Shrader v. Biddinger et al

Filing 84

MINUTE ORDER denying 78 Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Stay; denying 80 Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time on Getting Scheduling Order Filed, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 03/10/2011.(wjc, )

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 Motion to Vacate Stay (Docket No. 78) is denied. The only stay entered in this case concerns discovery regarding defendant Biddinger in view of his pending motion to dismiss. (See Docket No. 15). That stay remains in effect and will not be vacated until further order of the court, particularly in view of this court's report and recommendation issued today concerning the motion to dismiss. The remainder of this case was not stayed, and in fact, Judge Blackburn rejected as moot this court's recommendation concerning the motion to close the matter administratively or to stay proceedings. (See Docket No. 77, Judge Blackburn's Order of March 8, 2011). In addition, this court has set a Scheduling/Planning Conference (see Docket No. 73), so this case is moving forward as to the other defendants. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time on Getting Scheduling Order Filed (Docket No. 80) is denied. The proposed Scheduling Order is not due to be submitted to this court until no later than five days prior to the Scheduling/Planning Conference. (See Docket No. 73 at 2, "No later than 5 days prior to the Scheduling/Planning Conference, counsel/pro se parties shall submit their proposed Scheduling Order (in PDF) in compliance with the ECF Filing Procedures.") That conference is set for March 30, 2011, so the proposed Scheduling Order is not yet due, making plaintiff's motion for an extension of time unnecessary. Date: March 10, 2011