Matlock v. Denver Health & Hospital Authority et al

Filing 25

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 19 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend the Deadline to Amend Pleadings. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 5/9/2013. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 12–cv–03164–MSK–KMT

CARRIE MATLOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER HEALTH AND HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,
CROTHALL HEALTHCARE, INC.,
JONATHAN PORZONDEK, and
GIOVANNI LORIA,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend the Deadline to Amend
Pleadings” (Doc. No. 19, filed Apr. 29, 2013) is DENIED without prejudice. The court finds the
better practice is for Plaintiff to seek leave to amend the Scheduling Order—either
contemporaneously with, or as part of, a motion to amend the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)—upon receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the Colorado Civil Rights Division. Cf.
Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 667, 669 (D. Colo. 2001) (“The fact that a party
first learns, through discovery or disclosures, information necessary for the assertion of a claim
after the deadline to amend established in the scheduling order has expired constitutes good
cause to extend that deadline.”) (emphasis added).
Dated: May 9, 2013