Extension filed

[Twist Capper]

from the gossip....thought it should have it's own thread.....

IN THE UNIDED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

David Anderson, Lt. Col; Nelson L. No. 11-55169
Reynolds, Lt. Col; Sheila Morris;
Robert Hollenegg; Reece Hamilton (U.S. District Court No. 8:10-cv-00031-
individually and on behalf of all JVS-MLG)
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs/Appellants,
vs.
Christopher Cox; Mary L. Schapiro; Cynthia A. Glassman; Paul S. Atkins; Roel C. Campos; Annette L. Nazareth; Troy A. Paredes; Luis A. Aguilar; Elisse B. Walter; Kathleen L. Casey,
Defendants-Appellees.




APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF


On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Central District of California

The Honorable James V. Selna


A. Clifton Hodges, State Bar #046803
Hodges and Associates
4 East Holly Street, Suite 202
Pasadena, California 91103-3900
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants David Anderson, Lt. Col, et al.,
91H CIR. R. 27-3 CERTIFICATE
1. Telephone numbers and office addresses of the attorneys for the
parties.

Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants David Anderson, Lt. Col, et al.,

A. Clifton Hodges
Hodges and Associates
4 East Holly Street, Suite 202
Pasadena, California 91103-3900
Telephone: [phone]; Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees Christopher Cox, et al.,

Andre Birotte Jr.
United States Attorney
Leon W. Weidman
Assistant United States Attorney
Civil Division
Keith M. Staub
Assistant United States Attorney Room 7516 Federal Building 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: [phone]; Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
2. Facts showing the existence and nature of the requested
extension of time to file opening brief.
This is an appeal from an Order of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division (Selna, J.), granting
Defendants' FRCP 12(b) Motion to Dismiss (Minute Order dated June 6, 2010) and dismissing Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with prejudice, by Order of Dismissal dated December 29, 2010.
The present Bivens action arises out of the sale of stock from CMKM Diamonds, Inc. ("CMKM"), to Plaintiffs, the corporation's subsequent implementation of its resolution to self-liquidate, and the involvement of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in that process. Plaintiffs brought this action against a number of former and present SEC Chairpersons and Commissioners, who refuse to authorize release of the compensation funds under their custody and/or control, which monies result and accrue directly from a clandestine government "sting" operation.
Plaintiffs have asserted claims for declaratory judgment and deprivation of their Fifth Amendment Rights under the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. While this cause was filed as a probable class action, no putative class has yet been certified given the early and unexpected dismissal of Plaintiffs' case by the court below.
In the present appeal, Appellants contend, that: (i) the shareholders of the winding-up CMKM corporation have a constitutionally protected property interest; and (ii) a meritorious and compensable claim for relief was properly plead and stated by Plaintiffs in their Complaint.
Appellants' opening brief was originally due to be filed by July 11, 2011. Appellants previously obtained from this Court, orally by telephone and received from the Clerk, upon a showing of good cause, a fourteen (14) day extension of the time to file Appellants' opening brief, pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 31 -2.2., to July 25, 2011.
In this current motion before the Court, Appellants now request an additional time extension of thirty (30) days to file its opening brief, for a number of important, material and relevant reasons, including, without limitation:
(i) Appellants' substantial need;
(ii) The likely event that the instant appeal will soon become moot;
(iii) The judicial economy and administrative convenience of the
Court,
(iv) To avoid the considerable, continuing expense and hardship to
both Appellants and Appellees in continuing to prosecute and defend this
appeal pending the expected, imminent resolution of the underlying claims,
thereby rendering this appeal moot; and
(v) The prior joinder in this Motion by the Appellees/Government
by stipulation and consent hereto.
In support of the above, Appellants attach to this Motion the Affidavit of counsel, A. Clifton Hodges, Esq., incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
3. Notification to counsel for other parties.
By telephone conference on July 20, 2011, counsel for Appellees-Defendants (AUSA, John Nordin) has agreed to join in and otherwise stipulate to this Motion.



CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Appellants, with the consent and stipulation of Appellees, respectfully ask this Court to enter an Order granting Appellants Motion For a thirty (30) day extension of time to file its opening brief and for such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.


Dated: July 21, 2011. Respectfully submitted,

HODGES & ASSOCIATES


I si A. Clifton Hodges A. Clifton Hodges Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants, David Anderson, Lt. Col, et al.,
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

There are no related cases pending in this Court.


CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this Motion has been prepared using proportionately double-spaced 14 point Times New Roman typeface. According to the "Word Court" feature in my Microsoft Word for Windows software, this brief contains 965 words up to and including the signature lines that follow the briefs conclusion.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this Certificate of Compliance is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 21,2011.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on July 21, 2011.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. Dated: July 21, 2011.
HODGES & ASSOCIATES


Isl A. Clifton Hodges A Clifton Hodges 4 East Holly Street, Suite 202 Pasadena, CA91103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
---------

TY Jersey

SECOND FILING

IN THE UNIDED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

David Anderson, Lt. Col; Nelson L. No. 11-55169
Reynolds, Lt. Col; Sheila Morris;
Robert Hollenegg; Reece Hamilton (U.S. District Court No. 8:10-cv-00031-
individually and on behalf of all JVS-MLG)
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs/Appellants,
vs.
Christopher Cox; Mary L. Schapiro; Cynthia A. Glassman; Paul S. Atkins; Roel C. Campos; Annette L. Nazareth; Troy A. Paredes; Luis A. Aguilar; Elisse B. Walter; Kathleen L. Casey,
Defendants-Appellees.



