USA v. CEMEX, Inc.

Filing 59

WITHDRAWN - RECOMMENDATION the 55 Renewed Joint MOTION to Modify the Scheduling Order be granted. The Court recommends that the District Court grant the Motion and permit this Court to enter the Amended Scheduling Order attached to this Recommenda tion. The proposed scheduling adjustments surpass the date set for a Final Pretrial Conference before the District Court, which is why this Court recommends that the District Court adopt the proposed deadlines and reset the Final Pretrial Conference as it sees fit, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 08/13/09. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment - Scheduling Order)(wjc, ) Modified on 8/19/2009 to add text Withdrawn pursuant to Minute Order dated 08/17/2009 (wjc, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-00019-MSK-MEH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CEMEX, INC., Defendant. RECOMMENDATION Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is the Renewed Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order [filed August 4, 2009; docket #55]. The Motion is referred to this Court for disposition. (Docket #58.) For the following reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS the Joint Motion be GRANTED.1 The government instigated this case on January 6, 2009. The parties moved for bifurcation of the issues in this matter, and the District Court granted in part and denied in part their request on May 20, 2009. (Docket #32.) The parties now ask the Court to reset the deadlines to accommodate

Be advised that all parties shall have ten (10) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within ten (10) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); Niehaus v. Kansas Bar Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1986).
1

the unified issues of liability and remedy, including mitigation, harm, and penalty. (See docket #55 at 1.) Due to the complexity of the issues raised, the Court believes a schedule providing for trial within approximately two years of filing the action (which the parties' proposed schedule will do) is appropriate and fairly common within this District. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the District Court grant the Motion and permit this Court to enter the Amended Scheduling Order attached to this Recommendation. The proposed scheduling adjustments surpass the date set for a Final Pretrial Conference before the District Court, which is why this Court recommends that the District Court adopt the proposed deadlines and reset the Final Pretrial Conference as it sees fit. Dated in Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of August, 2009. BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge

2