IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
RYAN MONTOY, et al.,
THE STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,
ORDER DENYING STATE OF KANSAS'
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO COURT'S ORDER OF JUNE 3, 2005
Per Curiam. On June 30, 2005, at 4:26 p.m., the State of Kansas filed in the above-captioned appeal a "Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Court's Order of June 3, 2005."
The Certificate of Service appearing at the end of the State's Motion for time indicates that a copy of the Motion was served on opposing counsel by United States mail on June 30, 2005. Under our Rules, service is the responsibility of the movant. Pursuant to Rule 5.01, other parties to litigation before us have the right to respond to such a motion within 5 days after service by the movant. In addition, under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-206 and our Rule 1.05, such parties who are served by mail, as in this present situation, are entitled to an additional 3 days to file a response to such a motion. Thus, any other party to this litigation would be entitled to respond to the State's Motion for time by close of business July 8, 2005, before we ordinarily would act on the motion. The filing of a Motion for time on June 30, 2005, with service by mail, could have the practical effect of delaying our resolution of the Motion by 8 days, which in the ordinary course of Court business would not be unreasonable. With regard to the present litigation, however, such a delay would inappropriately extend the deadline set in our June 3, 2005, Supplemental Opinion in the above-captioned appeal. Therefore, in light of the special circumstances of this case, we asked for immediate response to the State's Motion and we received Plaintiffs' response by facsimile filing at 11:08 a.m. this date, July 1, 2005.
The State's Motion for additional time correctly notes the Legislature was given until July 1, 2005, to make a legislative response to our June 3, 2005, Order in this case. In part, and as relevant to the appropriate disposition of the State's Motion for time, we specifically ruled that no later than July 1, 2005, for the 2005-06 school year, the Legislature shall implement a minimum increase of $285 million above the funding level for the 2004-05 school year, which includes the $142 million presently contemplated in H.B. 2247.
Now, at this late moment relative to the July 1, 2005, deadline established by our June 3, 2005, Supplemental Opinion, the State seeks to permit the Legislature to continue working "until the end of the current Special Session within which to pass legislation in response to this Court's Order of June 3, 2005." The State's request for additional time "until the end of the current Special Session" is a request for an indefinite and indeterminable period of time within which to meet the clearly defined school funding level required by our June 3, 2005, ruling. Granting such additional time to whenever the Special Session might end would not be reasonable in light of the many years comprising the lengthy history of this litigation and the command of the Constitution of the State of Kansas that the legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the State. Unbounded delay in this case is unacceptable.
The Court finds no merit in granting the State's Motion for Time. In light of the foregoing, the Court has determined it would be unreasonable to grant the State's June 30, 2005, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Court's Order of June 3, 2005. The State's Motion, therefore, must be and it is hereby denied. In addition, as time is now of the essence and delay is no longer suitable, no further requests for additional time shall be considered.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT, this 1st day of July, 2005.