Hart v. Boeing Company, Inc., The

Filing 105

ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Order and Request for Motion to Amend If Necessary 99 , filed 07/02/2010, is DENIED AS MOOT. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 08/20/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 09-cv-00397-REB-MEH (Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 09-cv-00398-REB-MEH, 09-cv-00399-REB-MEH, 09-cv-00400-REB-MEH, 09-cv-1064-REB-MEH, 09-cv-1065-REB-MEH, 09-cv-01066REB-MEH, 09-cv-01067-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02208-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02209-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02210-REB-MEH, 09-cv-02412-REB-MEH, 10-cv-00400-REB-MEH, and 10-cv00552-REB-MEH) JULIE HART, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER AND REQUEST FOR MOTION TO AMEND IF NECESSARY Blackburn, J. The matter before me is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Order and Request for Motion to Amend If Necessary [#99],1 filed July 2, 2010. All the relief requested by the motion is premised on the contingency that the Tenth Circuit would accept defendant's motion for interlocutory appeal and potentially grant the relief requested thereby. Given that the Tenth Circuit has denied defendant's petition seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory order of this court (see Order [#104-1], filed August 17, 2010), plaintiffs' motion appears to be moot.

"[#99]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

1

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Order and Request for Motion to Amend If Necessary [#99], filed July 2, 2010, is DENIED AS MOOT. Dated August 20, 2010, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

2