Arc of the Pikes Peak Region, The et al v. National Mentor Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 230

MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to a Notice of Settlement Regarding Ward Tino Valencia and Notice of Settlement Regarding Plaintiff Tino Valencia, it has come to the attention of the Court that this matter has been resolved. Denying as moot 188 Motion to Co mpel; denying as moot 200 Motion to Compel; denying as moot. 216 Motion to Stay. The parties shall file a stipulation or motion to dismiss withprejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) on or before October 12, 2011, or a status report addressing why dismissal has not been accomplished. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/14/11.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01144-REB-BNB
THE ARC OF THE PIKES PEAK REGION, as legal guardian for Angela Bream,
Greg Catlett, Gordon Cummins, Vera Guion, Mary Rodgers and Tino Valencia, and
SHARON HARRISON and MICHELLE BOWER, as legal guardians for Randy Bower
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a/ THE MENTOR NETWORK, its successor
and its assignees
REM COLORADO, INC., its successors and assignees; and
JAN BLOSSER,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Pursuant to a Notice of Settlement Regarding Ward Tino Valencia [doc. 227;filed
July 14, 2011] and Notice of Settlement Regarding Plaintiff Tino Valencia [docket no. 228,
filed July 14, 2011], it has come to the attention of the Court that this matter has been resolved.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulation or motion to dismiss with
prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) on or before October 12, 2011, or a status report
addressing why dismissal has not been accomplished.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the resolution of this matter with regard to
Tino Valencia, the Joint Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants’ First Set of
Interrogatories to Plaintiff Tino Valencia [188] is DENIED AS MOOT, The Defendants’
Joint Motion to Compel Response to Defendants’ Second Set of Requests for Production of
Documents to Plaintiff Tino Valencia [200] is DENIED AS MOOT, and REM Defendants’
Motion to Stay Discovery Regarding Tino Valencia [216] is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED: July 14, 2011