Phoenix Insurance Company, The et al v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company of Kansas et al

Filing 151

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 146 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Exhibit C to the Motion for Summary Judgment of Trinity Universal Insurance Company of Kansas, Trinity Universal of Kansas, and Trinity Universal Insurance Company and all Reference Thereto. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/26/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01553-REB-KLM
THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company, and
ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota insurance company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF KANSAS, a Kansas insurance
company,
TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE OF KANSAS, a Kansas insurance company,
TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas insurance company,
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois insurance company, and
MOUNTAIN STATES MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, a New Mexico insurance
company,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Exhibit C to the
Motion for Summary Judgment of Trinity Universal Insurance Company of Kansas,
Trinity Universal of Kansas, and Trinity Universal Insurance Company and all
Reference Thereto [Docket No. 146; Filed July 25, 2013] (the “Motion”). The Motion does
not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, which provides as follows:
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.
The Motion is subject to denial on this basis alone. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#146] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: July 26, 2013