RG Options LLC v. Bershas et al

Filing 14

MINUTE ORDER denying 12 Defendant's [sic] Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 7/26/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13–cv–00768–MSK–KMT

RG OPTIONS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH C. BERSHAS, and
JULIE C. BERSHAS,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
“Defendant’s [sic] Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings” (Doc. No. 12, filed July 23, 2013), by
which Defendants Joseph and Julie Bersha seek to file an Amend Complaint (See Doc. No. 12-2)
is DENIED. First, the court finds that Defendant’s counsel has not adequately discharged his
duty to confer under Local Rule 7.1A. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A (“The moving party shall
state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to comply with
this rule.”) (emphasis added). Second, although they seek to file an amended pleading,
Defendants overlook the fact that they have not yet filed a pleading that might be subject to
amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Finally and most importantly, because they are named as
defendants to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (Doc. No. 3), Mr. and Ms. Bershas are
not authorized to file a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Rather, defendants to an action may
file only the following pleadings: (1) an answer, which may include one or more counterclaims
or crossclaims; (2) an answer to a crossclaim; (3) a third-party complaint; or (4) if ordered, a
reply to an answer. See id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 & 14.
Dated: July 26, 2013