Briggs et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 34

MINUTE ORDER denying 30 Motion to Strike Defendants DeutscheBank National Trust Company, as Trustee[;] Mortgage Electronic RegistrationSystems, Inc. (MERS)[;] Litton Loan Servicing, LP[;] and Ocwen Loan Servicing,LLC['s] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff[s'] Complaint. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/26/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02433-MSK-KLM
VALORIE BRIGGS, and
JOHN A. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee,
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
LITTON LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
HELLERSTEIN AND SHORE, PC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee[;] Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (MERS)[;] Litton Loan Servicing, LP[;] and Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC[’s] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff[s’] Complaint [#30]1 (the “Motion”). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1C.3, the Motion is referred to this Court for
disposition [#32]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the entire case file, and the
applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
Plaintiffs, who proceed in this matter as pro se litigants, argue that the motion to
dismiss [#22] filed by certain Defendants “is in excess of the 15 page limit imposed under
Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Court.” Motion [#30] at 2.2 However, such argument is

1

“[#30]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Order.
2

The Court is mindful that it must construe the filings of a pro se litigant liberally. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.

1

misplaced. Rule 7.1 does not impose a page limit on motions to dismiss. Furthermore,
neither the undersigned’s Practice Standards nor those of Chief Judge Krieger impose a
15-page limit on motions to dismiss. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#30] is DENIED.
Dated: November 26, 2013

1991). However, the Court is not a pro se litigant's advocate, nor shall the Court “supply additional
factual allegations to round out [a pro se litigant's] complaint or construct a legal theory on [his]
behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hall, 935 F.2d at
1110). In addition, Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, must follow the same procedural rules that govern
other litigants. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994).

2