Medina et al v. Colonial Penn Franklin Insurance Company

Filing 10

Procedural ORDER: All motions filed before removal of this case are hereby DENIED without prejudice to refiling,( denying 4 Motion to Certify Class, denying 5 Motion for Leave, denying 6 Motion to Consolidate Cases, denying 7 Motion to Consol idate Cases ). Plaintiffs shall forthwith file the currently operative complaint. Any motion to consolidate this case with others shall be filed no later than 04/20/06. Status report due by 04/20/06. Signed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 04/12/06. (rlp, )

Medina et al v. Colonial Penn Franklin Insurance Company

Doc. 10

Case 1:06-cv-00553-LTB

Document 10

Filed 04/12/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, CHIEF JUDGE Civil Case No. 06-cv-00553-LTB-MEH TED MEDINA, SR., and LAVERNE MEDINA, Plaintiffs, v. COLONIAL PENN FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GE AUTO INSURANCE PROGRAM, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ PROCEDURAL ORDER ______________________________________________________________________ This case is a procedural morass. It originated in the Boulder County District Court early in 2003. Plaintiffs Ted Medina, Sr. And Laverne Medina, together with twenty or so other individuals, sued a whole slew of insurance companies, Defendant Colonial Penn Franklin Insurance Company d/b/a GE Auto Insurance Program among them. The twenty or so plaintiffs purported to bring the case as a class action. After what appear to have been desultory proceedings spanning over two-and-onehalf years, most of the defendants, including Colonial, filed motions to sever in September, 2005. After twisting in the wind for over six months, at least some of the plaintiffs, including Medina, stipulated to severance. On February 24, 2006, the Boulder County Distri ct Court granted the stipulated motions, evidently creating myriad separate cases under the umbrella of one case number.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:06-cv-00553-LTB

Document 10

Filed 04/12/2006

Page 2 of 3

Next, on March 24, 2006, Colonial filed its Notice of Removal in this severed case. So, evidently, did a number of other insurance companies. scattered randomly among the judicial officers of this Court. Unfortunately, the transfer of filings from the state system to the federal system has not been seamless. The confusion is exacerbated by the fact that many pleadings bear an abbreviated caption naming the lead plaintiff and lead defendant only. It is not clear whether all of the severed cases have now been removed or whether some remain in state court. While counsel have tried to ameliorate the problem by tendering a CDROM purporting to contain an index, a set of pre-severance pleadings, and a set of postseverance pleadings, the CDROM is cumbersome to use. It remains virtually impossible for the Court and the Clerk' Office to know what matters are pending and what things s have been resolved. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. All motions filed before removal of this case are hereby DENIED without The cases have been

prejudice to re-filing, so that the motions can be filed electronically in this Court' CM/ECF s system and assigned docketing numbers. 2. Plaintiffs shall forthwith file the currently-operative complaint. 3. On or before April 20, 2006, the parties will confer and file a status report

containing, inter alia, (1) a listing of the severed plaintiffs in the state court case whose cases remain pending in state court, (2) a list of severed defendants whose cases remain in state court, and (3) the numbers and captions of the severed cases which have now been removed to federal court. 2

Case 1:06-cv-00553-LTB

Document 10

Filed 04/12/2006

Page 3 of 3

4. Any motion to consolidate this case with others shall be filed no later than April 20, 2006. The time for filing any response shall be as provided in the federal and local rul es. BY THE COURT: s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock, Chief Judge DATED: April 12, 2006

3