Iselo Holdings, LLC v. Innovative Teleservices Outsourcing Unlimited LLC et al, No. 1:2009cv02126 - Document 31 (D. Colo. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AS A MOTION TO STAY. Defendants 29 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is CONSTRUED as a Motion to Stay. Plaintiff shall file a response in accordance with the Local Rules. De fendants 30 Unopposed Motion for Leave to Appear by Telephone is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs 28 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Plaintiffs 9 Motion to Strike Defendants Answer is DENIED AS MOOT, by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/20/2009.(wjc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Civil Action No. 09-cv-02126-MSK-MJW ISELO HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. INNOVATIVE TELESERVICES; OUTSOURCING UNLIMITED, LLC, d/b/a AUTOMATED RESEARCH & MARKETING; and WILLIAM COONAN, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AS A MOTION TO STAY, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO APPEAR BY PHONE, DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE ______________________________________________________________________________ THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Defendants Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (#29) and Defendants Motion for Leave to Appear by Telephone (#30) at the hearing on the motion. Also pending before the Court are Plaintiff s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Strike Defendants Motion to Dismiss as Moot (#28); and Plaintiff s Motion to Strike Defendants Answer (#9). Defendants seek a Temporary Restraining Order against Plaintiff enjoining it from further filing and briefing any and all docket entries which do not respond to Defendants Pending Motion to Dismiss. Defendants maintain that the Motion to Dismiss (#17), which challenges subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue, will dispose of the entire 1 case, and, therefore, Defendants should not be subjected to any additional costs associated with further action in this case. Such an argument, however, is not properly made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Defendants are essentially seeking to stay all proceedings pending resolution of their Motion to Dismiss and, therefore, the Court shall construe Defendants Motion as a motion to stay. Given this interpretation, Defendants Motion to Appear by Telephone at the TRO Hearing is moot and shall be denied as such. As Defendants arguments relate to resolution of their Motion to Dismiss, it is reasonable to address Plaintiff s Motion for an Extension of Time or to Strike (#28) at this juncture. The Plaintiffs seek an extension of time to respond or to strike the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that it is now moot because an amended complaint has been filed. However, the Motion to Dismiss is based on subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue, which remain extant regardless of the filing of the Amended Complaint. No good cause has been shown for an extension of time to respond. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike Defendants Answer to the original Complaint (#9). The grounds for the motion are that it was filed by an individual non-attorney on behalf of an entity and was untimely filed. Plaintiff s filing of an amended complaint moots these issues. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) Defendants Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (#29) is CONSTRUED as a Motion to Stay. Plaintiff shall file a response in accordance with the Local Rules. (2) Defendants Unopposed Motion for Leave to Appear by Telephone (#30) is DENIED AS MOOT. 2 (3) Plaintiff s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss (#28) is DENIED. (4) Plaintiff s Motion to Strike Defendants Answer (#9) is DENIED AS MOOT. Dated this 20th day of November, 2009 BY THE COURT: Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.