Jackson v. Besecker et al

Filing 22

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiff shall have to and including December 14, 2015, in which to amend his Complaint. Entered by Judge John L. Kane on 11/24/15. (jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-1182-JLK
RICHARD SCOTT JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

RICHARD BESECKER,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
Judge John L. Kane ORDERS
This matter is before me on the parties’ “Stipulation for Extension to Amend Pleading”
(Doc. 21), invoking D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(a) to extend, by stipulation, the deadline for
amending pleadings set forth in the operative Scheduling Order. Representing that Local Rule
6.1(a) “provides that the parties may stipulate in writing to one extension of not more than 21
days to amend a pleading” (Mot. at 2), the parties purport to stipulate to a “fourteen (14) day
extension of time up to and including December 14, 2015, in which to amend the pleadings.”
The representation regarding the content of Rule 6.1(a) is erroneous (egregiously so) and the
relief requested entirely unavailable.
For the second time in this case (see Doc. 20, for the first) counsel have failed either to
read or apprehend Local Rule 6.1(a). Local Rule 6.1(a) authorizes parties to “stipulate in writing
to one extension of not more than 21 days beyond time limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to respond to a pleading or amended pleading, interrogatories, requests for

production of documents, or requests for admissions,” and provides that “[a]ny other request for
an extension of time or continuance must be approved by court order on motion.”
D.C.COLO.LCiv.R 6.1(a)(emphasis mine). The extension of deadlines to amend a pleading in
the first instance under Rule 15 – the deadline at issue here – is not even contemplated by Rule
6.1(a). Deadlines to amend pleadings are imposed by the operative Scheduling Order in a case,
and may be extended only through amendment of the Scheduling Order “upon motion showing
good cause and order entered thereon.” See Scheduling Order (Doc. 15) at p. 16. In short, there
is no mechanism under the Local Rules to “stipulate” to an extension of Scheduling Order
deadlines.
From this date forward, counsel are expected to read and apprehend the rules governing
local motions practice in this district and further obvious failures to do so may result in a filing
being stricken, or worse. For our present purposes, however, I will treat the erroneously filed
“Stipulation” as an Unopposed Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and GRANT it upon a
finding of sufficient cause. Plaintiff shall have to and including December 14, 2015, in which to
amend his Complaint.
___________________
Dated November 24, 2015