IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No (KJC) Jointly Administered ICAHN AGENCY SERVICES LLC, ICAHN PARTNERS LP, ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND LP, ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND II LP, ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND III LP, TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT INC., AND NEW TROPICANA HOLDINGS, INC., v. Plaintiffs, Adv. Proc. No (KJC) Re: Docket No. 32 TROPICANA LAS VEGAS, INC. and HOTEL RAMADA OF NEVADA, LLC. Defendants. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL RULES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND ABSTAINING ADJUDICATION FROM ANY PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT NOT DISMISSED The plaintiffs in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (collectively, the Plaintiffs ), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this motion (the Motion ) requesting leave to exceed the forty-page limitation imposed by Rule (a)(iv) of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the Local Rules ) with respect to the Plaintiffs Objection to Tropicana Las Vegas, Inc. and Hotel Ramada of {BAY: v1}

2 Nevada, LLC s (collectively, the Defendants ) Motion for an Order Dismissing the Complaint and Abstaining Adjudication From Any Portion of the Complaint Not Dismissed. (D.I. 32) (the Objection ). In support of the Motion, the Plaintiffs respectfully represent as follows: BACKGROUND 1. On August 10, 2010, the Plaintiffs commenced this adversary proceeding by filing the Complaint (D.I. 1) against the Defendants. 2. On September 8, 2010, the Defendants filed their Motion for an Order (A) Dismissing Complaint; and (B) Abstaining From Adjudication of any Portion of the Complaint Not Dismissed (D.I. 9) (the Motion to Dismiss ). 3. Contemporaneous to the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants also filed the Motion for Order Granting Leave to Exceed Page Limit Requirements With Respect to the Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 12) (the Motion to Exceed ). The Defendants Motion to Exceed sought permission for their Motion to Dismiss to exceed the page limitation provided in the Local Rules by fifteen pages. 4. The Motion to Exceed was not opposed by the Plaintiffs, and on September 20, 2010, the Court entered an Order (D.I. 20) granting the Defendants leave to file their Motion to Dismiss in excess of the page limitation prescribed by the Local Rules. 5. On October 13, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed the Objection, which is approximately fifty-two pages. {BAY: v1} 2

3 RELIEF REQUESTED 6. The Plaintiffs respectfully request leave of the Court to exceed the fortypage limitation imposed by Local Rule (a)(iv) with respect to their Objection by twelve pages. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED 7. Local Rule (a)(iv) provides that all opening and answering briefs shall not exceed forty pages in length and that no reply shall exceed twenty pages. Del. Bankr. L.R (a)(iv). 8. The Plaintiffs respectfully submit that allowing the Objection to exceed the applicable page limitation is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. As filed, the Motion to Dismiss is fifty-five pages, more than fifteen pages longer than what is typically permitted by the Local Rules. In order for the Plaintiffs to adequately respond to the Motion to Dismiss, it is necessary to exceed the forty-page limitation contained in the Local Rules. The Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this relief is appropriate in that a twelve-page extension is very minimal under the circumstances and that the arguments and analysis contained in the Objection will assist the Court in its consideration of the pending Motion to Dismiss. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order, substantially in the form submitted herewith, granting the Plaintiffs leave and permission to file their Objection in excess of the page limitation contained in the Local Rules. {BAY: v1} 3

4 Dated: October 13, 2010 Wilmington, Delaware BAYARD, P.A. /s/ Justin R. Alberto Charlene D. Davis (No. 2336) Justin R. Alberto (No. 5126) 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, Delaware Telephone: (302) Facsimile: (302) and SNR DENTON US LLP Peter D. Wolfson (admitted pro hac vice) David R. Baum (admitted pro hac vice) Jo Christine Reed Ben Delfin 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Icahn Agency Services LLC, Icahn Partners LP, Icahn Partners Master Fund LP, Icahn Partners Master Fund II LP and Icahn Partners Master Fund III LP RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. /s/ Lee E. Kaufman Daniel J. DeFranceschi (No. 2732) Lee E. Kaufman (No. 4877) One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware Telephone: (302) Facsimile: (302) and {BAY: v1} 4

5 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP James H. Shalek (admitted pro hac vice) Scott K. Rutsky (pro hac vice forthcoming) Richard J. Corbi (pro hac vice forthcoming) 1585 Broadway New York, New York Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tropicana Entertainment Inc and New Tropicana Holdings, Inc. {BAY: v1} 5

6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No (KJC) Jointly Administered ICAHN AGENCY SERVICES LLC, ICAHN PARTNERS LP, ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND LP, ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND II LP, ICAHN PARTNERS MASTER FUND III LP, TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT INC., AND NEW TROPICANA HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs, Adv. Proc. No (KJC) Re: Docket No. TROPICANA LAS VEGAS, INC. and HOTEL RAMADA OF NEVADA, LLC. v. Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL RULES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND ABSTAINING ADJUDICATION FROM ANY PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT NOT DISMISSED Upon the motion (the Motion ) 1 of the Plaintiffs for leave to exceed the fortypage limitation imposed by Rule (a)(iv) of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware with respect to their Objection to Defendants Motion For an Order Dismissing the Complaint and Abstaining Adjudication From Any Portion of the Complaint Not Dismissed (D.I. 1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Motion. {BAY: v1}

7 32) (the Objection ); and it being found that this Court has jurisdiction; and that proper notice of the Motion having been provided; and upon due deliberation, and sufficient cause appearing therefore, it is hereby; ORDERED that the Motion is granted; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs are authorized to exceed the page limitation for answering briefs set forth in Del. Bankr. L.R (a)(iv) with respect to their Objection by twelve pages. Dated: October, 2010 The Honorable Kevin J. Carey Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge {BAY: v1} 2