Myers v. Hummel

Filing 78

MINUTE ORDER granting Defendant's 75 Motion to Amend Answer. The proposed Amended Answer 76 is accepted for filing as of the date of this Minute Order. Any future motion that does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A will be summarily denied, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/3/11.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00400-REB-KLM
BERNARD KENNETH MYERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DORWIN DWAYNE HUMMEL,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Amend Answer [Docket
No. 75; Filed June 3, 2011] (the “Motion”). As an initial matter, the Motion does not comply
with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, which provides as follows: “The Court will not consider any
motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving
party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good
faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed
matter. The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the
motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.” The Motion is subject to denial
on this basis alone. Nevertheless, in the interest of expedience,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#75] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed Amended Answer [Docket No. 76]
is accepted for filing as of the date of this Minute Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future motion that does not comply with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A will be summarily denied.
Dated: June 3, 2011