Santistevan v. USA et al

Filing 80

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 79 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/21/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01649-MEH-BNB
ROSE A. SANTISTEVAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a municipality;
EL PASO COUNTY, a municipality;
RICHARD MYERS, in his official capacity as Colorado Springs Chief of Police;
TERRY MAKETA, in his official capacity as Sheriff of El Paso County;
RICK MILLWRIGHT, in his official and individual capacity;
PHIL GURNETT, in his official and individual capacity;
JACKSON ANDREWS, in his official and individual capacity; and
OTHER UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
THE EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, in their official and personal capacities,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 21, 2011.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) [filed November 15, 2011; docket #79] is denied without prejudice for
failure to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, which requires meaningful negotiations by the
parties prior to filing a motion with the Court. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634,
636 (D. Colo. 2003). Rule 7.1A is not satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email,
letter or voicemail. See id. In this case, Plaintiff’s counsel simply states that he attempted to
contact counsel for Defendants and received no reply. However, it is unclear what communications
were made, when they occurred, or how long Plaintiff waited for Defendants’ counsel to respond.
Without more, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff “made reasonable, good-faith efforts
to confer with opposing counsel” prior to filing this motion with the Court. D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A.