Andrews et al v. Layman et al
Minute ORDER striking 85 MOTION for Leave for Motion for Summary Judgment Local Rule 7.1A, by Plaintiffs. Denying 87 MOTION to Stay re 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment and for an Order to Bar Plaintiffs from Filing Additional Motions Pending a Ruling on the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to Dismiss the Complaint by Defendant by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 12/18/09.(kmtcd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 09cv00249PABKMT ANDREA P. ANDREWS and BYRON K. ANDREWS, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA Plaintiffs' "Motion for Leave for Motion for Summary Judgment" and "Motion for Summary Judgment" (Doc. No. 85, filed December 8, 2009) is STRICKEN for Plaintiffs' failure to follow Judge Philip A. Brimmer's Civil Practice Standards related to motions for summary judgment. "Defendant's Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and for an Order to Bar Plaintiffs from Filing Additional Motions Pending a Ruling on the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to Dismiss the Complaint" (Doc. No. 87, filed December 16, 2009) is DENIED. The Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is moot. The court will not bar plaintiffs from filing additional motions. However, Defendant is not required to file a response to any further motions filed by Plaintiffs unless ordered to do so by the court. Dated: December 18, 2009
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?