Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03201/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03201-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alliant Tax Credit Fund V Limited Partnership
Defendant
Alliant Tax Credit V, Inc.
Defendant
Canal Properties, LLC
Plaintiff
Andrew Wiecks
Miscellaneous

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a California

Limited Liability Company

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLIANT TAX CREDIT V, INC., a Florida

Corporation, ALLIANT TAX CREDIT FUND V

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Massachusetts,

DOES 1-50 inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03201 SI

ORDER DENYING 60 DAY EXTENSION

OF TIME AND ADJUSTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

On June 28, 2005, this Court stayed this action (“Canal II”), pending resolution of the appeal

in the related action, Canal Properties, LLC v. Alliant Tax Credit V, Inc., et al., No. C 02-1871 SI

(“Canal I”). Defendants’ then-pending motion for judgment on the pleadings in Canal II was denied

without prejudice to renewal after decision on the appeal of Canal I.

On March 13, 2006, while the appeal was still pending, the Court granted the motion filed by

plaintiff’s then counsel, Meis & Alexander, for an order permitting their withdrawal as counsel. The

order allowing withdrawal was effective on April 12, 2006, or when new counsel substituted in for

Canal, whichever date was earlier. No new counsel was substituted, although the order specifically

advised Mr. Andrew Wiecks, managing partner of Canal, that Canal could not appear in this Court

without counsel and that, if Canal did not retain new counsel, Canal would be unable to oppose any

motions. 

Approximately a year later, the appeal in Canal I was completed. Hence, on March 14, 2007,

this Court ordered a briefing schedule for defendants’ renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Case 3:04-cv-03201-SI Document 48 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

As the docket did not reflect the appearance of new counsel for Canal in this action, Mr. Wiecks was

again reminded that Canal cannot appear in this court without counsel.

According to the March 14, 2007 order, Canal’s response to the renewed motion for judgment

on the pleadings was due April 13, 2007. It was not filed. Instead, on April 12, 2007, Mr. Wiecks sent

a letter to the Court, received on April 16, 2007, stating that “Canal Properties LLC would like to

request an extension of time to seek counsel” and requesting a 60 day extension. No explanation was

offered for the one-year plus delay in seeking counsel, nor were any efforts to find counsel alluded to.

This pattern of delay has been characteristic of these duplicative cases since their outset. Canal

has not even attempted to demonstrate good cause for the delay it now seeks, and defendants vigorously

argue that it should be denied.

Accordingly, Canal’s requested sixty day extension is DENIED. In light of the request,

however, the Court ADJUSTS the briefing schedule for the motion for judgment on the pleadings as

follows: Canal’s opposition papers may be filed, through counsel, on or before May 4, 2007;

defendants’ reply, if any, may be filed on or before May 11, 2007; and the hearing remains

scheduled for Friday, May 18, 20007 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2007 ________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03201-SI Document 48 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 2