Perez v. Hyannis Air Service, Inc. Dba Cape Air

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
EDWARD PEREZ, 5
5
Plaintiff, 5 1:10-cv-86
v. 5
5
HYANNIS AIR SERVICE, INC. d/b/a 5
CAPE AIR, 5
5
Defendant. 5
____________________________________5
TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Stephanie L. Adler, Esq.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration of
Court’s November 16, 2010 (Docket No. 7). This order is issued without necessity of
response.
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order denying his Motion For Extension of
Time (Docket No. 6), entered November 16, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that when he filed his
motion for extension, he was unaware that counsel had failed to notify the Court that
Case: 1:10-cv-00086-RAM-EAH Document #: 9 Filed: 11/30/10 Page 1 of 3

Perez v. Hyannis Air Service
1:10-cv-86
Order
Page 2
Defendant had agreed to extend Plaintiff’s time for filing his response until November 15,
2010. Thus, Plaintiff claims that his motion for extension was not untimely.1
Because the Court finds that Defendant did agree to extend Plaintiff’s time for filing
his response to November 15, 2010, the Court will modify its previous finding that
Plaintiff’s Motion For Extension of Time (Docket No. 5) was untimely.
However, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for further
extending the time period. Defendant filed its motion to transfer on October 6, 2010.
Plaintiff’s original time period for filing his response ran on October 20, 2010. Plaintiff then
received a twenty-six (26) day-extension from Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff had nearly six (6)
weeks within which to conduct the legal research he claims his response required. This
matter is not so complex that additional time was necessary. In addition, Plaintiff has
failed to explain why his witness’ affidavit was impossible to have been obtained within
the extended period.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any
basis for reconsideration.
Plaintiff originally requested an extension to November 3, 2010, to which Defendant agreed. M ot.	1
at Ex. 1. On that date, Plaintiff requested an additional ten (10)-day extension, to which Defendant also
agreed. M ot. at Ex. 2. The ten (10) day-period ended on November 13, 2010, which was a Saturday. The next
business day was Monday, November 15, 2010.
Case: 1:10-cv-00086-RAM-EAH Document #: 9 Filed: 11/30/10 Page 2 of 3

Perez v. Hyannis Air Service
1:10-cv-86
Order
Page 3
WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For
Reconsideration (Docket No. 7) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: November 30, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:10-cv-00086-RAM-EAH Document #: 9 Filed: 11/30/10 Page 3 of 3