Strich v. Salazar et al

Filing 64

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 62 Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs counsel may re-file the Motion with a certification of conferral including all Defendants positions on the Motion. by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/29/2009.(klmcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-01913-REB-KLM RONALD STRICH, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CARL SCHAEFER, individually and in his official capacity as a Lake County Colorado Commissioner, MICHAEL BORDOGNA, individually and in his official capacity as a Lake County Colorado Commissioner, KENNETH OLSEN, individually and in his official capacity as a Lake County Colorado Commissioner, MICHAEL HICKMAN, individually and in his official capacity as a former Lake County Colorado Commissioner, and ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PERSONS WHO CLAIM AN INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 62; Filed December 24, 2009] (the "Motion"). Plaintiff included in his motion a certification of conferral, as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. According to this certification, Plaintiff's counsel conferred with counsel for the individual defendants who are members of the Board of Commissioners of Lake County, Colorado and those defendants do not object. Plaintiff makes no mention of conferring with counsel for the United States Defendants. Presumably, this omission is due to the fact that the amendments proposed primarily concern the Lake County Board of Commissioners and not the United States. However, Plaintiff's counsel did not comply with the rule fully and the Court will not grant the motion based on an assumption that the unmentioned co-Defendants do not object. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff's counsel may re-file the Motion with a certification of conferral including all Defendants'

positions on the Motion. Dated: December 29, 2009