Hulse et al v. Adams County, Colorado et al

Filing 106

ORDER granting 102 Motion to Dismiss, by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 02/25/2016.(cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02531-RM-NYW
JEFFREY HULSE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ADAMS COUNTY, COLORADO, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion To Dismiss (“Motion”)
(ECF No. 102), requesting the dismissal of some claims by some Plaintiffs against some
Defendants. It appears that no party and no claim are completely dismissed from this case.
The Motion is filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), but in Gobbo Farms &
Orchards v. Poole Chem. Co., Inc., 81 F.3d 122, 123 (10th Cir. 1996), in the context of the
dismissal of one claim in a single defendant action, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated
that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) “speaks to dismissal of an action, not just a claim within an action.
[Plaintiff] offers no authority, and we have found none, to support its contention that Rule 41(a)
applies to dismissal of less than all claims in an action.” Rule 15(a), however, permits a party to
amend his or her pleadings with the opposing parties’ written consent or the court’s leave. Such

amendments, however, must also satisfy other requirements. E.g., D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1
(requiring the filing of an amended pleading with strike-through and redlines).
Upon the consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court construes
the Motion as a request to allow an amendment by deleting certain claims against certain
Defendants. The Court will not require the parties to file a redlined/strike-through amended
complaint. However, the Court will require the parties to file a status report setting forth: (1) as
to each Plaintiff, the claims at issue and against which Defendant each claim is directed; and (2)
the effect of the amendment on the Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 46), the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 85), and the
Objection (ECF No. 90), e.g., whether any of the issues are now moot. It is therefore
ORDERED
(1) That the Stipulated Motion To Dismiss (ECF No. 102) is GRANTED; and
(2) That on or before Friday, March 4, 2016, the parties shall file a status report setting
forth the following: (i) as to each Plaintiff, the claims at issue and against which
Defendant each claim is directed; and (ii) the effect of the amendment on the Partial
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 46), the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge (ECF No. 85), and the Objection (ECF No. 90).
DATED this 25th day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
2