Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00564-REB-CBS.
June 8, 2006
ORDER
This civil action comes before the court on: (1) Mark and Carol Burnett's Motion "to Deny B. Doug George's May 4th 2006 Motion for Summary Judgment and Submit Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to George's Putative Motion" (filed June 7, 2006) (doc. # 43); and (2) "Defendant Doug B. George's Response to Daniel Powell's Motion for Summary Judgment" (filed June 7, 2006) (doc. # 46). Pursuant to the March 30, 2006 Order of Reference and the memoranda dated June 1 and June 8, 2006 (docs. # 37 and 44), these matters were referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the pending matters, the entire case file and the applicable rules and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
Defendant B. Doug George filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on May 4, 2006 (doc. # 19). On May 23, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their "Response Brief in Opposition to George's May 4th 2006 Putative Motions for Summary Judgment" (doc. # 28). On June 7, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their Motion "to Deny B. Doug George's May 4th 2006 Motion for Summary Judgment and Submit Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to George's Putative Motion" (doc. # 43). Plaintiffs' Motion "to Deny . . ." is more properly treated as an additional response to Defendant George's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 19). Further, Defendant George's "Response" (doc. # 46) to Defendant Powell's Motion for Summary Judgment is more properly treated as a joinder in Defendant Powell's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 34).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Mark and Carol Burnett's Motion "to Deny B. Doug George's May 4th 2006 Motion for Summary Judgment and Submit Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to George's Putative Motion" (filed June 7, 2006) (doc. # 43) is DENIED as a motion and shall be treated as a second response to Defendant B. Doug George's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 19). The court need not accept any further responses by Plaintiffs to Defendant B. Doug George's Motion for Summary Judgment.
2. Defendant George's "Response" (doc. # 46) to Defendant Powell's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be treated as a joinder in Defendant Powell's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 34).
3. Under the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Mark and Carol Ann Burnett may file their response to Defendant Daniel Powell's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 34) on or before June 20, 2006.
4. Under the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Mark and Carol Ann Burnett may file their response to Defendants Robert L. and Karen L. Amrein's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 41) on or before June 26, 2006.
5. A preliminary Scheduling Conference remains set on July 6, 2006 at 10:45 a.m. at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom A402, Fourth Floor, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.
Contrary to the court's previous Minute Order dated April 7, 2006 (doc. # 4), the parties need not comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and D.C.COLO L.CivR.16.2 and 26.1. The purpose of the initial conference will be to consider the nature and status of the case, the schedule for filing any additional motions, and what discovery, if any, will be needed.