Carbajal v. Warner et al

Filing 572

MINUTE ORDER: The initial Motion for Fees and Costs [# 555 ] is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend [#570] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file responses to Defendants' Motions/Affidavits [# 557 , # 558 , # 560 , # 564 ] onor before 12/6/2013. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/18/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02862-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROL WARNER, in her individual capacity,
DAVID ROMERO, in his individual capacity,
JOE QUINTANA, in his individual capacity,
BILL RAILEY, in his individual capacity,
CHRIS WELDON, in his individual capacity,
BENJAMIN SCHROEDER, in his individual capacity,
GILBERTO LUCIO, in his individual capacity,
JAMES DIXON, in his individual capacity,
ADAM BARRETT, in his individual capacity,
JOEL SMITH, in his individual capacity,
JESSE REMBERT, in his individual capacity,
JAY LOPEZ, in his individual capacity,
MICHAEL O’NEILL, in his individual capacity,
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado,
DARIN DESEL, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his individual
capacity,
FRED MCKEE, Sheriff for the Delta Sheriff’s Department, in his individual capacity,
PERRY SPEELMAN, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his individual
capacity,
JEFFREY WATTS, Investigator for the Second Judicial District, in his individual
capacity, and
ED GRUNINGER, Investigator for the Second Judicial District and Police Officer for the
Denver Police Department, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the State Defendants’ Motion for Fees and
-1-

Costs [#555] and on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File His Response
Contesting Costs and Attorney Fees Sought by Defendants [#570] (the “Motion to
Extend”). It appears that the Motion for Fees and Costs [#564] filed by the State
Defendants on October 30, 2013, is a duplicate or amendment of the initial Motion for Fees
and Costs [#555] filed by the State Defendants on October 28, 2013. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the initial Motion for Fees and Costs [#555] is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend [#570] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file responses to Defendants’ Motions/Affidavits [#557, #558, #560, #564] on
or before December 6, 2013.

Dated: November 18, 2013

-2-