Abiakam v. Quest Corporation
ORDER STRIKING 32 Statement filed by Godwin Abiakam, the email is an improper ex parte communication. Ex parte communications are prohibited by local rule of practice 77.2, D.C.COLO.LCivR., by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/17/2011. (erv, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 10-cv-03086-CMA-BNB
This matter is before me on an email (the “email”) sent directly to my chambers by the
plaintiff on October 16, 2011[Doc. #32]. The email is improper for several reasons.
First, the email is an improper ex parte communication. Ex parte communications are
prohibited by local rule of practice 77.2, D.C.COLO.LCivR, which provides:
In the absence of previous authorization, no attorney or party to
any proceeding shall send letters, pleadings or other papers or
copies directly to a judicial officer. Unless otherwise instructed,
all matters to be called to a judicial officer’s attention shall be
submitted through the clerk, with copies served on all other parties
or their attorneys.
Second, there is no evidence that copies of the email were served on opposing counsel as
required by Rules 5 (a) and (d), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Third, the email does not comply with the formatting requirements of Rule 7(b), Fed. R.
Civ. P., and local rule 10.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR.
IT IS ORDERED:
The email is STRICKEN;
The plaintiff shall cease sending communications directly to my chambers unless
otherwise instructed by me;
In the future all applications to the court must be submitted in the form of a
motion and in compliance with the federal rules of procedure, local rules, and this order; and
Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions,
including dismissal of the case.
Dated October 17, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?