Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 45

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs letter, filed by the Clerks Office as aMotion to Amend 43 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.L.CivR 7.1A. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/9/2012.(sah, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-DME-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 letter, filed by the Clerk’s Office as a Motion to Amend [Docket No. 43; Filed January 9, 2012] (the “Motion”). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A.,1 which requires Plaintiff to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing such a motion: 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. The Court has already warned Plaintiff that she must comply with all Local Rules. See Order [#36]; Minute Order [#42]. Plaintiff has not shown the Court that she made a “reasonable, good faith effort” to confer. After contacting opposing counsel about a disputed matter, the moving party is advised to wait at least three business days for a response before filing a motion with the Court. Dated: January 9, 2012 1 Plaintiff may access a copy of the Local Rules on the Court’s website at:

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?