Nagim v. Walker et al

Filing 103

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 98 Motion to Amend Complaint. Order denying without prejudice 99 Motion to Dismiss by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/13/11.(jjh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02973-WYD-KLM
RONALD J. NAGIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAY WALKER, and
UNIVERSAL PERSONNEL,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend
Complaint [Docket No. 98; Filed December 12, 2011] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
[Docket No. 99; Filed December 12, 2011] (collectively, the “Motions”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for the following reasons.
First, Plaintiff fails to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. in either Motion. Although
the Motion to Amend is titled as “Unopposed,” Plaintiff does not outline his efforts to confer
with counsel for Defendants as required by the Rule. Plaintiff is cautioned that Rule 7.1A.
requires “meaningful negotiations” by the parties. Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D.
634, 635 (D. Colo. 2003). Plaintiff is further warned that he must, at all times, be truthful
in his representations to the Court, at risk of the imposition of sanctions. In the future,
Plaintiff must explain his efforts to confer and the result of those efforts.
Second, Plaintiff brings his Motion to Amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. As
previously explained to Plaintiff, Rule 61 governs harmless error and prescribes that no
error provides grounds for “granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating
. . . a[n] order,” in the absence of an effect on any party’s substantial rights. The purpose
of this Rule arises from the goal of the federal judiciary to issue “decisions on the merits,
rather than determinations that turn on technicalities.” 4 Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed.
Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1029 (3d ed.). Nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion indicates that this Rule is
the appropriate or applicable authority for the relief Plaintiff requests. See Minute Order
[#77]. Leave to amend is generally sought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
1

Third, the Court has informed Plaintiff on multiple occasions that if he intends to seek
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, he must file a motion which complies with the
federal and local rules (including Rule 7.1A.) and which includes the proposed Second
Amended Complaint as a document separate from the Motion. The Second Amended
Complaint may not resuscitate any previously dismissed claims or defendants. See Minute
Orders [##77, 89].
Fourth, if Plaintiff intends to dismiss any claims in or this entire matter, he must first
confer with counsel for Defendants and inform the Court in a motion filed pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) whether Defendants oppose the voluntary dismissal of those claims or
this lawsuit by court order.
Dated: December 13, 2011

2