Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 11 of
11
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 RegisterActionDate "2015-12-31" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: This matter is before the Court on the six motions that have been filed since December 22, 2015 (ECF Nos. 246 , 247 , 248 , 251 , 252 , 253 ). All six motions lack the certificate of conferral required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a) and are, for that reason, STRICKEN. Moreover, save for 703195A 252 Second Motion to Strike Expert Report, these motions may not be re-filed for the following reasons. 703195A 246 Motion to Strike WCA's Motion for Summary Judgment argues that the WCA Defendants' summary judgment evidence is inadmissible and/or that certain necessary evidence is lacking. These arguments may be properly raised in response to a summary judgment motion, but they are not the basis of a motion to strike. 703195A 247 Motion for Sanctions against Defendant WCA raises a merits question (whether the WCA Defendants' claims fail for lack of certification under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602) which must first be resolved before the Court could begin to consider the propriety of sanctions. Because § 13-20-602 has been raised in 703195A 235 Motion for Summary Judgment (see p.31 & n.8), the Court will address it in that context. 703195A 248 Amended Motion for Sanctions against Defendant WCA suffers the same problem as the original motion. To the extent it attempts to assert Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as an additional basis for sanctions, 703195A has not showed that he complied with Rule 11(c)(2)'s 21-day "safe harbor" requirement. 703195A 251 Motion to Strike WCA/Carter's Untimely Memorandum Contra And/Or for Sanctions Against Defendant WCA/Carter, and the Gunns' 253 Motion to Strike Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, both argue that the WCA Defendants' summary judgment response brief was due December 21, 2015, but was untimely filed on December 23, 2015. This argument is incorrect. D.C.COLO.LCivR 56.1(a) sets a 21-day filing window, to which 3 days are added per Rule 6(d) when service has been made through CM/ECF, as it was here. Given that the parties' various summary judgment motions were filed on November 30, their response deadline was December 24. The WCA Defendants' filing on December 23 was timely. Finally, it is ORDERED that Court will not entertain any motion for sanctions from 703195A until the merits of the claims asserted by and against him have been resolved. SO ORDERED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/31/2015. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1, ) (Entered: 12/31/2015)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 AdministrativeID "254" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de234 @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de245 @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de246 @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de247 @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de250 @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de251 @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de253 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01691_de252 @default.