Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 202

MINUTE ORDER striking 191 Motion for Order; striking 199 Motion for Order. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/21/13. (kfinn, )

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 Motion to the Court That the Plaintiff
Did Not Get a Copy by Email From the Defendant on Any Motions That They Want to
Put in to the Court and the Defendant at Any Time Could Have Settled This Case.
Plaintiff Does Not Know How to Get the Information on This From the Email From the
Court. Plaintiff Is Just Seeking a Decision From the Court on Summery of
Judgement or Jury Trial. A Motion to Not Strike the Plaintiff Motion Filed With the
Court [sic] [Docket No. 191; Filed February 6, 2013], and on Plaintiff’s Motion to the Court
to Show Evidence Plaintiff Has For This Case. To Prove to the Court the Evidence
Was Put in to the Court a Long Time Ago. This Is Only in Part for Evidence for This
Case [sic] [Docket No. 199; Filed February 19, 2013] (collectively, the “Motions”).
Yet again, the Court notes that it has repeatedly reminded Plaintiff, who is
proceeding pro se, that she must comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. See, e.g., [#36, #42,
#45, #52, #67, #73, #85, #89, #148, #151, #170, #178, #184]. Plaintiff must tell the Court
in her motions whether opposing counsel opposes the relief she requests or whether
opposing counsel agrees to the relief she requests. Plaintiff must tell the Court when and
how she has attempted to confer with Defendant over the content of her motions. The
Motions do not provide this information. If Plaintiff does not understand this requirement,
she must ask the Court how she can comply. Plaintiff has also been repeatedly warned
that motions that do not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. will be summarily stricken
from the record. See, e.g., [#52, #73, #85, #89, #148, #151, #170, #178, #184].
Accordingly,

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions [#191, #199] are STRICKEN.
However, as a courtesy to Plaintiff, the Court notes that, despite the titles of the
Motions, Plaintiff’s main requests for relief are for the Court to issue a decision on the
Motions for Summary Judgment [#81; #115]. See [#191] at 4; [#199] at 27. The District
Judge issued an Order [#197] regarding the Motions for Summary Judgment on February
15, 2013, so Plaintiff’s primary concerns appear to be moot.

Dated: February 21, 2013

2