AFFIDAVIT OF A. CLIFTON HODGES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF


On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Central District of California

The Honorable James V. Selna


A. Clifton Hodges, State Bar #046803
Hodges and Associates
4 East Holly Street, Suite 202
Pasadena, California 91103-3900
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants David Anderson, Lt. Col, et al.,
AFFIDAVIT OF A. CLIFTON HODGES

I, A. CLIFTON HODGES, do hereby state and declare:
1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all
the courts of the State of California. I am the principal in the law firm of
Hodges and Associates, counsel of record for Plaintiffs-Appellants
David Anderson, Lt. Col, et al., Case No. 11-55169. I am familiar with
the facts and circumstances respecting the matters herein addressed by
me; and have personal knowledge of the same, unless otherwise
indicated in this Affidavit.
2. I submit this Affidavit in support of Plaintiffs'-Appellants' Motion For Extension of Time To File Opening Brief, of even date herewith, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Appellants' opening brief is currently due on or before July 25, 2011, pursuant to having received a (14) day extension of the time to file its opening brief, pursuant to 9 Cir. R. 31-2.2. In its concurrent motion to this Court, Appellants ask for an additional time extension of thirty (30) days to file its opening brief.
4. Upon information and belief, after careful inquiry and upon such further investigation as I have, in my opinion, deemed necessary and appropriate, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances available to me, I have concluded as follows:
(i) Appellants have good cause and substantial need for this thirty (30) day extension of time, since within just the past hours, I have learned that there is a substantial and serious likelihood that sustained and comprehensive official efforts to settle and conclude this matter are now underway, and the substantive elements thereof would provide to Appellants-Plaintiffs the compensation and relief requested in their Complaint. Given the very recent and unanticipated appearance to me of this information, it would be impossible for Appellants to have exercised a more timely due diligence by moving this Court for an extension of time seven (7) days before July 25, 2011, as contemplated by 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(b).[/b] Likewise, this request for an extension of time to file a brief is an application for procedural relief, and is not therefore a matter contemplated by 9th Cir. R. 27-3 (and Circuit Advisory Committee Note to 27-3(3).
(ii) Accordingly, the information described above, gathered by or
through me, or presented to me by persons within the scope of protected,
professional privilege, and work product confidentiality, my resulting
conclusions, taken to their logical and legal conclusion, strongly indicate and
make it much more likely than not, that the instant appeal will soon become
moot.
(iii) Continuing this case for thirty (30) days, and extending
Appellants' deadline to file its opening brief accordingly, would be well
within the parameters of the stated rules of this Court, and an appropriate
exercise of the Court's discretion inherent in deciding procedural matters
such as this.
(iv) Appellants' motion would likewise serve to lessen the
unnecessary, yet considerable expense and hardship attendant to all parties if
required to continue this appeal even though there is now pending an
expected, imminent settlement of this case; and
(v) Appellant and Appellee are both in accord and have stipulated
and agreed to join in this motion, thereby asking the Court to agree with
the litigants and treat this matter as consensual, routine and appropriate. By
telephone conference late in the afternoon of July 20, 2011, counsel for
Appellees-Defendants (AUSA, John Nordin, Esq.) have agreed to join in
and otherwise stipulate to Appellants' Motion.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 21st day of July, 2011, at Pasadena, California,




/s/ A. Clifton Hodges A. Clifton Hodges
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on July 21,2011.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. Dated: July 21, 2011.
HODGES & ASSOCIATES


/s/ A. Clifton Hodges A Clifton Hodges 4 East Holly Street, Suite 202 Pasadena, CA91103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

[Twist Capper]

Filed July 21st

[sabrevt]

Jul 22, 2011 7:01:00 GMT -6 Twist Capper said:

Filed July 21st

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm more excited than I've been for a long time, but still conditioned to not let myself get too excited till I see the money!
This seems HUGE, what's everybody else's thoughts?

[Twist Capper]

cautiously optimistic

[stockrocker]

Ditto!!!

[oreocookie]

I would call this an unusual form of communication to the shareholders also. Al doesn't need to tell the court anything about "substantial indication" that it'll all be done soon or that the appeal will soon become moot. I think that was put in there for us, IMO!
Thanks Al and everyone else involved. God bless to all and have a great weekend.
Boyscout

[smeagol8]

Assuming this is a "cut and paste" of the actual filing, not someone trying to copy/type it: I have never heard of the "UNIDED STATES COURT OF APPEALS" (twice), and my Microsoft Word does not have a "word court" feature. Typos in an actual filing? Impressive!......not

[kbarry1969]

I was just looking on Pacer at the actual doc and it looks to be a spelling mistake.