Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00003-WJM-MEH
01-24-2012
ALFONSO A. CARRILLO, NORA G. GONZALEZ CUEVAS, JAIME ESCOBEDO, ROCIO G. VILLARREAL, JOSE A. CHARUPE, MARIA C. FERNANDEZ, ALVARO NUNEZ, JOSE AGUSTIN TELLES, JOSE GONZALEZ, MARIA E. ELIAS, ELDA URQUIDI, ERNESTO LEDEZMA, HUGO PACHECO ORTIZ, PEDRO BARRON CHAVEZ, JOSEFA ORTEGA, SERGIO HERNANDEZ, JUAN PABLO REYES-CRUZ, GONZALO PEREZ, SELENE ROBLES, LINA GISELA MOLINA, SILVIA DORADO, HECTOR PINA, CLAUDIA OROZCO MOLINA, ANA LUISA CHAVEZ, ELIZABETH PADILLA, JUAN DE DIOS MUNOZ GONZALEZ, JEANNETTE PINA, GERMAN JASSO BRUNO, LAURA GUTIERREZ, JULIO ARREGUIN, and RUDY BREDA, Plaintiffs, v. CASTLE, STAWIARSKI, LLC, LAWRENCE CASTLE, GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS (GTS), THE HOPP LAW FIRM, LLC, ROBERT J. HOPP, and GARY GLENN, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 24, 2012.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Join Additional Defendants as Listed in Caption Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 19(a) [filed January 19, 2012; docket #26] is denied as moot. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), "a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course...within 21 days after serving it[.]" Here, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on January 3, 2012, and the record indicates that they have not yet effected service on Defendants. Because the Plaintiffs are well within the window established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) for amending as a matter of course, they need not seek permission from the Court to join parties at this time, but may file an Amended Complaint containing such amendments as they so desire.
Pursuant to D.C. Colo. LCivR 8.1A, "[a] prose party shall use the forms established by this court to file an action." Therefore, the Clerk of the Court is directed to send with this order a copy of a form complaint for the Plaintiffs to use in filing their amended pleading. Again, the Plaintiffs are reminded that any Amended Complaint they may file in accordance with this order must be filed in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
In addition, the Court notes that the docket in this case reflects that orders mailed to several Plaintiffs have been returned as undeliverable. See dockets ##5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29. The Court reminds the Plaintiffs that they are obligated under the local rules to promptly provide the Court with correct addresses and telephone numbers. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 10.1M.