Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02338-MSK-MEH
03-18-2013
ROBERTO BRANCATO, as parent and next friend of R.B., a minor child, and ROCHELLE BRANCATO, individually, Plaintiffs, v. MARY PANIO, CAROL OLSON, WHITNEY HARRAH, SCOTT JUAREZ, JANE JORDAN, ALEXANDER PANIO, JR., and ADOLESCENT AND FAMILY INSTITUTE OF COLORADO, INC. Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on March 18, 2013.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [filed March 15, 2013; docket #75] is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, which states,
The court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter. The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.(emphasis added). The Court reminds the parties of their continuing obligations to comply fully with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1A requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule is not satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail).