Miller v. Kastelic et al

Filing 156

MINUTE ORDER granting 151 Defendants Kastelic's and Ridgwell's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and striking 143 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/10/2014. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02677-CMA-MEH
LARRY C. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN KASTELIC,
DANIEL REIMER,
LT. RIDGWELL,
INVESTIGATOR BROWNSTEIN,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 10, 2014.
Defendants Kastelic’s and Ridgwell’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment as Untimely, or, in the alternative, Motion to Stay their Response until the Court Rules
on Plaintiff’s January 2, 2013 Combined Motions [filed January 3, 2014; docket #151] is granted.
The dispositive motions deadline in this case was November 2, 2013. (Docket # 94.) With
his response to Defendants’ timely motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a [Cross] Motion
for Summary Judgment on December 13, 2013, well past the scheduled deadline. (Docket #103.)
On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Previously Filed Response to Motion
for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Enlargement of
Time to File Amended Response and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket #151.) The
Court construed that motion as a request to file a surreply brief in support of Plaintiff’s response to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file a surreply
on or before January 21, 2014. Although Plaintiff sought an enlargement of time in that motion, his
request derived from a motion to strike the cross motion; the request for an enlargement of time
mentioned nothing about the timeliness of his cross motion and, thus, could not be construed as a
request to file the untimely cross motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
Thus, the Court strikes Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [filed December 13, 2013;
docket #143] as untimely. The Court’s ruling does not preclude Plaintiff from seeking leave to file
the motion for summary judgment out of time for good cause, upon a showing that he failed to act
because of excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Because the Court grants the relief
sought, it is unnecessary to address the alternative request for relief.