Wojdacz v. Blackburn, et al

Filing 50

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed,R.Civ.P. [sic] 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 41 ) a nd Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants Robert E. Blackburn and Michael E. Hegarty's Motion to Dismiss Claims in Amended Complaint (Docket No. 42 ). The motion is granted to the extent that the plaintif f shall have up to and including 10/21/2013, to file a response to each of the two pending motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 31 and 32 ). Defendants Robert E. Blackburn and Michael E. Hegarty's Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion to Vacate Dead lines in Scheduling Order (Docket No. 40 ) is granted to the extent that discovery is stayed with respect to the claims against defendants Blackburn and Hegarty pending a ruling on their motionto dismiss (Docket No. 31 ). The motion is denied as premature with respect to the request to vacate deadlines in the Scheduling Order because no Scheduling Order has been entered to date in this case. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/2/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01738-MSK-MJW
ELIZAETH WOJDACZ,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN,
MICHAEL E. HEGARTY,
ERIC LAMPHERE,
KIM DELINE,
MICHAEL WATTS,
RUTHERFORD, MULLEN & MOORE,
LINDSEY TOPPER,
COLORADO SPRINGS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SGT. JOEL KERN,
W. LAMBERT,
LT. SCOTT WHITTINGTON,
MEDINA GENERAL HOSPITAL,
AKRON CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF AKRON,
ASHLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, and
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO,
Defendant(s).
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Extension of Time
to Reply to City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Pursuant
to Fed,R.Civ.P. [sic] 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 41) and Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to Reply to Defendants Robert E. Blackburn and Michael E.
Hegarty’s Motion to Dismiss Claims in Amended Complaint (Docket No. 42) (which is
opposed by defendants - see Docket No. 49) are both granted in part and denied in part
as set forth below. In both motions, plaintiff seeks to obtain discovery on the factual
issues raised in the motions made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and she thus requests
time to engage in that discovery and time to prepare responses to the motions.
The motion is granted to the extent that the plaintiff shall have up to and including
October 21, 2013, to file a response to each of the two pending motions to dismiss
(Docket Nos. 31 and 32) (plaintiff shall not combine her responses into one document

2
but shall file a response to each motion). The motion is denied, however, with respect
to the plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery with respect to the 12(b)(1) motions.
Plaintiff did not specify what pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are
disputed or insufficient and what limited discovery she believes is necessary in order to
respond to the defendants’ motions.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants Robert E. Blackburn and Michael E.
Hegarty’s Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion to Vacate Deadlines in Scheduling
Order (Docket No. 40) is granted to the extent that discovery is stayed with respect to
the claims against defendants Blackburn and Hegarty pending a ruling on their motion
to dismiss (Docket No. 31). The motion is denied as premature with respect to the
request to vacate deadlines in the Scheduling Order because no Scheduling Order has
been entered to date in this case.
Date: October 2, 2013