Molloy v. CHICO'S FAS, INC.

Filing 34

MINUTE ORDER Denying as moot 23 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings; Denying without prejudice 32 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/4/2014.(evana, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-02478-WJM-KLM MICHELLE MOLLOY, and unnamed plaintiffs, Plaintiff, v. CHICO’S FAS, INC., Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings [#23]1 (the “First Motion”) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings [#32] (the “Second Motion” and collectively with the First Motion, the “Motions”). On February 7, 2014, Defendant filed a Response [#25] to the First Motion. On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Reply [#26] in further support of the First Motion, which attached a revised version of Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint [#26-1] that was stricken by the Court on March 7, 2014 [#29]. Defendant has not yet filed a response to the Second Motion.2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1(c), the Motions have been referred to this Court for disposition [##24, 33]. The Court has reviewed the Motions, the Response, the Reply, the entire docket, and the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. A. The First Motion Because the Second Motion attaches a new version of the proposed amended complaint [#32-1] and was filed after the First Motion, it supercedes the First Motion. Accordingly, the First Motion is moot. 1 “[#23]” 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 Minute Order. 2 The Court may rule on a pending motion at any time. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). 1 B. The Second Motion The parties are obligated to read, understand, and comply with all Local Rules of this Court. D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(b) requires, among other things, that “[a] party who files an opposed motion for leave to amend a pleading [ ] attach as an exhibit a copy of the proposed amended pleading which strikes through . . . the text to be deleted and underlines . . . the text to be added.” The proposed Amended Complaint [#32-1] attached to the Second Motion does not comply with Local Rule 15.1(b). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1(b) is particularly egregious given that in its Response to the First Motion, Defendant alerted Plaintiff to Local Rule 15.1(b)’s requirements. See Response to First Motion [#25] at 2. The Second Motion also fails to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) which requires that a contested motion “be supported by a recitation of legal authority incorporated into the motion.” Instead, the Second Motion simply restates Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). As with Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1(b), Plaintiff was alerted to the standard the Court applies when considering a party’s request to amend a complaint by Defendant in Defendant’s Response to the First Motion. Response to the First Motion [#25] at 3-4 (citing to Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009)). The Second Motion is subject to denial for its failure to comply with the Local Rules of this Court. Plaintiff is warned that violation of any applicable rule or practice standard may result in the striking of any such filings without further notice or imposition of other sanctions. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Motion [#23] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Second Motion [#32] is DENIED without prejudice. Dated April 4, 2014 2

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?