Sladek et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 27 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/8/2014. (cpear)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03094-PAB-MEH
DIANA SLADEK and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
ARONOWITZ & MECKLENBURG,
THOMAS MOWLE, and
MERS, a division of MERSCORP,
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 8, 2014.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint [filed April 7, 2014; docket # 27] is denied without
prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a), which states,
Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented party
shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any opposing
counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The moving party
shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific
efforts to fulfill this duty.
The Court reminds the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a). See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D.
Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1[(a)] requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not
satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail).
Moreover, should the Plaintiffs decide to re-file the motion in compliance with this order and
all applicable rules, they shall specify in the motion the basis for why justice requires any proposed
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?