Molloy v. CHICO'S FAS, INC.

Filing 39

MINUTE ORDER striking 37 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to AmendPleadings, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/16/2014.(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,
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 [#37]1 (the “Motion”). Defendant has not yet filed a response to the Motion.2
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1(c), the Motion has been
referred to this Court for disposition [#38].
Plaintiff previously filed two motions seeking the same relief [##23, 32]. One of
those motions was denied as moot because it was superceded by the second motion. See
Minute Order [#34] at 1. The second motion was denied without prejudice for failure to
comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(b) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). Id. at 2. The Court’s
April 7, 2014 Minute Order explained to Plaintiff:
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

1

“[#37]” 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

[#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.
Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).
The instant Motion is the same motion the Court referred to in its April 7, 2014
Minute Order with the only modifications being the addition of one sentence and the
deletion of one sentence. In paragraph 4, Plaintiff added: “Now mindful of the requirements
of rule 15, the attached First Amended Complaint is highlighted to show additions and
deletions.” Plaintiff also deleted the last sentence of paragraph 7 from the version of the
motion filed on March 31, 2014 [#32].
While Plaintiff took the Court’s admonition regarding D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(b) to
heart, it appears Plaintiff did not appreciate the Court’s warning regarding her failure to
comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). As the Court previously explained, simply restating
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) does not meet Rule 7.1(d)’s requirement that a contested motion
“be supported by a recitation of legal authority incorporated into the motion.”
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). As also previously noted by the Court, Plaintiff has no excuse for
not knowing the standard the Court applies when considering a motion to amend a
complaint because Defendant discussed that standard in its response to one of Plaintiff’s
prior motions seeking the same relief. See Response [#25] at 3-8 (arguing that
amendment is futile and that Plaintiff unduly delayed amending her Complaint).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#37] is STRICKEN. If Plaintiff wishes
to file an amended complaint, she must file a motion that is supported by a recitation of
legal authority pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).
Dated April 16, 2014

2