Jenkins v. Duffy Crane and Hauling, Inc. et al

Filing 66

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying without prejudice in part 62 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify. Discovery due by 11/26/2014. Dispositive Motions due by 12/15/2014. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 1/14/2014. The Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/24/2014 at 10:00 AM is VACATED and RESET to 1/21/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom C204 before Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 09/02/2014. (athom, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-00327-CMA-KLM FRANKLYN A. JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. DUFFY CRANE AND HAULING, INC., a Colorado Corporation, DUFFY HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, and DUFFY CRANE, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Partially Stipulated Motion to Amend the Case Management Order [#62]1 (the “Motion”). In the Motion, Plaintiff states that the parties agree to modify the Scheduling Order to extend certain deadlines, but that Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for an extension of the deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings from April 9, 2014 to October 26, 2014. Motion [#62] at 2. Plaintiff then summarizes each side’s position regarding the requested extension of the deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. Id. at 2-3. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) states that “a motion involving a contested issue of law shall state under which rule or statute it is filed and be supported by a recitation of legal authority incorporated into the motion.” Plaintiff provides no legal authority for its opposed request for extension of the deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#62] is GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part as follows. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered on February 24, 1 “[#62]” 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 Minute Order. 1 2014 [#51] is modified to extend the following deadlines: • • Discovery Cut-Off Dispositive Motion Deadline November 26, 2014 December 15, 2014 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference set for November 24, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED and RESET to January 21, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom C-204, Second Floor, Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed pretrial order shall be submitted on or before January 14, 2014. The proposed pretrial order to be submitted to the Magistrate Judge under the ECF Procedures may be submitted in WordPerfect or pdf format and shall be emailed to the Magistrate Judge at Mix_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov. Attorneys and/or pro se parties not participating in ECF shall submit their proposed pretrial order on paper to the Clerk’s Office. However, if any party in this case is participating in ECF, it is the responsibility of that party to submit the proposed pretrial order pursuant to the District of Colorado ECF Procedures. The parties shall prepare the proposed pretrial order in accordance with the form which may be downloaded from the Forms section of the court’s website at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/CourtOperations/RulesProcedures/Forms.aspx. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion [#62] is DENIED without prejudice to the extent it asks the Court to amend the Scheduling Order [#51] to extend the deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings. Dated: September 2, 2014 2

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?