Martin v. City and County of Denver

Filing 45

MINUTE ORDER denying 41 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended [Complaint] for Untimely Filing. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/5/13.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01376-PAB-KLM
FREDDIE K. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
DENNIS J. GALLAGHER, Office of the Auditor, in his Official Capacity,
AUDIT SERVICES OF AUDITOR’S OFFICE, and
CAREER SERVICE AUTHORITY,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’
Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended [Complaint] for
Untimely Filing [Docket No. 41; Filed January 11, 2013] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff avers that
Defendants’ Response [#40] to his Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
[#35] (the “Motion to Amend”) was filed three days late and therefore should be stricken.
The Court first notes that Plaintiff’s reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) is misplaced, as
that provision only permits the Court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Nothing in that rule allows
the Court to strike a late-filed responsive pleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff should have
followed the conferral requirements of Local Rule 7.1A. before filing the present Motion.
Regardless, the Court finds that Defendants’ Response [#40] was timely filed. As
explained in Defendants’ Response [#43] to the Motion, Plaintiff, who proceeds in this
matter as a pro se litigant, placed the Motion to Amend in the mail on December 12, 2012.
Motion to Amend [#35] at 2. Because three days are added to the response period to allow
for transit time when using non-electronic delivery methods, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d),
Defendants’ 21-day response period began on December 15, 2012. That period ended on
January 5, 2013, a Saturday, so the period was extended to the next business day, January
7, 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Defendants therefore timely filed their Response
[#40] on January 7, 2013. Accordingly,
-1-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#41] is DENIED.
Dated: February 5, 2013

-2-