Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-02480_de185> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02480_de185 RegisterActionDate "2017-07-25" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02480_de185 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER re 175 Motion to Set Aside. "[T]o satisfy the requirements of [Local] Rule 7.1, 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 (D. Colo. 2003). The rule is not satisfied by one party sending a single e-mail informing the other party of his intention to file a motion and does not suggest any negotiation or compromise. Id. In his "Certification of Duty to Confer," Plaintiff states that on July 19, 2017, which is the same date he filed his motion, he notified the defendants via email of his intention to file the present motion. That is patently insufficient to satisfy the requirement of the local rules. Consequently, his motion is DENIED. Further, Plaintiff is cautioned that any future failures to confer in compliance with the local rules may result in his motions being struck or denied without further explanation. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 7/25/2017. Text Only Entry (cbslc2) (Entered: 07/25/2017)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02480_de185 AdministrativeID "185" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02480_de185 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-02480_de185 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-02480_de174 @default.