Archer et al v. Darling et al

Filing 368

MINUTE ORDER granting 363 Defendant Dana Lynn Rock's Request to File Motion for Summary Judgment Out of Time. The Clerk of Court is directed to file 363 -1 Defendant Dana Lynn Rock's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs may file their response on or before 5/31/2011. Defendant Rock may file a reply on or before 6/17/2011. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 5/4/11.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 09–cv–01988–PAB–KMT
RYAN ARCHER,
HEATHER ARCHER,
DR. CRAIG CHAN,
HERB GULLINGSRUD,
CAROL GULLINGSRUD,
DAVID HANNA,
COLLEEN HANNA,
DANIEL HOGAN,
DIANE HOGAN,
ROBERT MIHALIK,
PATRICIA MIHALIK,
SUSAN KILLMAN
LARRY NELSON,
ANNETTE NELSON,
LARRY SCOTT,
LYNN SCOTT,
WILLIAM SHANAHAN,
LISE SHANAHAN,
DONNA WOLOSIN, and
JAMES WOLOSIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WALLACE DARLING,
DANA LYNN ROCK,
SCOTT McDOWELL,
LAKEWOOD HILLS INVESTMENTS, LLC,
UNIVERSAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS CORPORATION,
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.,
QUADSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a/k/a NEW COLORADO MORTGAGE, LLC, and
DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
This matter is before the court on “Defendant Dana Lynn Rock’s Request to File Motion for
Summary Judgment Out of Time” (Doc. No. 363, filed April 26, 2011). Upon a review of the
Motion and the Response filed by Plaintiffs on May 3, 2011, the court finds good cause for
allowing Defendant Rock to file her Motion for Summary Judgment out of time. The court notes
at the that because Defendant Rock appears pro se, the court “review[s] [her] pleadings and other
papers liberally and hold[s] them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”
Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). See also
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (holding allegations of a pro se complaint “to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”). Defendant Rock appeared in
court for the Final Pretrial Conference held on April 21, 2011, and this appeared to be the first
time that Defendant Rock actually understood that she, too, had the right to file a summary
judgment motion on her own behalf after she asked several questions of the court. Up until that
time, it appeared that she did not understand the purpose of summary judgment. She has been
diligent in complying with court orders up until this time. There appears to be little prejudice to
the plaintiffs, as Defendant Rock has represented that the legal issues have already been briefed
by the plaintiffs in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant McDowell
and will simply require application of the same legal principals to the factual context of the case
against Defendant Rock. Moreover, the court notes that the trial is not set to commence until
November 2011, and there are two other pending motions for summary judgment pending before
District Judge Brimmer that will have to be decided prior to that date. Accordingly, the motion
is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file “Defendant Dana Lynn Rock’s Motion for
Summary Judgment” (Doc No. 363-1). Plaintiffs may file their response on or before May 31,
2011. Defendant Rock may file a reply on or before June 17, 2011.
Dated: May 4, 2011

2