Brancato et al v. Panio et al

Filing 77

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 75 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/18/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02338-MSK-MEH
ROBERTO BRANCATO, as parent and next friend of R.B., a minor child, and
ROCHELLE BRANCATO, individually,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARY PANIO,
CAROL OLSON,
WHITNEY HARRAH,
SCOTT JUAREZ,
JANE JORDAN,
ALEXANDER PANIO, JR., and
ADOLESCENT AND FAMILY INSTITUTE OF COLORADO, INC.
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 18, 2013.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [filed March 15, 2013; docket #75] 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).