Shrader v. Biddinger et al

Filing 127

MINUTE ORDER striking 126 plaintiffs OBJECTIONS TO MOTIONS BYDEFENDANTS WILLIAM BRADSTREET STEWART, INSTITUTE OF COSMOLOGICAL ECONOMICS,INC [sic] AND SACRED SCIECNCE [sic] INSTITUTE: (1) TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION; (2) TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; (3) TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE, AND (4) FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFF ALSO MOVES THIS HONORABLE COURT FOR SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT [sic] AGAINST WILLIAMBRADSTREET STEWART, INSTITUTE OF COSMOLOGICAL ECONOMICS , INC AND SACRED SCIECNED [sic] INSTITUTE AND ATTORNEYS FEES pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(C) (A motion shall not be included in a response or reply to the original motion. A motion shall be made in a separate paper.). By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/22/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01881-REB-MJW
GREG SHRADER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ALAN BIDDINGER,
EARIK BEANN,
WAVE 59 TECHNOLOGIES INT’L INC.,
WILLIAM BRADSTREET STEWART,
INSTITUTE OF COSMOLOGICAL ECONOMICS,
SACRED SCIENCE INSTITUTE, and
WAVE 59 TECHNOLOGIES INT’L INC. OWNER’S [sic] AND OFFICERS,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s “OBJECTIONS TO MOTIONS BY
DEFENDANTS WILLIAM BRADSTREET STEWART, INSTITUTE OF
COSMOLOGICAL ECONOMICS,INC [sic] AND SACRED SCIECNCE [sic] INSTITUTE:
(1) TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION; (2) TO DISMISS FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; (3) TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE, AND (4)
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFF ALSO MOVES THIS
HONORABLE COURT FOR SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT [sic] AGAINST WILLIAM
BRADSTREET STEWART, INSTITUTE OF COSMOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, INC AND
SACRED SCIECNED [sic] INSTITUTE AND ATTORNEY’S FEES. Leave of Court is
requested as this brief has 60 pages” (Docket No. 126) is STRICKEN pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(C) (“A motion shall not be included in a response or reply to the
original motion. A motion shall be made in a separate paper.”). Here, plaintiff has
included two motions within his response, namely, a motion for summary judgment and
a motion concerning the length of his document.
Date:

April 22, 2011