Bender v. CitiMortgage Inc., et al.,

Filing 35

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend. by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 4/3/13.(mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 12–cv–02896–WYD–KMT

DEANNE BENDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE INC.,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, and
DOES 1-10, Inclusive,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Amend” (Doc. No. 32, filed Apr. 2, 2013) is DENIED without
prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1A’s duty to confer and for failure to attach a
proposed amendment to complaint to the Motion. Local Rule 7.1A provides that the court will
not consider any non-dispositive motion unless the moving 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.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. In addition, the moving party
must “state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to comply
with this rule.” Id. Plaintiff’s Motion does not comply with this provision.
Further, when seeking leave of the court to amend a complaint, the motion to amend must detail
the proposed amendments and the reasons why such amendments are necessary. In addition, the
plaintiff must attach the proposed amended complaint to the motion. The proposed amended
complaint must stand alone; it must contain all of the plaintiff’s claims. Here, Plaintiff has not
attached a proposed amended complaint to her motion. As a result, it is impossible to determine
if the proposed amendments are permissible.
Dated: April 3, 2013