White v. Roaring Fork Partners, LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER It is not necessary to grant the motion to extend the pleadings deadline Doc. 13 and the plaintiffs 14 motion for leave to amend is considered timely filed and the defendants shall respond on or before May 1, 2015. by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/22/2015. (evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02607-RPM
CLIFTON WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROARING FORK PARTNERS, LLC,
ROARING FORK ADVISORS, LP, and
ROARING FORKS ADVISORS, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
_____________________________________________________________________
In the Scheduling Order entered on December 22, 2014, the Case Plan and
Schedule provided for April 15, 2015, as the time for filing amended pleadings and also
referred to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. On April 15, 2015, plaintiff filed an Amended Motion to
Extend the Pleadings Deadline and on April 20, 2015, filed a motion for leave to amend
the complaint with a proposed first amended complaint attached. This scheduling order
creates confusion and this Court has recently eliminated any time for filing amended
pleadings. Accordingly, it is not necessary to grant the motion to extend the pleadings
deadline [Doc. 13] and the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is considered timely filed
and the defendants shall respond on or before May 1, 2015.
Dated: April 22, 2015
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
_________________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge