Thacker v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

Filing 10

Procedural ORDER: All motions filed before removal of this case are hereby DENIED without prejudice to refiling {5 Motion to Stay, and 6 Motion to Consolidate Cases denied}, Plaintiffs shall forthwith file the currently operative complaint. Any motion to consolidate this case with others shall be filed no later than April 20, 2006. Status report due 04/20/06. Signed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 04/12/06. (rlp, )

Download PDF
Thacker v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al Doc. 10 Case 1:06-cv-00558-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-00558-LTB-CBS ROBERT THACKER, Plaintiff, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ PROCEDURAL ORDER ______________________________________________________________________ This case is a procedural morass. It originated in the Boulder County District Court early in 2003. Plaintiff Robert Thacker, together with twenty or so other individuals, sued a whole slew of insurance companies, Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange and MidCentury Insurance Company 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 Farmers, filed motions to sever in September, 2005. After twisting in the wind for over six months, at least some of the plaintiffs, including Thacker, stipulated to severance. On February 24, 2006, the Boulder County District Court granted the stipulated motions, evidently creating myriad separate cases under the umbrella of one case number. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00558-LTB Document 10 Filed 04/12/2006 Page 2 of 3 Next, on March 24, 2006, Farmers 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-00558-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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?