THE MCDANIEL MLAW FIRM, PC 

WWW.MCDLAWPC.COM

54 MAIN STREET

HACKENSACK, NJ 07601

(201) 845‐3232

(201) 845‐3777 FAX

EMPIRE STATE BUILDING

350 FIFTH AVENUE, 59TH FLOOR

NEW YORK, NY 10118

(212) 514‐8080

(212) 514‐8282 FAX

September 15, 2010 

VIA ECF

Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J. 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey 

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Room 6W 

402 East State Street 

Trenton, New Jersey 08608 

 Re: BMW of North America, LLC, et al. v. Onyx Enterprises Int’l Corp., et al. 

 Civil Action No. 10-4016 (MLC) DEA) 

Dear Judge Arpert: 

 

 This is in response to the Letter of September 13, 2010 (docket entry 10) and the Letter of 

September 14, 2010 (docket entry 11) from Plaintiffs BMW of North America, LLC and 

Bayerische Moteren Werke AG (collectively “Plaintiffs”). 

 This firm represents Defendants Onyx Enterprises International Corp., Roman 

Gerashenko, and Stanislav Royzenshteyn (collectively, “Defendants”), which have, pursuant to 

Clerk’s Order, until September 23, 2010 to answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint (see unnumbered docket 

entry dated September 7, 2010) (“the September 7, 2010 Clerk’s Order”). This is due to 

Defendants making an Application for an Extension of Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise 

Reply (L.Civ.R.6.1(B)) (docket entry 9) (“the 6.1B Application”). The 6.1B application is 

partially in error, and service was, in fact, effected on Defendant Onyx Enterprises Int’l Corp. on 

August 12, 2010, on Stanislav Royzenshteyn on August 13, 2010, and then on Defendant Roman 

Gerashenko on August 18, 2010. Defendants apologize for any misunderstanding. 

 Plaintiffs have requested the September 7, 2010 Clerk’s Order be rescinded and the time 

to answer for Defendants be advanced, until September 16, 2010 for Onyx Enterprises 

International Corp., and until September 17, 2010 for Stanislav Royzenshteyn. No mention is 

made of the time for Roman Gerashenko to answer and, thus, presumably, Plaintiffs do not 

challenge the September 23, 2010 deadline with regard to him. Therefore, if literally construed, 

Defendants request three answers to the Complaint (see Docket Entry 1), one for each of the 

Defendants, instead of one for all represented parties, as is typical. This disserves the interests of 

and imposes a burden on Defendants, whereas no burden will result to Plaintiffs merely by 

waiting until September 23, 2010. 

JAY R. MCDANIEL

JRMCDANIEL@MCDLAWPC.COM

PLEASE REPLY TO

NEW JERSEY OFFICE

Case 3:10-cv-04016-MLC-DEA Document 12 Filed 09/15/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 53
Hon. Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J. 

September 15, 2010 

Page 2 

 Accordingly, Defendants respectively request that Plaintiffs’ motion be denied, or, in the 

alternate, if this Court finds that the 6.1B Application was untimely made, Plaintiffs urge the 

Court to, in a similar fashion to Achilles Curbison, et al. v. United States Government of New 

Jersey, 2006 Lexis 89004 at *12, consider the 6.1B Application to have been made under second 

sentence of L.Civ.R. 6.1B (stating an application for an extension of time may be “be presented 

to the Court for consideration.” Id.) and let the answer be filed on September 23, 2010, as 

currently stands. 

 

 Respectfully, 

 

 s/ Jay R. McDaniel 

CC: Courtesy copy to Plaintiffs’ Counsel 

 (via ECF and facsimile) 

 

Courtesy copy to Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J. 

(pursuant to CM/ECF Special Procedures for the U.S. District Court for the District of 

New Jersey) (via U.S. Mail) 

Case 3:10-cv-04016-MLC-DEA Document 12 Filed 09/15/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 54