Shelly v. ADT Securities

Filing 37

ORDER re: 36 Letter Amending Complaint. The Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is AMENDED to only to substitute ADT, L.L.C. in place of ADT Securities as the Defendant in this action. The caption of the case will be amended to so reflect the substitution. ADT, L.L.C added. ADT Securities terminated. ADT, L.L.C. shall file an Answer or other responsive pleading on or before September 8, 2015, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 8/18/15. (morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–00909–KMT
TILANA SHELLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADT SECURITIES,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Letter Amending Complaint” [Doc. No. 36]
filed July 31, 2015. In her letter, Plaintiff acknowledges that on July 9, 2015, the parties
appeared before the court and entered into an agreement that the proper and appropriate
defendant in this case is ADT, L.L.C., not ADT Securities and not Tyco Integrated Security. The
court advised Plaintiff she could file an Amended Complaint naming the correct Defendant and
counsel Stephen B. Rotter of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.-Denver , agreed
that he was authorized to and would accept service on behalf of ADT, L.L.C. (Am. Courtroom
Minutes [Doc. No. 34].)
Instead of an Amended Complaint and in spite of detailed, pain-staking instructions given
by the court directly to the plaintiff on July 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Letter Amending
Complaint instead of an actual cognizable Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Tilana Shelly is, however, proceeding pro se. Therefore the court must liberally
construe her pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Nevertheless the court
will not act as advocate for a pro se litigant, who must comply with the fundamental
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991).
As a matter of expediency, the court will consider Plaintiff’s Letter Amending Complaint
to be the Plaintiff’s attempt to comply with the court’s directive to file an Amended Complaint.
Therefore it is ORDERED
1.

The Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is AMENDED to only to substitute ADT, L.L.C. in

place of ADT Securities as the Defendant in this action. The caption of the case will be amended
to so reflect the substitution.
2.

The court will infer and accept proper service of the Complaint (as amended)

upon ADT, L.L.C. as of the date of this Order as a result of counsel’s willingness to accept
service and his receipt of notice via the court’s docketing system, CM/ECF.
3.

ADT, L.L.C. shall file an Answer or other responsive pleading on or before

September 8, 2015.
DATED this 19th day of August, 2015.

2