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ORDER That, with the consent of the magistrate judge, the Order of Reference 68 , filed June 29, 2015, is withdrawn; That Plaintiffs Motion To Dismiss Defendant RTDs Counterclaim #57 , filed June 6, 2016, is denied without prejudice; That RTDs Motion for Summary Judgment To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, )

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