Reiskin et al v. Regional Transportation District

Filing 123

ORDER That, with the consent of the magistrate judge, the Order of Reference 68 , filed June 29, 2015, is withdrawn; That Plaintiffs Motion To Dismiss Defendant RTDs Counterclaim 57 , filed June 6, 2016, is denied without prejudice; That RTDs Motion for Summary Judgment To Dismiss Plaintiffs CCDC, Reiskin, Howey and Lewis 67 , filed June 29, 2015, is denied without prejudice; and That Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Liability 100 , filed August 19, 2015, is denied without prejudice. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/23/2016.(evana, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Action No. 14-cv-03111-REB-KLM JULIE REISKIN, JON JAIME LEWIS, WILLIAM JOE BEAVER, DOUGLAS HOWEY, DIANA MILNE, TINA MCDONALD, JOSÉ TORRES-VEGA, RANDY KILBOURN, JOHN BABCOCK, KIMBERLEY JACKSON, PAULINA BLACK, RUTHIE MCNAIR, VRLINA NOZLIÇ, CHERYL QUINLAN, ELAINE CULPEPPER, BIANCA GAMEL, KEVIN GRIMSINGER, and COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado nonprofit organization, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, Defendant. ORDER Blackburn, J. The matters before me are (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion To Dismiss Defendant RTD’s Counterclaim [#57]1 filed June 6, 20162; (2) RTD’s Motion for Summary Judgment To Dismiss Plaintiffs CCDC, Reiskin, Howey and Lewis [#67], filed June 29, 2015; and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Liability [#100], filed August 19, 2015. For the reasons stated below, I deny the motions without prejudice. All three motions have been pending resolution for at least six months. However, more recently, the parties have requested (and been granted) extensions of several pretrial deadlines, in connection with their representions that they are actively pursuing settlement negotiations and “wish to focus their efforts in the short term on making additional progress” in that regard. (Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion To Extend Expert Deadlines ¶ 3 at 1 [#120], filed February 8, 2016.) The magistrate judge has granted the parties’ requests, as a consequence of which the dispositive motion deadline is now June 24, 2016. (See Minute Order [#115], filed January 19, 2016.) Given these more recent developments in the case, the court believes the most appropriate course of action is to deny these pending dispositive motions without prejudice. Removing the motions from present consideration will help level the field and allow the parties to negotiate without unnecessary impediments. Even if the case is not resolved through settlement discussions, the relevant issues in the case may shift or change as a result thereof. In either event, the new, extended deadlines allow the parties ample time to refile dispositive motions if future developments make that course 1 “[#57]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order. 2 With the consent of the magistrate judge, I withdraw the reference of this motion [#68], filed June 29, 2015. 2 appropriate. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That, with the consent of the magistrate judge, the Order of Reference [#68], filed June 29, 2015, is withdrawn; 2. That Plaintiffs’ Motion To Dismiss Defendant RTD’s Counterclaim [#57], filed June 6, 2016, is denied without prejudice; 3. That RTD’s Motion for Summary Judgment To Dismiss Plaintiffs CCDC, Reiskin, Howey and Lewis [#67], filed June 29, 2015, is denied without prejudice; and 4. That Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Liability [#100], filed August 19, 2015, is denied without prejudice. Dated February 23, 2016, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?