Pace v. Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District et al

Filing 96

Courtroom Minutes for Motions Hearing held on 5/9/2012 before Judge Richard P. Matsch. ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Reply Brief 91 , is denied. Plaintiff shall clarify his claims by the filing of a third amended c omplaint by May 21, 2012. Defendants shall respond by motion for summary judgment by June 20, 2012. Ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 75 is deferred pending review of plaintiff's third amended complaint. (FTR: K. Terasaki) (rpmcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Date:
May 9, 2012
Courtroom Deputy:
J. Chris Smith
FTR Technician:
Kathy Terasaki
____________________________________________________________________________________
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01081-RPM
RONALD R. PACE,

Trocom E. Williams

Plaintiff,
v.
WOODMEN HILLS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT,
a political subdivision of the State of Colorado,
LARRY BISHOP, and
JANICE L. PIZZI

William T. O’Connell, III

Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________________________
COURTROOM MINUTES
____________________________________________________________________________________
Hearing on Pending Motions
10:59 a.m.

Court in session.

Court’s preliminary remarks.
ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Reply Brief [91], is denied.

Court states its concerns with the case claims as pleaded and its summary of the case facts.
Argument by Mr. O’Connell.
Court states it considers Plaintiff’s First Claim of Malicious Prosecution and Second Claim of
Fabrication of Evidence as pleaded as in the Second Amended Complaint [40] as one claim for
relief.
Argument by Mr. Williams.
Rebuttal argument by Mr. O’Connell.
Defendants’ objection to the filing of a third amended complaint by Mr. O’Connell.
ORDERED:

ORDERED:

11:55 a.m.

Plaintiff shall clarify his claims by the filing of a third amended complaint by May
21, 2012.
Defendants shall respond by motion for summary judgment by June 20, 2012.
Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [75] is deferred pending
review of plaintiff’s third amended complaint.
Court in recess.

Hearing concluded. Total time: 56 min.