Frasier v. Evans, et al

Filing 34

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 32 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/16/2015.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01759-REB-KLM
LEVI FRASIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER L. EVANS, Denver Police Officer, #05151,
CHARLES C. JONES, Denver Police Officer, #04120,
JOHN H. BAUER, Denver Police Officer, #970321,
RUSSELL BOTHWELL, Denver Police Officer, #94015,
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, and
AS YET UNIDENTIFIED DENVER POLICE OFFICERS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint [#32]1 (the “Motion”). As an initial matter, the Motion does not
comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), which 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.
In the Motion, Plaintiff states:
Prior to filing this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendants’ counsel
that she would be filing a motion for leave to amend to substitute John
Robledo as a [Defendant]. Defendant’s [sic] counsel stated that he may

1

“[#32]” 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

oppose the motion on grounds of futility.
Motion [#32] at 3 n.1.
“[T]o satisfy the requirements of Rule 7.1[(a)], the parties must hold a conference,
possibly 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.”).
Informing opposing counsel that you intend to file a motion does not amount to conferral.
See JAH IP Holdings, LLC v. Mascio, No. 13-cv-02195-MSK0KLM, 2014 WL 2462545, at
*2 (D. Colo. June 2, 2014). The Motion is subject to denial for failure to comply with Rule
7.1(a). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#32] is DENIED without prejudice. Any
future filing that does not comply with any applicable rule will be stricken.
Dated: November 16, 2015

2