Emart, Inc. 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, )

Download PDF
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.

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?