Burris et al v. US Bank National Association et al
Filing
95
ORDER denying 89 Motion to Reopen Case. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/4/13. (kfinn, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-00670-REB-MEH
MARK BURRIS, and
LORI BURRIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the BS ALTA 2006-3,
GMAC BANK, and
JOHN AND JANE DOE, unknown owners of securitized note,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Open: Order re:
Administrative Closure Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3) & (6) [#89]1 filed May 14,
2012. The defendants filed a response [#92]. I deny the motion.
On March 16, 2012, the parties reached a settlement of this case. Minutes,
[#80]. A record of the settlement was made before the magistrate judge. Id. The terms
of the settlement required the defendants to file an uncontested motion to close this
case administratively. Material Terms of Settlement Agreement [#92-1], ¶ 11. The
defendants filed such a motion [#83], and it was granted. The plaintiffs argue that this
case should be re-opened because the uncontested motion to close this case
administratively was granted before the plaintiffs had an opportunity to respond to the
1
“[#89]” 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 order.
motion. However, the motion to close the case administratively is mandated by the
settlement. Given these circumstances, the fact that the motion to close this case
administratively was granted before the plaintiffs could respond to the motion is not a
valid basis to re-open this case. Rather, the terms of the parties’ settlement must be
followed by the parties and, if necessary, enforced by the court.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Open: Order
re: Administrative Closure Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3) & (6) [#89] filed May
14, 2012, is DENIED.
Dated March 4, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
