Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01789-WYD-KLM
08-08-2011
BUYERS OF THE RITZ-CARLTON VAIL, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. RCR VAIL, a Colorado limited liability company, MATT FITZGERALD, an individual residing in Colorado, and SILFER, SMITH & FRAMPTON/VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Order Permitting Complaint and Jury Demand to Be Filed Nunc Pro Tunc to the Date It Was First Attempted to Be Sent Electronically [Docket No. 2; Filed July 8, 2011] (the "Motion"). Plaintiff filed its Complaint [Docket No. 1] on July 8, 2011. Plaintiff seeks to have the Complaint deemed filed on June 3, 2011, the date when Plaintiff's counsel's office first attempted to file it using the Court's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system. Plaintiff represents that the first attempt to electronically file the Complaint was unsuccessful due to an inadvertent error by Plaintiff's counsel's staff in typing the Clerk of the Court's intake email address. Plaintiff further represents that the error was not discovered until July 8, 2011, at which time Plaintiff's counsel immediately acted to properly file the Complaint.
Plaintiff does not state why an order deeming the Complaint to have been filed on June 3, 2011 is necessary. The record reflects that no Defendants have been served or entered an appearance in the case. The Court is left to presume that Plaintiff is concerned about the Complaint's filing date because it may impact the timeliness of claims under the relevant statute of limitations. Because no Defendants have entered an appearance and no statute of limitations defense has been raised, the Court finds that the relief Plaintiff seeks is not warranted at this juncture. Dunn v. Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n, Inc., No. 10-cv-02441-ZLW-KLM, Docket No. 6 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2010) (unpublished Minute Order). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#2] is DENIED without prejudice.