (Doc. 4), to which appellee Jenkins has filed an objection (Doc. 5).

Appellants seek an extension of thirty (30) days to file their brief.*fn1 Appellee Jenkins objects to an extension of time because appellants' failure to comply with Rule 8009(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will cause prejudice by delaying the disposition of nearly $1.5 million, to which appellee Jenkins claims it has priority. Upon review of the record, the Court FINDS that the prejudice created by delaying this appeal for thirty days, allowing time for appellants to file their brief, is not so great as to justify denying appellants' request. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS appellants' motion for extension of time (Doc. 3) and DIRECTS appellants' to file their brief on or before June 27, 2008.

Appellants also seek leave to designate the record and to file their statement of the issues out of time. Appellee Jenkins objects because appellants' failure to comply with Rule 8009(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will cause prejudice by delaying the disposition of nearly $1.5 million, to which appellee Jenkins claims it has priority. Upon review of the record, the Court FINDS that the prejudice created by delaying this appeal for thirty days, allowing time for appellants to file their brief, is not so great as to justify denying appellants' request. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS appellants' motion to supplement (Doc. 4).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM D. STIEHL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.