Ali et al v. Jerusalem Restaurant, Inc.

Filing 77

ORDER denying without prejudice 76 Motion to Clarify by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/18/2015.(mdave)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00933-MEH
HANAN ALI, and
LENA DERANI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JERUSALEM RESTAURANT, INC.,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 18, 2015.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification or Modification [filed March 16, 2015; docket #76] 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 motion does not fall under any exception listed in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(b). The Court reminds
the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with 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). The Court also finds, in this particular instance, that conferral
would be beneficial toward the resolution of the matter.