Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (3319)	6/15/2002 10:45:07 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12465

Here's Marvin's response to my request for an extension of time to respond. I guess the judge didn't like it very much: PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT SHELL’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE MANNING: Plaintiff Jay Marvin files this Objection to the extension of time requested by Defendant Janice Shell and further requests that this Court enter an Order allowing discovery to begin prior to the Rule 26 conference and in support thereof would show the court as follows: 1. this case was filed on April 25, 2002 against Defendant Janice Shell aka Jasnice 456 and others. On the same day that the lawsuit was filed, Defendant Janice Shell posted a copy of the complaint on a website. A copy of the posting is attached as Exhibit A. 2. On April 26, 2002, Defendant Shell posted on the Internet that she would only accept personal sevice and that during attempts to serve her she “won’t hear the buzzer and all that” and “f the process server needs to make more trips…it’ll only cost you more.” A copy of the posting is attached as Exhibit B. 3. Plaintiff was required to retain a process server and was required to make numerous attempts to obtain service upon Defendant Shell 4. Since April 26, 2002, she has posted that she has “read the complaint several times” and that she was well aware that upon being served she would have 20 days to file an answer. See Exhibits C and D attached to this Objection. 5. On June 6, 2002, Planitiff received a copy of Defendant Shell’s motion to extend the time to answer in this case. 6. Defendant Shell refused to comply with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules concerning service and now wants this Court to grant her another 30 days because “she has been recently served in this matter and is in the process of collecting the information necessary to plead or otherwise respond to the Complaint.” Ex Parte Motion at 1. 7. By her own admission, Defendant Shell has had the Complaint in her possession for over 41 days prior to her filing the motion and could have obtained the information necessary to plead in this matter. 8. Moreover, Defendant Shell is in possession of information as to the identity of the remaining defendants in this case and her failure to answer and delay the Rule 26 disclosure is inhibiting Plaintiff from learning the true identity of the remaning defendants from Defendant Shell and though other discovery techniques.. Defendant Shell has posted that he [sic?] plans to inhibit the discover process. See Exhibit E attached hereto. 9. The true identities of the other defendants can be ascertained through a deposition of Defendant Shell and other discovery techniques. Wherefore, Plaintiff Marvin requests that this court deny Defendant Shell’s Motion to extend the time to answer and that the Court enter an order permitting Plaintiff to conduct discovery immediately and prior to the Rule 26 conference, including, without, limitation, the deposition of Defendant Shell and others to ascertain the true identity of the remaining defendants in this case. Respectfully submitted, Richard C. Balough 656 West Randolph St. Suite 500 West Chicago, Il 60661 Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: 10 June 2002