Smith et al v. USA

Filing 27

MINUTE ORDER denying 23 Motion for Joinder; denying 24 Motion to Supplement. by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/29/13.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01156-MSK-KLM
DAVID L. SMITH, and
M. JULIA HOOK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Joining the
Colorado Department of Revenue as a Required Party Defendant [Docket No. 23; Filed
August 26, 2013] and on Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motions for Temporary and
Preliminary Injunctive Relief, and/or for Issuance of a Writ of Prohibition and/or
Mandamus; Request for a Stay of All Collection Actions by the Colorado Department
of Revenue Pending Resolution of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motions [Docket No. 24;
Filed August 26, 2013] (collectively, the “Motions”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions [#23, #24] are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply fully with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. Plaintiffs
merely state that they sent opposing counsel an email asking his position and that they did
not get a response. [#23] at 5; [#24] at 13. They do not say when they sent the email or
how long they waited before filing the Motions. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs
provided insufficient information regarding their efforts to comply. See Hoelzel v. First
Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 635-36 (D. Colo. 2003) (Rule 7.1A requires “meaningful
negotiations” by the parties; “[t]he rule is not satisfied by one party sending a single e-mail
[, letter, or voice message] to another party”). The explanation provided does not amount
to a “reasonable, good faith effort” to confer. After contacting opposing counsel about a
disputed matter, counsel for the moving party is advised to wait at least three business
days for a response before filing a motion with the Court.
Dated: August 29, 2013