MITUL R.

PATEL
Plaintiff
v.
MATHEW CHAN
Defendant

*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

IN THE
MARYLAND CIRCUIT COURT
OF BALTMORE CITY
Case #: 24-C-16-003573

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO MITUL R.

PATEL'S MOTION TO INTERVENE & MOTION TO STRIKE

COMES NOW, Defendant Matthew Chan (referred as Mathew Chan in the above
caption) hereby requests a 15-day time extension from October 10, 2016 in order to file his
response to Mitul R. Patel's MOTION TO INTERVENE, MOTION TO STRIKE JUDGMENT
and ANSWER TO DEFENDANT MATHEW CHAN'S MOTION TO VACATE CONSENT
JUDGMENT/ORDER filed on September 21, 2016 (herein referred as "Mr. Patel's Motion") to
October 24, 2016. Defendant shows this Honorable Court the following:
1.
Defendant submits the attached Affidavit of Matthew Chan in Support of Motion for
Extension of Time as relevant facts to his request for a 15-day time extension in this very
unusual case with special circumstances described in the previously filed DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO VACATE CONSENT JUDGMENT/ORDER.

2.

Maryland Rule 2-31 1 states that responses to motions must be filed within 15 days.
Maryland Rule 1-203 allows for tlree (3) days additional time for service by mail. In total,
Defendant has good faith beliefthat his normal deadline to file a response would be Monday,
October 10, 2016 (allowing for the fact that 15 calendar days from September 2l,2016 aclu:e.lly

falls on Sunday, October 9,2016)to file a response to Mr. Patel's Motion.

3.

Defendant primarily resides in Georgia well over 700 miles from the court and must

utilize U.S. Postal Service first-class mail service for all delivery ofpleadings. The delivery

of

Mr. Patel's motion took six days to deliver to Defendant. I was unable to get the motion until
September 27, 2016

Nd could not

read

it until September 28,2016.

4.

I therefore ask the Court to extend my time to respond to the motion to October 24,2016.

WHEREFORE, Defendant seeks a 15-day extension from October 10,2016 in order to

file his response to Mr. Patel's Motion to october 24,2016. A proposed order has been attached.
This 3rd day ofOctober.2016.
Respectfu

lly submitted,

MaTth-ew Chan, PRO SE

CoLUMBUS, GA 31917

Phone: (762) 359-0425

Email: matt30060@gmail.com

-2-

CERTIFICATE

OF'

SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 3rd day of October, 2016 mailed a copy of the
foregoing Motion for Time Extension & Proposed Order via First Class postage prepaid to the
following:
James G. Maggio & Steven D. Shemenski
802 Ingleside Ave.

Catonsville, MD 21228

Matthew Chan, PRO SE

-3-

MITUL R. PATEL
Plaintiff,
v.
MATHEW CHAN
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

IN THE
MARYLAND CIRCUIT COURT
OF BALTMORE CITY
Case #: 24-C-16-003573

AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHEW CHAN

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF MUSCOGEE
I declare the following is true and correct under penalty of perjury.
1. My name is Matthew Chan. I am over the age of twenty-one (21) years old, suffer from
no legal or mental disabilities, and am fully competent to make this Affidavit.
2. I am self-employed, a non-lawyer, and represent myself in this case. I previously
submitted an Affidavit included with my MOTION TO VACATE CONSENT
JUDGMENT/ORDER filed on September 2, 1016, entered on September 7, 2016.
3. On September 22, 2016, I became aware (through the Maryland online court docket) that
Mitul R. Patel, through his lawyers, filed on September 21, 2016, a MOTION TO
INTERVENE, MOTION TO STRIKE JUDGMENT, and ANSWER TO DEFENDANT
MATTHEW CHAN'S MOTION TO VACATE CONSENT JUDGMENT/ORDER
(herein referred to as "Mr. Patel's Motion"). The motion was entered on the docket on
September 22, 2016.

4. I anticipated receiving the document by Saturday, September 24, 2016 but I did not
receive it until Tuesday, September 27, 2016. The Certificate of Service from that motion
states that Mr. Patel's Motion was "mailed, first class postage prepaid" on September 21,
2016 but it took six (6) calendar days for it to arrive at my designated contact address:
P.O. Box 6865, Columbus, Georgia.
5. On the afternoon of September 26, 2016, when I had still not received the motion, I
called Mr. Patel's lawyer, Mr. James Maggio, and inquired about the mail delivery time.
Out of my concern for the unusually long mail delivery time, I asked Mr. Maggio if he
could email his client's motion to me. However, Mr. Maggio informed me he did not
have an assistant or secretary. He was also not at a location he could transmit it to me. He
stated that it would probably arrive within the next two days. Ultimately, Mr. Maggio
was correct and it did arrive the following day.
6. However, on that same afternoon and into the evening of September 27, 2016, I had to
pack up and drive from Columbus to North Atlanta. I previously postponed my travel
plans twice waiting for Mr. Patel's documents to finally arrive. I was unable to sit, read,
and fully digest Mr. Patel's motion until September 28, 2016, a full seven days after his
motion was filed due to the unusually long mail delivery time.
7. Because Mr. Patel of the unusually long six-day delivery time of Mr. Patel's motion; my
travel on September 27, 2016; and because there may be unforeseeable mail delivery
time beyond my control in filing my response, I request this Honorable Court to grant my
request for a 15-day time extension to file my response to Mr. Patel's motion. That would
require me to file my response by October 24, 2016.

8.

I did try to obtain Mr. Patel's consent to the extension of time. I called Mr. Patel's lawyer,
Mr. Maggio on the moming of October 3, 2016 and asked whether he would consent to
the extension oftime. He advised me that he did not have authority to grant the extension

without first speaking with his client. As of3:30pm of October 3,2016,I had not heard
back from him and I did not want to delay the filing of this motion any longer.

WHEREFORE, I request and seek a l5-day extension from October 10, 2016 in order to file
my rcsponse to Mr. Patel's motion to October 24, 2016.
This 3rd day ofOctober.2016.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this ]31! day of Qglg!jI-2!,16,.

MITUL R. PATEL
Plaintiff
v.
MATHEW CHAN
Defendant

*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

IN THE
MARYLAND CIRCUIT COURT
OF BALTMORE CITY
Case #: 24-C-16-003573

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Defendant having requested an Extension of Time in which to file his response to Mitul
R. Patel's MOTION TO INTERVENE, MOTION TO STRIKE JUDGMENT and ANSWER TO
DEFENDANT MATHEW CHAN'S MOTION TO VACATE CONSENT JUDGMENT/ORDER
filed on September 21, 2016 and entered on September 22, 2016, and for good cause shown, the
time in which the Defendant may file his response is hereby extended through October 24, 2016.
So Ordered this ______ day of ________________ (month) 2016.
______________________________
JUDGE
Circuit Court of Baltimore City
CLERK:
Please mail copies of this Order to:
Matthew Chan
P.O. Box 6865
Columbus, GA 31917
Pro Se Defendant
James G. Maggio, Esquire
802 Ingleside Ave.
Catonsville, MD 21228
Attorney for Mitul R. Patel
-4-