WILLIAMS v. FANNIE MAE — Entry #36: Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [33] MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS
Case: WILLIAMS v. FANNIE MAE dcd · 1:05-cv-01483
filed July 28, 2005
What this document is
Docket entry #36 · filed October 04, 2007
Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [33] MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Beasley, Michael)
Who is involved
- FANNIE MAE
- WILLIAMS
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Marathon Digital: its subsidiary “Sullivan Company” appears in a filing in this case.
…recruited away by another firm known as John 19 F. Sullivan Company in Philadelphia, 20 Pennsylvania. 21 Q.…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 07, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
2 page(s), 3,791 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 36 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-1483
) (JDB)
FANNIE MAE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams, by and through counsel, hereby moves for
an additional extension of time to October 12, 2007, for filing her Opposition to the
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in this proceeding. The current deadline for
the filing of such Opposition is October 5, 2007.
The purpose of the requested extension of time is to permit the parties to
conclude, execute and file settlement documents pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. While it originally was anticipated that such actions would be
complete by October 5, 2007, the parties are still reaching agreement on specific terms
and language of the settlement agreement.
This motion has been discussed with counsel for the Defendants, and Defendants
do not oppose this further motion for additional time. Additionally, coordination has
been accomplished to establish a recommended Defendants’ Reply Brief date of
Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 36 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
November 2, 2007, preserving the 21-day period in which Defendants may reply to any
Opposition filed.
A proposed Order is provided herewith for the Court’s consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael W. Beasley
Michael W. Beasley, Esq.
200 Park Avenue, Suite 106
Falls Church, Virginia 22046
Phone: (703) 533-5875
E-Mail: beasleys2@verizon.net
Attorney for Plaintiff Marialice B. Williams
October 4, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing “Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,” with
proposed Order, has been served through the Court’s ECF filing system to each of the
following named counsel for Defendants, this 4th day of October, 2007:
Sarah Alexander Goldfrank, Esq.
Evelyn L. Becker, Esq.
Kyra Anne Grundeman, Esq.
O’Melveny & Myers, LLP
1625 I Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Jonathan Lee Griffith, Esq.
Fannie Mae
3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20016
/s/ Michael W. Beasley
Michael W. Beasley, Esq.
D. C. Bar No. 248930
Attorney for Plaintiff
2