Sanchez v. City and County of Denver et al

Filing 42

MINUTE ORDER denying 35 Motion for Default Judgment, and granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion for an Extension of Time, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/16/15.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02804-MSK-KLM
ARTHUR SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN H. BAUER, Detective, 97032,
JOHN G. ROBLEDO, Detective, 05122, and
NICHOLAS E. ROGERS, Detective, 86037,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [#35]
and on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time [#39].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Default Judgment [#35] is DENIED
as moot, as the Clerk of Court noted on March 4, 2015 that default would not be entered
against Defendants John H. Bauer, John G. Robledo, and Nicholas E. Rogers because a
responsive pleading had already been filed by them. See [#36].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for an Extension of Time [#39] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiff
shall file a Response to the Motion to Dismiss [#32] on or before April 8, 2015. The
Motion is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks sanctions against opposing counsel.
Defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint was
February 23, 2015. The Motion to Dismiss [#32] was timely filed electronically on Friday,
February 23, 2015. Because of the weekend, the document was not postmarked to Plaintiff
until Monday, February 26, 2015, the next business day. The Court therefore finds no
evidence that Defendants “blatantly lied to this Honorable Court knowingly [and] intelligently
with malicious intent” regarding the timing of the filing and mailing of this document. The
Court further finds that Plaintiff has suffered no prejudice with respect to the brief delay in
his receiving a copy of Defendants’ filing, as the Court has granted Plaintiff’s request for
an extension of time in which to file a Response to the Motion to Dismiss.
Dated: March 16, 2015