Nagim v. Jackson et al
MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall file one consolidated response to Defendants' pending motions on or before 6/10/10. Denying 39 Motion to Strike. Granting 40 Amended Motion to Object, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/24/10.(ebs, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-00328-PAB-KLM RONALD J. NAGIM, Plaintiff, v. BONNIE F. JACKSON, ALICIA PELLERGRIN, STEVEN IRVING, JOSEPH E. ABRAHAM, JR. SANDRA HOYT ABRAHAM, STEPHEN PUGH, BRANDON FREEMAN, JOSEPH E. ABRAHAM, III, Defendants. _______________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time [Docket No. 38; Filed May 13, 2010], Plaintiff's Motions (sic) to Strike Dismissal and Venue of Defendants [Docket No, 39; Filed May 13, 2010], and Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Object to the Dismissal and Venue or Transfer [Docket No. 40; Filed May 14, 2010]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time [#38] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file one consolidated response to Defendants' pending motions [#11, #13, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #24, #25, #35] on or before June 10, 2010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike [#39] is DENIED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the court may strike "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Plaintiff has not identified the material filed by Defendants that should be stricken. Moreover, the Court finds that there is no basis for striking any pleadings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Motion to Object [#40], which the court construes as a motion to file an amended response to Defendants' motions, is GRANTED. Dated: May 24, 2010
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?