United Financial Casualty Company v. Lapp et al

Filing 28

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 26 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint for Declaratory Relief, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/22/2012. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00432-MSK-MEH
UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD LAPP, an individual d/b/a Slick Spot Farm & Truck,
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, a District of Columbia corporation d/b/a
Amtrak,
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
W-L ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company,
WRIGHT-LORENZ GRAIN CO. INC., a dissolved Kansas corporation,
GARY JORDAN, an individual,
WESTERN HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation,
CHRISTOPHER NELSON, an individual,
BRADLEY SWARTZWELTER, an individual, and
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 27,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 22, 2012.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint for Declaratory Relief [filed May 21, 2012; docket
#26] is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, which states,
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 the
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.
(emphasis added). The Court reminds the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully
with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo.
2003) (because Rule 7.1A requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not
satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail).