Sladek et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 29

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 27 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/8/2014. (cpear)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-03094-PAB-MEH DIANA SLADEK and DENNIS SLADEK, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ARONOWITZ & MECKLENBURG, THOMAS MOWLE, and MERS, a division of MERSCORP, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER 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 amendments.

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?