No. 09-56827
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITWILEY S. DRAKE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.BARACK H. OBAMA, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana (Southern) Division, Case No. SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)The Honorable David O. Carter, United States District Judge
UNOPPOSED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTSWILEY S. DRAKE AND MARKHAM ROBINSONFOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF
Submitted by counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants Wiley S. Drake and MarkhamRobinson:UNITED STATES JUSTICE FOUNDATIONGARY G. KREEP (SBN 066482)CHRISTOPHER P. TUCKER (SBN 265671)932 "D" Street, Suite 2Ramona, California 92065Tel: (760) 788-6624Fax: (760) 788-6414
Case: 09-56827 07/06/2010 Page: 1 of 9 ID: 7394933 DktEntry: 14
2
UNOPPOSED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTSWILEY S. DRAKE AND MARKHAM ROBINSONFOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26(b) and Ninth Cir. R. 31-2.2(b), Plaintiffs-Appellants Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson (“Appellants”) respectfullymove for an extension of time of one month, until August 12, 2010, to file their opening brief. The court reporter is not in default with regard to any designatedtranscripts.Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, who represents the remaining group of Plaintiffs-Appellants, has advised that she does not oppose this motion.
See
Declaration of Christopher P. Tucker (“Tucker Decl.”), ¶ 2.On July 1, 2010, and July 2, 2010, Appellants’ attorney, Christopher P.Tucker, attempted to contact counsel for Defendants-Appellees, David A. DeJute(“DeJute”), via telephone and fax, to determine whether they would oppose thismotion.
Id.,
¶ 3.
On July 6, 2010, Mr. DeJute informed Appellants’ attorney thatDefendants-Appellees would not oppose a motion for an extension to fileAppellants’ opening brief.
Id.
On June 25, 2010, the Court granted Appellants’ request for a 14 day oralextension by phone and entered an order directing the parties to submit their opening briefs by July 12, 2010.
Id.,
¶ 4. Appellants requested the extension because Appellants’ attorney, Gary G. Kreep (“Kreep”), underwent spinal surgery
Case: 09-56827 07/06/2010 Page: 2 of 9 ID: 7394933 DktEntry: 14
3
for severe back pain on June 25, 2010, and the original schedule set by this Court’sorder instructed Appellants to file their opening briefs by June 28, 2010.
Id.
Counsel have exercised and will exercise diligence in preparing Appellants’opening brief.
Id.,
¶ 5. However, for the reasons set forth below and in the attacheddeclaration of Christopher P. Tucker, extraordinary and compelling circumstancesexist for the requested extension.Mr. Kreep has represented Appellants throughout the course of this litigationin the District Court, including his attendance at the relevant hearings.
Id.,
¶ 4.Prior to his spinal surgery, Mr. Kreep anticipated recovering in time to meet thisCourt’s July 12, 2010 deadline for filing Appellants’ opening brief.
Id
. However,Mr. Kreep suffered several serious complications during his June 25, 2010 back surgery, and he was subsequently placed on a heart pump and transferred to theIntensive Care Unit at Scripps Green Hospital in La Jolla, California on June 29,2010.
Id.,
¶ 6. On July 1, 2010, a five-hour-long bypass surgery was performed onMr. Kreep’s heart.
Id.
On July 4, 2010, Mr. Kreep was placed in an induced comadue to additional complications.
Id.
At the time of this filing, Mr. Kreep remainsconnected to a breathing tube, and his recovery is expected to take at least severalweeks.
Id.
Case: 09-56827 07/06/2010 Page: 3 of 9 ID: 7394933 DktEntry: 14
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Keyes/Barnett v Obama - Gary Kreep Appeal - Unopposed Motion for Extension to File - July 6th, 2010
Keyes/Barnett v Obama - Gary Kreep Appeal - Unopposed Motion for Extension to File - July 6th, 2010 - http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/07/eligibility-attorney-gary-kreep-placed.html
507
Reads
2
Readcasts
700
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
