Burton v. Century Park Associates LLC

Filing 54

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/29/14. Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 51 is DENIED without prejudice.(lgale)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-01798-WJM-KLM KELSIE BURTON, Plaintiff, v. CENTURY PARK ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [#51] (the “Motion”). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#51] is DENIED without prejudice. First, Plaintiff has failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), which 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. The Motion may be denied on this basis alone. Second, Plaintiff asserts that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) permits her to file an amended complaint as a matter of course. This is incorrect. Rule 15(a)(1)(B) allows a party to “amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Here, the “earlier” triggering action in the case was the filing of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#18] on October 7, 2013, not the filing of Defendant’s Answer [#48] on July 7, 2014. Dated: July 29, 2014

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?