Johnson v. Myelin Productions

Filing 70

MINUTE ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 45 Plaintiffs Motion to Amend his First Amended Complaint to Include RICO Violations Pursuant to U.S.C. 1961 [sic] and to Add the Following Defendants: Denver Red Lion Hotel Southeast, Kelly Barrett, Sage Porter; and denying 44 Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate State Claims of Civil Theft, et al, in Boulder District Court With Its [sic] Fedeal [sic] Claims of Copyright Infringement and Racketeering, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/18/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01359-WJM-KLM
LARRY ELEVTHERIOS JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MYELIN PRODUCTIONS,
AXUM21st GROUP GLOBAL,
RICHARD VAZ,
SUMMER BROOKE,
ELIZABETH ARTEMIS,
MELANIE DAVIES,
KAMILA DAVIES,
FRANCES VAZ,
SABRINA VAZ,
KIMBERLEE PRATT,
NICOLE STANIC,
ROMANEE STANIC,
KRISTA COX,
KAITLYN NOLAN, and
CHELSEA HUMPHREYS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his First Amended
Complaint to Include RICO Violations Pursuant to U.S.C. 1961 [sic] and to Add the
Following Defendants: Denver Red Lion Hotel Southeast, Kelly Barrett, Sage Porter
[Docket No. 45; Filed October 17, 2012] (the “Motion to Amend”) and Plaintiff’s Motion
to Consolidate State Claims of Civil Theft, et al, in Boulder District Court With Its
[sic] Fedeal [sic] Claims of Copyright Infringement and Racketeering [Docket No. 44;
Filed October 17, 2012) (the “Motion to Consolidate”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#45] is DENIED without
prejudice. If Plaintiff, who proceeds in this matter pro se, is seeking leave to file a Second
1

Amended Complaint, he must file a motion which complies with the federal and local rules,
namely, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, and which includes the proposed Second Amended Complaint
as a document separate from the motion. The Court will not permit piecemeal adjudication
of Plaintiff’s case, thus Plaintiff must include all claims he seeks to bring and defendants
he intends to name in the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate [#44] is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks to consolidate this action with a state court case filed in the District Court for
Boulder County, Colorado. Motion to Consolidate [#44] at 2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 permits
consolidation of actions pending before the same court or before two different federal
courts within the same federal judicial district. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for
the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). It does not permit consolidation of a
state court case with a federal case.
Dated: April 18, 2013

2