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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?