Beal Bank USA v. Dragoo et al.

Filing 46

MINUTE ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Restrict # 30 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the following documents UNDER RESTRICTION at LEVEL 1: Plaintiff's Complaint # 1 and a ttached Exhibits [#1-1, #1-2, #1-3]. In the Second Motion to Stay, Plaintiff asserts that, if the Motion to Consolidate is granted, it will file a Consolidated Amended Complaint governing both cases, that the stay will enable Defendants to prepare a single responsive pleading instead of two, and that a brief stay will promote the efficiency of both Civil Action Nos. 13-cv-00482 and 13-cv-00483. In light of these considerations, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Unopposed Second Motion to Stay # 38 is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is STAYED pending the District Judge's determination of the Motion to Consolidate in Civil Action No. 13-cv-00482. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the First Motion to Stay # 27 i s DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Reschedule # 34 is GRANTED in part. The Scheduling Conference set for June 27, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. is VACATED. It shall be reset after the District Judge's determination of the Motion to Consolidate in Civil Action No. 13-cv-00482. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 06/03/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00483-RM-KLM
BEAL BANK USA, a Nevada banking association,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS A. DRAGOO , individually and as Trustee of the Douglas A. Dragoo and
Elizabeth J. Dragoo Family Trust (2004),
ELIZABETH J. DRAGOO, individually and as Tr ustee of the Douglas A. Dragoo and
Elizabeth J. Dragoo Family Trust (2004),
THE DOUGLAS A. DRAGOO AND ELIZABETH J.DRAGOO FAMILY TRUST (2004), and
THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DRAGOO FAMILY TRUST (2009),
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’
Motion to Stay These Proceedings
[Docket No. 27; Filed March 26, 2013] (the“First Motion to Stay”); on Defendants’ Motion
to Restrict Public Access to Complaint Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 [Docket No.
30; Filed March 26, 2013] (the “Moti to Restrict”); on Defendants’Motion to Reschedule
on
Scheduling Conference [Docket No. 34; Filed April 11, 2013] (the “Motion
to
Reschedule”); and on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Stay Pending Consolidation
[Docket No. 38; Filed April 29, 2013] (the “Second Motion to Stay”).
On April 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a No
tice of Filing of Unopposed Motion to
Consolidate Civil Action Nos. 13-cv-00482-MSK-KLM and 13-cv-00483-PAB-KLM [#39].
The Motion to Consolidate was filed in Civil
Action No. 13-cv-00482. On May 1, 2013, both
Civil Action Nos. 13-cv-00482 and 13-cv-00483 were reassigned to District Judge Raymond
P. Moore, upon his appointment to the bench. As part of the pending M
otion to
Consolidate filed in Civil Action No. 13-cv-00482, Plaintiff is seeking leave to file one
Consolidated Amended Complaint.
In accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2C., the Motion to Restrict [#30] was publicly
posted to allow for any objections to the sea ling of the documents. No timely objections
were filed. Pursuant to D.C.
COLO.LCivR 7.2, the Court findsthat the presumption of public
-1-

access to Court files is outweighed by the parties’ interest in privacy, and the parties have
shown that a less restrictive alternative is not practicable. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Restrict [#30] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the
following documents UNDER RESTRICTION at LEVEL 1:1 Plaintiff’s Complaint [#1] and
attached Exhibits [#1-1, #1-2, #1-3].
In the Second Motion to Stay, Plaintiff asserts that, if the Motion to Consolidate is
granted, it will file a Consolidated Amended Complaint governing both cases, that the stay
will enable Defendants to prepare a single responsive pleading instead of two, and that a
brief stay will promote the efficiency of both Civil Actio n Nos. 13-cv-00482 and 13-cv00483. In light of these considerations,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Unopposed Second Motion to Stay [#38] is
GRANTED. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is STAYED pending the District Judge’s
determination of the Motion to Consolidate in Civil Action No. 13-cv-00482.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the First Motion to Stay [#27] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Reschedule [#34] is GRANTED in
part. The Scheduling Conference set fo r June 27, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. is VACATED. It
shall be reset after the District Judge’s determination of the Motion to Consolidate in Civil
Action No. 13-cv-00482.
Dated: June 3, 2013

1

Level 1, the least restrictive, limits access to the documents to the parties and the Court.
See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.

-2-