Nidiffer et al v. Lovato et al

Filing 59

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter DENYING 58 Motion Amend Punitive Damages without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1. Plaintiffs may refile their motion in compliance with the local rules. (ama)

Case 1:22-cv-00374-MV-JHR Document 59 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
THOMAS E. NIDIFFER, and
LAURIE-LYNN FRANCESE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 22-CV-0374-MV/JHR

DAVID LOVATO,
ARMANDO CAMPOS, and
ZACHARY SISEMORE,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Punitive Damages (“Motion”) filed on
January 18, 2023. [Doc. 58]. The Court denies the Motion without prejudice for failure to comply
with the District’s local rules. Plaintiffs may refile the Motion in compliance with the rule
discussed below.
Motions filed in the District of New Mexico must state: (1) whether they are opposed, and
(2) that the movant requested, in good faith, concurrence from the other side. D.N.M.LR-Civ.
7.1(a). Motions that do not meet these requirements can be summarily denied. Id. Plaintiffs’
Motion does not state whether opposing parties concur, nor whether they sought concurrence. See

Case 1:22-cv-00374-MV-JHR Document 59 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 2

[Doc. 58]. This is the reason for the Court denying the Motion at this juncture. 1 Plaintiffs may file
a new Motion to Amend Punitive Damages which complies with Local Rule 7.1(a).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Punitive Damages
[Doc. 58] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
JERRY H. RITTER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

If Plaintiffs refile the Motion and opposing parties concur that it should be granted, Plaintiffs must also submit a
proposed order to [e-mail]. D.N.M.LR-Civ 7.2.
1

2