Lee v. Ohio Security Insurance Company

Filing 32

MINUTE ORDER denying 29 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order 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-01328-MSK-MEH
JOO HAK LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 25, 2015.
Plaintiff’s unopposed1 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [filed November 23, 2015; docket
#29] is denied without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to explain why a 45-day extension is
necessary to rectify a 9-day “delay” – occasioned only by the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
applicable local rule – in seeking and receiving leave to amend the complaint. See dockets ##20-25.
In addition, the Plaintiff fails to contemplate the effect his request has, or will have, on the other
deadlines set forth in the governing Scheduling Order.

1

Plaintiff is reminded of the obligation to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(c) and all
applicable rules.