Warner et al v. Bank of America NA et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 27 Motion for More Definite Statement. ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond. ORDER denying without prejudice 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint on or before 1/12/2012. All defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint within 14 calendar days of its filing. by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/27/11.(pabcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03297-PAB-KLM
RONALD M. WARNER, and
BARBARA WARNER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA NA, as successor by merger to “LaSalle Bank NA as Trustee for
Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-through Certificates WAMU Series 2007-OA4-trust;
Bank of America NA, successor, LaSalle Bank NA, trustee, Washington Mutual Mortgage
Pass-through Certificates WAMU Series 2007-OA4-trust,
CHASE,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA,
JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.,
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, formerly known as WAMU,
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. MEDVED, P.C.,
MICHAEL P. MEDVED, and
HEATHER L. DEERE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Court to Consider
Reversible Error for Lack fo Due Process or a Rule 60(b) Order Regarding Case
#09CV2336DIV.5" [Docket No. 23; Filed December 19, 2011]; Defendants Law Office of
Michael P. Medved, P.C., Michael P. Medved, and Heather L. Deere’s Motion for More
Definite Statement [Docket No. 27; Filed December 22, 2011]; and the Unopposed
Motion for Extension of Time for the Bank Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint [Docket No. 30; Filed December 22, 2011].
In their “Motion for Court to Consider Reversible Error . . .” [#23], Plaintiffs have not
complied with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., which requires meaningful conferral with counsel
for the opposing parties before the filing of a motion (other than motions filed pursuant to

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56).1 Although Plaintiffs proceed pro se, they must comply with the
same rules of procedure that govern all civil litigants in this District. See Nielson v. Price,
17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Court to Consider
Reversible Error . . .” [#23] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs’ failure to
comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A.
The Court further notes that Plaintiffs provide no legal authority for the relief they
request in the Motion. Furthermore, based on the allegations stated in the Motion, the
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the relief requested in any event. See
Hahn v. U.S. Bank, No. 11-cv-02752-BNB, 2011 WL 6370495 (D. Colo. Dec. 20, 2011)
(finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review of a Colorado Rule 120
proceeding).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Medved Defendants’ Motion for More
Definite Statement [#27] is GRANTED as follows. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1, pro
se parties must use the forms established by this District to file an action. The Court
recognizes that Plaintiffs did not initiate this case in federal court; however, in the interests
of efficiency and clarity, the Court instructs Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint
on the appropriate pro se forms on or before January 12, 2012. The forms are available
on the District’s website at: http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/RepresentingYourself.aspx
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the
appropriate pro se forms to Plaintiffs at the address listed on the docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Bank Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time [#30] is GRANTED as follows. All Defendants shall answer or
otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint within fourteen calendar
days of its filing.
Dated: December 27, 2011

1

It appears that Plaintiffs originally filed this Motion in the Boulder County District Court.
This lawsuit was removed from Boulder County District Court on December 15, 2011.

2