Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 233

MINUTE ORDER striking 231 Motion to the Court for Answer to the Plaintiffs Motions and Responses, and If the Court Is Going to Allow the Me the Female Plaintiff My Summery of Judgment to End This Case or Is the Court Goingto Allow the Female Plain tiff a Jury Trial. Sense the Plaintiff Has Not Gotten an Answer from the Defendant. 2. And Is the Court Going to Allow the Female Plaintiff the Reconsideration on All Charges That the Female Plaintiff Put In Against the Defendant [sic]. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/30/2013.(klyon, )

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 for Answer to the
Plaintiffs Motions and Responses, and If the Court Is Going to Allow the Me the
Female Plaintiff My Summery of Judgment to End This Case or Is the Court Going
to Allow the Female Plaintiff a Jury Trial. Sense the Plaintiff Has Not Gotten an
Answer from the Defendant. 2. And Is the Court Going to Allow the Female Plaintiff
the Reconsideration on All Charges That the Female Plaintiff Put In Against the
Defendant [sic] [Docket No. 231; Filed April 26, 2013] (the “Motion”). As a preliminary
matter, the Motion does not appear to 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, #198, #202, #206, #219, #224], on this basis alone, the Motion
is subject to being stricken. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#231] is STRICKEN for failure to comply
with Local Rule 7.1A.

1

However, as a courtesy to Plaintiff, the Court notes that the District Judge will issue
rulings regarding the pending motions and objections in due course.
Dated: April 30, 2013

2