Volvo Financial Services v. Premiere Equipment Rentals, LLC et al

Filing 77

RECOMMENDATION. The parties appeared on 01/15/2010, for a supplemental Scheduling Conference in light of the substituted Plaintiff, and the Court entered a new Scheduling Order. Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS the Trial Preparation Conference set for 06/25/2010, and the trial date set for 07/19/2010, be vacated and reset as Judge Blackburns calendar permits. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 01/19/2010. (sah, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-00193-REB-MEH VOLVO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT RENTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. PREMIERE EQUIPMENT RENTALS, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, R.J. REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, ERIC RADEWAHN, a/k/a Eric John Radewahn, a/k/a Eric J. Radewahn, an individual, SUSAN RADEWAHN, a/k/a Susan Mary Radewahn, a/k/a Susan M. Radewahn, an individual, ANDREW PIOTROWSKI, a/k/a Andrew James Piotrowski, a/k/a Andrew J. Piotrowski, an individual, and MICHELLE PIOTROWSKI, an individual, Defendants. RECOMMENDATION Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge. On December 4, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion to substitute Volvo Construction Equipment Rents, Inc., as Plaintiff in this matter. (Docket #71.) The parties appeared on January 15, 2010, for a supplemental Scheduling Conference in light of the substituted Plaintiff, and the Court entered a new Scheduling Order. Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS the Trial Preparation Conference set for June 25, 2010, and the trial date set for July 19, 2010, be vacated and reset as Judge Blackburn's calendar permits.1 Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) 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 1 Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of January, 2010. BY THE COURT: Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge 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 fourteen (14) 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). 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?