Taylor Moving, LLC v. Voigt et al
Filing
101
ORDER. ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment 61 and Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment 62 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ORDERED that Taylor Moving, LLC, and the Defendants shall re-filetheir respective Motions for Summary Jud gment, in compliance with the FEDERAL RULES of CIVIL PROCEDURE and my PRACTICE STANDARDS, on or before Monday, March 25, 2013. ORDERED that Taylor Moving, LLC's, Motion For Alternative DisputeResolution 93 is DENIED. ORDERED that a Motions Hearing regarding the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment, which shall be filed on or before Monday, March 25, 2013, is set for Wednesday, June 5, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom A-1002 by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 03/11/13.(jjhsl, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01540-WYD-BNB
TAYLOR MOVING, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL VOIGT, an individual;
OPM ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Pride Worldwide Moving & Storage, d/b/a Boulder
Valley Transfer, a Colorado corporation;
TAYLOR MOVING, INC., a Colorado corporation;
TAYLOR MOVING AND STORAGE, INC., a Colorado corporation; and,
BOULDER VALLEY TRANSFER, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on: (1) Taylor Moving, LLC’s, Plaintiff’s
Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 61]; (2) defendants, Michael Voigt, OPM
Enterprises, Inc., Taylor Moving, Inc., Taylor Moving and Storage, Inc., and Boulder
Valley Transfer, Inc.’s (collectively “the Defendants”) Defendants’ Motion For Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 62]; and, (3) Taylor Moving, LLC’s, Plaintiff’s Motion For Alternative
Dispute Resolution [ECF No. 93]. For the reasons discussed below, the Motions for
Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 61 & 62] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and
Taylor Moving, LLC’s, Motion For Alternative Dispute Resolution [ECF No. 93] is
DENIED.
-1-
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On August 17, 2012, Taylor Moving, LLC, (“Taylor Moving”) filed its Plaintiff’s
Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 61] which did not conform to my PRACTICE
STANDARDS. Pursuant to Rule III(B)(3):
All motions for summary judgment must contain a section
entitled “Movant’s Statement of Material Facts.” This
Statement shall set forth in simple, declarative sentences,
which are separately numbered and paragraphed, each
material fact that the movant believes support movant’s
claim that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Each separately numbered and paragraphed fact must be
accompanied by a specific reference to material in the
record which establishes that fact.
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel’s CIVIL and CRIMINAL PRACTICE STANDARDS, Rule III(B)(3),
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/CourtOperations/RulesProcedures/JudicialPracticeStandar
ds/SeniorArticleIIIJudges/HonWileyYDaniel.aspx. Taylor Moving’s Motion for Summary
Judgment does not contain a section entitled “Movant’s Statement of Material Facts.” In
the Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 68],
the Defendants’ state that, “[t]he failure of the Plaintiff to follow the Court’s rule makes it
impossible for the Defendants to respond as required by the Court’s rule. Defendants
cannot tell where arguments end and specific factual references begin.” ECF No. 68, p.
2, ¶ 3. The Defendants did not substantively respond to Taylor Moving’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
On August 17, 2012, the Defendants filed their Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 62]. On September 7, 2012, Taylor Moving filed its Amended
Response To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 69] which did not
comply with my PRACTICE STANDARDS. Pursuant to Rule III(B)(5):
-2-
If the party opposing the motion believes there are additional
disputed questions which have not been adequately
addressed in the submissions made pursuant to this Section
(for example, disputed facts concerning an affirmative
defense), the party shall, in a separate section of the party’s
brief styled “Statements of Additional Disputed Facts,” set
forth in simple declarative sentences, separately numbered
and paragraphed, each additional material disputed fact
which undercuts movant’s claim that movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Each separately numbered
and paragraphed fact shall be accompanied by specific
reference to material in the record which establishes the fact
or at least demonstrates that it is disputed.
Id. at Rule III(B)(5). Taylor Moving’s Response includes a section entitled “Statement of
Additional Disputed Facts,” but does not set separately number each alleged additional
disputed fact. On October 1, 2012, the Defendants filed their Defendants’ Motion To
Strike Response To Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Reply In
Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 75], arguing that I should strike
Taylor Moving’s Response [ECF No. 69] because it violates Rules 11(b)(3) and (4) of
the FEDERAL RULES of CIVIL PROCEDURE and my PRACTICE STANDARDS.
On November 5, 2012, Taylor Moving filed its Plaintiff’s Motion For Alternative
Dispute Resolution [ECF No. 93], requesting this Court to issue an Order mandating
that the parties attend alternative dispute resolution. On November 30, 2012, the
Defendants filed their Defendants’ Response To Motion For Alternative Dispute
Resolution [ECF No. 96], arguing that they do not object to a settlement conference, but
“believe that the chances of settlement increase significantly if the settlement
conference is held after the ruling [on the then pending Motions for Summary
Judgment].” ECF No. 96, p. 2, ¶ 2.
-3-
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the parties’ filings within the past month, I find that they are
inadequate to allow meticulous, proper analysis regarding the parties’ summary
judgment claims. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Taylor Moving, LLC’s, Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment
[ECF No. 61] and defendants, Michael Voigt, OPM Enterprises, Inc., Taylor Moving,
Inc., Taylor Moving and Storage, Inc., and Boulder Valley Transfer, Inc.’s (collectively
“the Defendants”) Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF No. 62] are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Taylor Moving, LLC, and the Defendants shall re-file
their respective Motions for Summary Judgment, in compliance with the FEDERAL RULES
of CIVIL PROCEDURE and my PRACTICE STANDARDS, on or before Monday, March 25,
2013. All responses and replies to the filings shall be filed within the time frame allowed
by the FEDERAL RULES of CIVIL PROCEDURE and the Local Rules for the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Taylor Moving, LLC’s, Motion For Alternative Dispute
Resolution [ECF No. 93] is DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that a Motions Hearing regarding the parties’ Motions for
Summary Judgment, which shall be filed on or before Monday, March 25, 2013, is set
for Wednesday, June 5, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom A-1002.
Dated: March 11, 2013.
-4-
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior U. S. District Judge
-5-
]]>
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?
