Molloy v. CHICO'S FAS, INC.
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, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02478-WJM-KLM
MICHELLE MOLLOY, and unnamed plaintiffs,
CHICO’S FAS, INC.,
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.
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.
“[#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.
The Court may rule on a pending motion at any time. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).
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
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
Dated April 4, 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?