WILLIAMS v. FANNIE MAE — Entry #35: Consent 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 #35 · filed September 13, 2007
Consent 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), 3,662 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 35 Filed 09/13/2007 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 SECOND CONSENT 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 5, 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 September 21, 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.
This motion has been discussed with counsel for the Defendants, and consent has
been given. Additionally, coordination has been effected to establish a recommended
Defendants’ Reply Brief date of October 26, 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.
Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 35 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael W. Beasley
Michael W. Beasley, Esq.
200 Park Avenue, Suite 106
Falls Church, Virginia 22046
Phone: (703) 533-5875
Fax: (703) 533-5876
E-Mail: beasleys2@verizon.net
Attorney for Plaintiff Marialice B. Williams
September 13, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing “Plaintiff’s Second Consent
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 13th day of September,
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