Melendez et al v. Cuskelly

Filing 61

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 9/18/14. Motion to Amend Captions 59 is DENIED without prejudice. (lgale)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00492-WJM-KLM
TALLA M. MELENDEZ, an individual,
BROOKE MELENDEZ, a minor, by next friend Talla M. Melendez, and
DIANNA SWEET, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD F. CUSKELLY, an individual,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Captions [#59] (the
“Motion”). The parties are obligated to read, understand, and comply with all Local Rules
of this Court. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a) provides as follows:
Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented
party shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any
opposing counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The
moving party shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the
motion, the specific efforts to fulfill this duty.
In the Motion, Plaintiffs state that “[c]ounsel for Plaintiffs has attempted to confer with
[c]ounsel for Defendant prior to the filing of the Motion and counsel for Defendant has not
responded. As such, it is assumed this Motion is unopposed.” Motion [#59] at 1. Local
Rule 7.1(a)'s conferral requirement requires more than attempting to contact opposing
counsel before filing a motion. Such action does not indicate that any actual conferral took
place. Instead, it merely indicates that one party informed the other party that it planned
to file a motion and then filed the motion. “[T]o satisfy the requirements of Rule 7.1[(a)], the
parties must hold a conference, possibly through the exchange of correspondence but
preferably through person-to-person telephone calls or face-to-face meetings, and must
compare views and attempt to reach an agreement, including by compromise if
appropriate.” Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003). The point
of the conferral requirement is to have the parties exchange ideas regarding the requested
relief and, hopefully, eliminate through discussion or compromise any issues they can
-1-

before filing a motion so as to limit the issues brought before the Court. See Carroll v.
Allstate Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., No. 12-cv-00007-WJM-KLM, 2013 WL 5769308, at *4 (D.
Colo. Oct. 24, 2013) (“The purpose of Rule 7.1[(a)] is to decrease the number and length
of motions filed in each case.”). It is impossible to tell from Plaintiffs’ filing whether they
have actually attempted to “make reasonable good faith efforts to confer” with respect to
the Motion [#59]. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#59] is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: September 18, 2014

-2-