Saxton et al v. Lucas et al

Filing 57

MINUTE ORDER Denying without prejudice 39 City Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C § 1927. Granting in part and denying in part 55 Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold in Abeyance City Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/2/2015.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00255-MJW
LAURA SAXTON, and
DOUG SCHELLING, as the surviving parent of Kelsie Schelling, decedent,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONTHE LUCAS,
SARA LUCAS,
VIVIAN LUCAS,
DAWN SHAY LUCAS,
NEAL ROBINSON, in his individual capacity,
KEN ESPINOZA, in his individual capacity,
ANDREW MCLACHLAN, in his individual capacity, and
CITY OF PUEBLO, COLORADO,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that:
•

Plaintiff’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance City Defendants’ Motion for
Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Docket No. 55) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as explained herein; and

•

City Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927 (Docket No. 39) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for the
reasons explained herein.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the City Defendants’ motion cannot properly
be considered until after resolution of the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss. But that
motion to dismiss is subject to report-and-recommendation procedures under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and the Court prefers not to hold the motion in
abeyance for an indeterminate period of time. Rather, the motion for sanctions is
dismissed without prejudice. The City Defendants may re-file, if appropriate, after
Judge Arguello resolves their motion to dismiss.
Date: October 2, 2015