Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 215

MINUTE ORDER; Plaintiff's 212 Motion to Strike the Defendants Motion to Dismiss Failure to Train Claim for Failure to Exhust Administrative Remedies.2. To Motion for a Jury Trial [sic] is DENIED AS MOOT but will be considered in connections with a Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss. 213 Second Motion to Strike is STRICKEN for failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1A, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/19/2013.(klmcd, )

Download PDF
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 Strike the Defendants Motion to Dismiss Failure to Train Claim for Failure to Exhust Administrative Remedies. 2. To Motion for a Jury Trial [sic] [Docket No. 212; Filed March 18, 2013] and on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for to Exhaust Administrative Remedies by Defendant Wright Tree Service Inc #(1) Exhibit A) Brett Painter or Any Other Exhibits or Calims [sic] [Docket No. 19; Filed March 18, 2013]. As a preliminary matter, the Motions to Strike do 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. As Plaintiff has been told many times before [#36, #42, #45, #52, #67, #73, #85, #89, #148, #151, #170, #178, #184, #202, #206], on this basis alone, the Motions to Strike are subject to denial without prejudice or to being stricken themselves. However, in consideration of the Court’s obligation to liberally construe the filings of pro se litigants, the Court accepts the first Motion to Strike [#212] as Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss [#207]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the first Motion to Strike [#212] is therefore DENIED 1 as moot but will be considered in connection with a Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second Motion to Strike [#213] is STRICKEN for failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1A. Dated: March 19, 2013 2

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?