Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. Dude et al

Filing 248

ORDER TO COMPLY WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3 re 247 : the plaintiff has to and including May 13, 2013 to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3 and the defendants may file their opposition on or before June 10, 2013, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/17/2013. (rpmcd )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 07-cv-02299-RPM-MJW STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation, Plaintiff, vs. HARALD DUDE, individually and as general partner of DEE INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Nevada limited partnership, DEE INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and Defendants. _________________________________________________________ DEE INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership, Third-party plaintiff vs. STEWART TITLE OF COLORADO, INC., a Colorado corporation; WEAVER & MITCHELL, INC., a Colorado corporation, and DAVID LESTER, Third-party Defendants. ORDER TO COMPLY WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3 Upon receipt of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on March 20, 2013, the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs and expenses (#191) and the plaintiff’s motion for review of taxation of costs (#211) are now before the court. The plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3, which requires a detailed description of the services rendered. The summary of the law firm’s billing -1- records (Ex. 2 to the Affidavit of Laurence W. DeMuth, III) is not sufficient. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff has to and including May 13, 2013 to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3 and the defendants may file their opposition on or before June 10, 2013. Date: April 17, 2013 BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge -2-

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?