Wright v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, et al.

Filing 63

ORDER denying 59 Motion to Set Aside ; granting in part 62 Motion for Extension to Extend Deadline. Plaintiff shall respond toDefendants' Motion for Determination of Amount of Attorneys' Fees and Costs [#57] on or before 7/10/12. Defendants may reply within fourteen days of Plaintiff's response. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/26/12.(cmacd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03181-KLM
PATRICIA WRIGHT, formerly known as Patricia Critchfield,
Plaintiff,
v.
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
THE WARRANTY GROUP, L.L.C., also known as TWG Holding, L.L.C.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Order (Doc. No.
56) [Docket No. 59; Filed June 15, 2012] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline for
Response to and Reply in Support of Motion for Determination of Amount of
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 57) [Docket No. 62; Filed June 22, 2012].
On April 19, 2012, the Court accepted for filing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#40].
The entry of the Amended Complaint [#41], and the subsequent dismissal of certain
defendants [#54], changed the landscape of this lawsuit. What was an ERISA review case
is now a suit for denial of workers’ compensation benefits premised on diversity jurisdiction.
See [## 26, 41]. A Scheduling Conference regarding the Amended Complaint is set for
July 3, 2012 [#49].
On April 25, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Modify Order Granting Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend, and for Attorneys’ Fees [#45]. Defendants requested that the Court
modify its previous order permitting the entry of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to include
1

an award of fees and costs to Defendants for their efforts in defending Plaintiff’s previous
ERISA claims. Id. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C., Plaintiff’s
response to Defendants’ Motion to Modify was due on or before May 21, 2012. Plaintiff did
not timely respond, and the Court issued a Minute Order on May 29, 2012, which granted
Defendants’ request for fees and instructed Defendants to file a motion for fees no later
than June 19, 2012 [#56].
Defendants submitted their Motion for Determination of Amount of Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs on June 1, 2012 [#57]. Two weeks later, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Set
Aside the Court’s Minute Order issued May 29, 2012. See [#59]. In essence, the proffered
excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to Defendants’ Motion to Modify is that one
of her attorneys mistakenly relied on another of her attorneys, who failed to inform their
collective law firm of the relevant deadlines and general status of this matter. See id.
Plaintiff contends that she has thus demonstrated excusable neglect, and that she should
be permitted to file a response to Defendants’ Motion to Modify out of time. Id.
Partners in the same law firm are “vicariously bound by the obligation of client loyalty
of each of the attorneys in the firm.” E.g., People ex rel. Peters v. Dist. Ct. in & for the
Cnty. of Arapahoe, 951 P.2d 926, 931 (Colo. 1998); see also LaFond v. Sweeney, – P.3d
–, 2012 WL 503655, at *7 (Colo. App. 2012) (“Although the act of dissolution changes
certain practicalities of the client's interaction with the firm, it does not void or negate the
contract or release the firm from its obligations to the client.”). Although the Court accepts
counsel for Plaintiff’s representations of internal law firm discord as true, the explanation
does not excuse the firm’s apparent inability to follow through on its collective obligation to
prosecute Plaintiff’s case with the requisite attention to detail. For example, not only did
Plaintiff fail to file a timely response to Defendants’ Motion to Modify, but also she
2

previously expressed her intent to file an amended complaint by a certain date and did not
do so, see [#38], and she then missed the extended deadline to file her amended
complaint, see [#40].

Further, Plaintiff delayed a full two weeks from the filing of

Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Amount of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs to bring the
issues regarding the changes in her counsels’ law firm to the Court’s attention. Such delay
demonstrates more than simple negligence in maintaining deadlines. Given the Court’s
previous warning to Plaintiff that “any untimely future filing shall be automatically rejected,”
see [#40], Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside is unavailing. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Order [#59] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline for Response
. . . [#62] is GRANTED IN PART, solely to the extent that Plaintiff shall respond to
Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Amount of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [#57] on or
before July 10, 2012. Defendants may reply within fourteen days of Plaintiff’s response.
Dated: June 26, 2012

3