Ross v. Clark

Filing 31

MINUTE ORDER denying as not a proper motion 29 Cross-Motion Opposing Defendant's Request Case Be Dismissed. The Court will treat it as a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss, and the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant likewise tr eat it as Plaintiff's response. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, counting from April 27, 2015, as the date of service. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 04/28/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03399-PAB-MJW
DELISE ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL CLARK,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion Opposing Defendant’s
Request Case Be Dismissed (Docket No. 29) is DENIED AS NOT A PROPER
MOTION. As the Court interprets the document, it is intended as a response to
Defendant’s motion to dismiss and as a request that Defendant’s motion be denied. It
does not appear to include a request for any independent relief; further, even if it did
request affirmative relief, such a request would be need to be made in its own motion
rather than in a response to Defendant’s motion. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) (second
paragraph).
Accordingly, to the extent the document seeks relief, it is denied as not a proper
motion. However, the Court will treat it as a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss,
and the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant likewise treat it as Plaintiff’s response.
Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, counting from April 27, 2015, as the date of service.
Date: April 28, 2015