Petratis v. Fire Alarm Services, Inc. et al

Filing 45

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice the following motions: 23 Defendants' [First] Motion to Compel Discovery Responses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1 (to the extent it has not yet been ruled on), 31 Defendants&# 039; Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1, 35 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claim for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Against Shannon Smith Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and 36 Defendants' Refiled Motion to Dismiss Claim for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Against Shannon Smith Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/14/2014. (cpear)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02847-MSK-MEH
LADONNA PETRATIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIRE ALARM SERVICES, INC., and
SHANNON SMITH,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 14, 2014.
Before the Court are Defendants’ Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1 [filed April 22, 2014; docket # 31], Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss Claim for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Against Shannon
Smith Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [filed April 24, 2014; docket # 35], and Defendants’
Refiled Motion to Dismiss Claim for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Against
Shannon Smith Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [filed April 25, 2014; docket # 36]. Also before
the Court is Defendants’ [First] Motion to Compel Discovery Responses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37 and D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1 [filed April 1, 2014; docket # 23], to the extent it has not yet been
ruled on.
On May 12, 2014, the parties appeared before the Court for an Early Neutral Evaluation.
Afterward, the parties contacted the Court to advise that the above-captioned matter has been
resolved. Therefore, the motions [dockets ## 31, 35, 36] are denied without prejudice. In addition,
to the extent it has not yet been ruled on, Defendants’ [First] Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and D.C. Colo. LCivR 37.1 [docket # 23] is denied
without prejudice.