Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 105

MINUTE ORDER denying 101 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 103 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response; striking 96 second motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 81 no later than August 7, 2012, unless Plaintiff chooses to withdraw her pending Motion for Summary Judgment before that time. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/3/12.(mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion by
Plaintiff for [Summary] Judgment Memorandum and Extension of Points and
Authorities; Declaration of the Plaintiff Pro Se [Docket No. 101; Filed July 2, 2012]
(“Plaintiff’s Motion”) and on Defendant’s opposed Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Plaintiff’s First Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Plaintiff’s
Decision Whether to File a New Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 103; Filed
July 2, 2012] (“Defendant’s Motion”).
Plaintiff’s Motion [#101] is essentially a response to Defendant’s explanation to
Plaintiff of the Court’s Minute Order [#100] dated June 27, 2012. In that Minute Order, the
Court stated:
With respect to the Motion for Summary Judgment [#96], this is the second
request for summary judgment from Plaintiff pending on the docket. See
Motion for Summary Judgment [#81]. Pursuant to the District Judge’s Civil
Practice Standards, Plaintiff is permitted to file more than one motion for
summary judgment. See REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.B.2.1 However, the
District Judge only permits a total of twenty pages on all such motions, not
twenty pages for each motion. See id. Plaintiff’s first Motion for Summary
Judgment [#81] is fourteen pages long. Plaintiff’s second Motion for
1

A copy of the District Judge’s Civil Practice Standards can be found and downloaded from:
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judges/REB/REB_Civil_12-1-11_Final.pdf.

1

Summary Judgment [#96] is sixteen pages long. Thus, Plaintiff has
submitted a total of thirty pages, ten more than permitted by the District
Judge’s Civil Practice Standards. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second Motion for Summary Judgment
[#96] is STRICKEN for failure to comply with the District Judge’s Civil
Practice Standards. See REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.C.1. (stating that
motions for summary judgment that do not comply with the District Judge’s
Civil Practice Standards may be stricken sua sponte); see also Nielsen v.
Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (stating that pro se parties must
“follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”).
The deadline for dispositive motions is set for August 6, 2012. See [#85]. If
Plaintiff chooses, she may file a Motion to Withdraw her first Motion for
Summary Judgment [#81] and separately submit a new Motion for Summary
Judgment that does not exceed the District Judge’s twenty-page limitation,
so long as she does so no later than August 6, 2012. The twenty-page limit
includes only “the motion, cover page, jurisdictional statement, statement of
facts, procedural history, argument, closing, signature block, and all other
matters, except for the certificate of service” and exhibits. REB Civ. Practice
Standard IV.B.2.
In Plaintiff’s present Motion, she indicates that she prefers to keep her second
Motion for Summary Judgment [#96] on the docket, as it is “a copy of the first . . . with a
little more added.” Plaintiff’s Motion [#101] at 1. She then states that she does not want
to withdraw her first Motion for Summary Judgment [#81] unless she has to. Finally, she
states, “I am leaving this up to the Court to [decide] if I need to withdraw my first [motion
for summary judgment] or not.” Plaintiff’s Motion [#101] at 2. In other words, Plaintiff seeks
to have the Court choose her litigation strategy for her.
The Court is not permitted to give legal advice to litigants, whether pro se or
otherwise. See Peper v. Dep’t of Agric. of U.S., 04-cv-01382-ZLW-KLM, 2008 WL
2690707, at *2 (D. Colo. July 3, 2008). Based on the information already provided to
Plaintiff by the Court in its Minute Order of June 27, 2012 and quoted above, Plaintiff must
make her own decisions as to the course of action she would like to pursue in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [#101] is DENIED.
Because the Court has provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to withdraw her present
Motion for Summary Judgment [#81] and file a new, consolidated motion, Defendant seeks
an extension of time in which to respond to the currently pending Motion for Summary
Judgment. Based on the current circumstances of this case as outlined above,

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion [#103] is GRANTED.
Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#81] no later than
August 7, 2012, unless Plaintiff chooses to withdraw her pending Motion for Summary
Judgment before that time.

Dated: July 3, 2012

3