Taylor Moving, LLC v. Voigt et al

Filing 95

ORDER. ORDERED that the defendants shall file a substantive response to Taylor Moving's motion for alternative dispute resolution 93 stating their position on the use of alternative dispute resolution on or before Friday, November 30, 2012 by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 11/21/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01540-WYD-BNB
TAYLOR MOVING, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL VOIGT, an individual;
OPM ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Pride Worldwide Moving & Storage, d/b/a Boulder
Valley Transfer, a Colorado corporation;
TAYLOR MOVING, INC., a Colorado corporation;
TAYLOR MOVING AND STORAGE, INC., a Colorado corporation; and,
BOULDER VALLEY TRANSFER, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Taylor Moving, LLC’s, motion for
alternative dispute resolution [ECF No. 93], filed on November 5, 2012.
In its motion, Taylor Moving requests this Court to order the parties to submit to
alternative dispute resolution with Magistrate Judge Boland. Taylor Moving states that
per D.C.Colo.LCivR. 7.1(A)1, it conferred with defendants’ counsel and the “[d]efendants
do not object to the relief sought in this Motion.” ECF No. 93, p. 1. However, in
paragraph nine, Taylor Moving states that, “[d]efendants decline to attend alternative
1

Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR. 7.1(A):
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 its 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. This Section A. shall not apply to cases involving pro se prisoners.

-1-

dispute resolution until they receive a ruling on their Motion for Summary Judgment.”
ECF No. 93, p. 2, ¶ 9. Because Taylor Moving’s allegations regarding whether the
defendants consent to alternative dispute resolution conflict with each other, and
because the defendants have not responded to Taylor Moving’s motion, I defer ruling on
the motion at this time. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the defendants shall file a substantive response to Taylor
Moving’s motion for alternative dispute resolution [ECF No. 93] stating their position on
the use of alternative dispute resolution on or before Friday, November 30, 2012. It is
FURTHERED ORDERED that a ruling on Taylor Moving’s motion for alternative
dispute resolution [ECF No. 93] is DEFERRED until I receive the defendants’ response
to said motion.
Dated: November 21, 2012.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief U. S. District Judge

-2-