Intelligent Designs 2000 Corporation v. CCM Assembly & Manufacturing Inc.

Filing 27

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/7/15. Plaintiff Intelligent Designs 2000 Corporation's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (With Incorporated Certificate of Compliance) # 17 is DENIED without prejudice.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01609-KLM
INTELLIGENT DESIGNS 2000 CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CCM ASSEMBLY & MANUFACTURING, INC., doing business as BajaRack Adventure
Equipment, a California company,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Intelligent Designs 2000 Corporation’s
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (With Incorporated Certificate of
Compliance) [#17]1 (the “Motion”). The Motion purports to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.1(a) by stating:
Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), counsel for ID2 and CCM have
conferred on the relief requested in this Motion, and it is likely CCM will
oppose granting of the requested relief.
Motion [#17] at 4. This statement does not meet Rule 7.1(a)’s requirements.
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a) provides as follows:
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.
“[T]o satisfy the requirements of Rule 7.1[(a)], the parties must hold a conference, possibly

1

“[#17]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Minute Order.

1

through the exchange of correspondence but preferably through person-to-person
telephone calls or face-to-face meetings, and must compare views and attempt to reach
an agreement, including by compromise if appropriate.” Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214
F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003). The point of the conferral requirement is to have the
parties exchange ideas regarding the requested relief and, hopefully, eliminate through
discussion or compromise any issues they can before filing a motion so as to limit the
issues brought before the Court. See Carroll v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., No. 12cv-00007-WJM-KLM, 2013 WL 5769308, at *4 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2013) (“The purpose of
Rule 7.1[(a)] is to decrease the number and length of motions filed in each case.”).
Plaintiff’s statement that Defendant “is likely” to oppose the requested relief does not meet
Rule 7.1(a)’s requirements because it does not make clear to the Court whether the Motion
is opposed or not.
In addition, if the Motion is opposed by Defendant, it also fails to meet the
requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), which, in relevant part, states: “a motion involving
a contested issue of law shall state under which rule or statute it is filed and be supported
by a recitation of legal authority in the motion.” The Motion states that it is filed pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, Plaintiff fails to provide any legal authority for the
requested relief.
For these reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#17] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: December 7, 2015

2