Mita v. Fuji Bicycles/Ideal Bicycle Corporation, LTD et al

Filing 14

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 7/12/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01212-CMA-MEH
ROY MITA,
Plaintiff,
v.
FUJI BICYCLES/IDEAL BIKE CORPORATION, LTD,
ADVANCED SPORTS, INC.,
PERFORMANCE BICYCLE SHOP, INC., and
QUEST COMPISITE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 12, 2011.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint [filed July
11, 2011; docket #12]. Despite this Court’s prior advisements, the motion fails to comply with D.C.
Colo LCivR 10.1E and with the certification requirement in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. Plaintiff is
now warned that any future filings failing to comply with these and other applicable rules will be
stricken or denied without prejudice.
For purposes of the present motion, the Court will accept Plaintiff’s assertions concerning
defense counsel’s “advice” regarding the proper Defendant to constitute the Plaintiff’s attempt to
confer pursuant to D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, and will consider the motion “unopposed.” See D.C.
Colo. LCivR 7.1B.
Upon review of the proposed First Amended Complaint, however, the Court finds that there
may be an error in the caption of the proposed pleading. In the original Complaint, Plaintiff lists as
separate Defendants, “Fuji Bicycles/Ideal Bike Corporation, Ltd.” and “Advanced Sports, Inc.”
Docket #1. In fact, Defendant Advanced Sports, Inc. has filed an Answer as a separate entity and
Defendant in this case. See docket #6. However, in the proposed First Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff lists as separate Defendants, “Fuji Bicycles/Advanced Sports, Inc.” and “Ideal Bike
Corporation.” Because the Plaintiff makes no mention of this change in the motion and the change
seems inconsistent with pleadings already filed in this case, the Court will deny the motion without
prejudice and allow the Plaintiff to re-file his request identifying for the Court the proper
Defendants in the case.