Blackwell et al v. Dillon Companies, Inc.

Filing 30

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 27 Motion for Modification to theScheduling Order. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/15/2013.(klyon, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-00792-MSK-KLM SCOTT WAREHIME, DAVID BLACKWELL, GLEN CASE, JR., LYNN SUTTON-CASE, WILLIAM ROSENAU, and KEN MOORE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DILLION COMPANIES, INC., doing business as KING SOOPERS, Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Modification to the Scheduling Order [#27] (the “Motion”). As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Motion fails to comply with Local Rule 10.1E., which states that all papers shall be doublespaced. Further, the Motion does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., which provides as follows: The Court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter. The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule. The Motion is subject to denial on these two bases alone.1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#27] is DENIED without prejudice. Dated: November 15, 2013 1 The Court further notes that Plaintiffs have included an incorrect civil action number (No. 13-cv-00792-RPM-KLM). The correct civil action number is as listed above.

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?