Faircloth v. Timme et al

Filing 160

AMENDED ORDER LIFTING STAY 157 AND DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/19/2015. (mlace, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-3317-REB-KLM
JAMES FAIRCLOTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM BENEZE,
MARQUEZ,
Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER LIFTING STAY
AND DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before the court sua sponte.1 On September 3, 2015, the
magistrate judge entered an order continuing the stay of proceedings in this case
through November 27, 2015, or until such time as plaintiff’s counsel updated the court
on the status of her efforts to negotiate a settlement of the matter. (See Minute Order
[#153],2 filed September 3, 2015.) On November 11, 2015, counsel for plaintiff filed a
motion to order the parties to court-mediated alternative dispute resolution. (See
Motion for Order Referring Case to Alternative Dispute Resolution Pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6 and for Stay [#157], filed November 16, 2015.) The court

1

I enter this amended order to correct a clerical error in my prior Order Lifting Stay and
Directing Submission of Dispositive Motions [#159], filed November 18, 2015. No substantive change
is effected or intended
2
“[#153]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

granted that request. (See Order Re: Motion for Order Referring Case to
Alternative Dispute Resolution [#158, filed November 18, 2015.)
At the same time, the court denied counsel's concomitant request to continue the
stay of this matter pending the outcome of ADR proceedings. While counsel for plaintiff
pursues her limited role in attempting to negotiate a settlement, plaintiff himself still must
prepare for trial, which is currently set on the court’s docket for February 22, 2016. If a
negotiated settlement is not sooner reached, this court fully intends that resolution of
plaintiff’s claims in this matter proceed expeditiously. This case cannot be permitted to
grow ever staler while counsel’s laudable efforts at settlement are ongoing. To that end,
I lift the stay of these proceedings.
With the stay lifted, it is now appropriate to re-establish deadlines for the
marshaling of dispositive motions in this case.3 Given the truncated timetable now
remaining prior to trial, I will order an expedited briefing schedule as well, to allow the
court adequate time to resolve any such motions prior to the date now set for trial.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the stay in this matter is lifted;
2. That any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before November 25, 2015;
3. That responses to any such dispositive motion shall be filed on or before
December 10, 2015; and

3

Prior to the initial entry of the stay (see Order [#134], filed June 24, 2015), defendants filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment [#130], filed June 12, 2015, which subsequently was denied without
prejudice in light of the stay (see Order Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge [#143], filed July 30, 2015).

2

4. That any reply to a response to a dispositive motion shall be due on or before
December 17, 2015.
Dated November 19, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3