UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,         
     Plaintiff,

                  vs.                  CASE NO. 96-183-Civ-J-20

THE RAINBOW FAMILY, etc., et al.,
     Defendants.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
     Plaintiff,

                  vs.                  CASE NO. 96-183-Civ-J-20

THE RAINBOW FAMILY, etc., et al.,
     Defendants.

Plaintiff, United States of America, by undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 4.04(b), hereby moves for an extension of time to move for certification of the defendant class in the above-captioned matter.

In support of this motion, the plaintiff states as follows:

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 4.04, the deadline for plaintiff to move for a determination under Rule 23(c) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to whether the case will be maintained as a class action is May 16, 1996.

2. As set forth below, due to unique difficulties associated with serving the named defendants in this case, service of process has not been completed. Moreover, plaintiff has still not received an adequate response to the complaint from those defendants who have been served.

3. Although several of the named defendants were served at the February 1996 Rainbow Family gathering in the Osceola National Forest ("the gathering"), most of the named defendants have since dispersed across the United States. Accordingly, since the gathering ended in February, the U.S. Marshal's Service has attempted to locate and serve the remaining named defendants in several states around the country. This process is ongoing. Because many members of the Rainbow Family, including several of the named defendants, use aliases in lieu of proper names, there are additional practical difficulties associated with identifying and serving some of the named defendants in this case.

4. Although the Court denied the request of defendant "Wakeem" for an extension of time to respond to the complaint (See Order filed May 10, 1996, hereinafter "Order"), the Court has ordered "Wakeem" to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by May 20, 1996. To date, plaintiff has not received a response from this defendant.

5. The Court has construed the untitled pleading of Glen Baxter, dated March 14, 1996, as a request for an extension of time to respond, and has denied that request (See Order). Because Mr.Baxter is not a named defendant in this case and the Court has not granted Mr. Baxter intervenor status pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P. Rule 24(a), plaintiff has not responded to Mr. Baxter's pleading entitled "Motion for Dismissal of Civil Action No. 96-183 In Lieu of Answer."

6. Far the foregoing reasons, plaintiff requests that the deadline for moving for class certification under Fed. Civ. Pro. Rule 23(c)(l) be extended by sixty (60) days, or until July 16, 1996.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to extend the deadline under Local Rule 4.04(b) to move for certification of the defendant class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(9)(1) up to and including July 16, 1996.

Respectfully submitted,

FRANK W. HUNGER
Assistant Attorney General

CHARLES R. WILSON
United States Attorney

REGINALD LUSTER
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0750069
200 West Forsyth Street
Room 700
Jacksonville, FL 32201

THOMAS W. MILLET
ANJALI A. ASHLEY
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
901 E Street, N.W., Room 101
(202) 514-3368

Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:
Leslie Lagomarcino
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th & Independence Ave., S.W.
Room 2047Washington, D.C. 20250-1400

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For an Extension of Time to Move for Certification of the Defendant Class was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, this day of May, 1996, to the following:

All Defendants of Record

(signed)________________
REGINALD LUSTER

[Docket#81]