Bates v. McCormick et al

Filing 9

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 7 Plaintiff's Motion for Abstention and Remand, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/18/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02222-REB-MEH
JAMES E. BATES, acting as managing partner of a Colorado limited liability company, James
Edwards Bates, LLC, and
JAMES E. BATES, individually,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT STUART MCCORMICK and
JOSEPH P. FONFARA,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 18, 2013.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Abstention and Remand [filed September 18, 2013; docket #7] is
denied without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, which states,
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.
(emphasis added). The Court reminds the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully
with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo.
2003) (because Rule 7.1A requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not
satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail).