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

DENNIS P. RIORDAN, Esq., SBN 69320

dennis@riordan-horgan.com

DONALD M. HORGAN, Esq., SBN 121547

don@riordan-horgan.com

MATTHEW C. DIRKES

matthewdirkes@gmail.com

RIORDAN & HORGAN

523 Octavia Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 431-3472

Facsimile: (415) 552-2703

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant

CHANDRAKANT SHAH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In Re:

SAN JOSE AIRPORT HOTEL, LLC, dba

HOLIDAY INN SAN JOSE; 

MOBEDSHAHI HOTEL GROUP,

 Debtors.

_______________________________________

MOHAMED POONJA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CHANDRAKANT SHAH, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 17-cv-00858 EJD

MOTION FOR FOUR-DAY

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

(Appeal from Poonja v. Sevak & Sons,

L.P. et al. (In re San Jose Airport

Hotel, LLC), Bankr. N.D. Cal. (San

Jose) Case No. 09-51045 SLJ Ch. 7,

Adv. No. 11-05236)

Defendant-appellant Chandrakant Shah, through his counsel, hereby moves the Court for

a four-day extension of time, from July 31, 2017, to and including August 4, 2017, to file his

reply brief in this matter.

In support of this motion, Dennis P. Riordan declares under penalty of perjury as

1
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

follows:

1. I am counsel for Mr. Shah in this appeal.

2. This appeal challenges the Bankruptcy Court's order awarding appellee more than $11

million in damages.

3. Appellant’s opening brief was originally due on April 3, 2017. With the consent of

counsel for appellee, appellant moved for a 30-day extension of time to file his brief, to and

including May 3, 2017. Doc. No. 8. The Court granted appellant’s motion. Doc. No. 9.

Appellant filed his opening brief on May 3, 2017. Doc. No. 11. Appellee then moved for a 30-

day extension of time to file his responsive brief, with the consent of undersigned counsel. Doc.

No. 12. The Court granted the motion and appellee filed his responsive brief on July 3, 2017.

4. Per Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8018, appellant’s reply brief was due 14

days after appellee’s responsive brief, which was July 17, 2017.

5. Appellant previously sought an unopposed 14-day extension of time to file his reply

brief, Dkt. 15, which the Court granted, making the reply brief due July 31, 2017. Dkt. 16.

6. Appellant now seeks an additional extension of time of four days to file his reply

brief. This motion is founded on the extraordinary press of business in our office. In addition to

the items listed in our first motion for an extension (see Dkt. 15), we have, in the last two weeks,

been required to: file a sentencing memorandum in connection with a federal bid-rigging case,

United States v. Roemer, 15CR00228 (N.D. Cal.); prepare for and attend Mr. Roemer’s

sentencing hearing; prepare for and argue a case, People v. Jo, C079280, in the Third District of

the California Court of Appeal; prepare for and attend a discovery hearing in connection with an

upcoming evidentiary hearing on our motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 challenging our

client’s federal district court convictions for offering material support to terrorists and making

false statements, United States v. Hayat, E.D. Cal. No. CR S-05-0240 GEB DB; and prepare for

and argue various pretrial motions in connection with our client’s upcoming trial for conspiracy

to commit wire and securities fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, and false statements, United

States v. Baker, Fifth Cir. No. 14-51012 (W.D. Texas Criminal No. 1:13-CR- 346-SS).

7. My office contacted James A. Hennefer, counsel for appellee, this morning and, as of

2
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

the time we filed this motion, had not heard back from him.

8. We have exercised diligence in this matter and will file the reply brief on the

requested date should the present motion be granted.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the Court grant us a four-day

extension of time, to and including August 4, 2017, to file appellant’s reply brief.

Executed this 28th day of July, 2017, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ Dennis P. Riordan 

 Dennis P. Riordan

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

CHANDRAKANT SHAH

3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In Re:

SAN JOSE AIRPORT HOTEL, LLC, dba

HOLIDAY INN SAN JOSE; 

MOBEDSHAHI HOTEL GROUP,

 Debtors.

_______________________________________

MOHAMED POONJA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CHANDRAKANT SHAH, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 17-cv-00858 EJD

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR

FOUR- DAY EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE HIS REPLY BRIEF

(Appeal from Poonja v. Sevak & Sons,

L.P. et al. (In re San Jose Airport

Hotel, LLC), Bankr. N.D. Cal. (San

Jose) Case No. 09-51045 SLJ Ch. 7,

Adv. No. 11-05236)

On unopposed motion of appellant and good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby

ordered that appellant be permitted to file his reply brief on or before August 4, 2017.

Dated: _______________________ ____________________________________

HONORABLE EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Court Judge 

7/31/2017