Boyd et al v. Montezuma County Sheriff's Office, et al
Filing
51
MINUTE ORDER denying 50 Motion to Stay Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/25/2015.(mdave, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00101-MEH
JONATHAN BOYD, and
JAMI LARSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MONTEZUMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
DENNIS SPRUELL, in his individual capacity,
ADAM ALCON, in his individual capacity and official capacity at the Montezuma County
Sheriff’s Office, and
STEVE NOWLIN, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Montezuma County,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 25, 2015.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
[filed November 25, 2015; docket #50] is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C.
Colo. LCivR 7.1(a), which states,
Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented party
shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any opposing
counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The moving party
shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific
efforts to fulfill this duty.
The motion does not fall under any exception listed in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(b). The Court reminds
the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a). See
Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1(a) requires
meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party
a single email, letter or voicemail).
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?