From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co.

District Court, Adams County, State of Colorado
Apr 9, 2012
1:12-cv-00946-PAB (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2012)

Opinion

1:12-cv-00946-PAB

04-09-2012

Stephen Francis, et al. Plaintiff v. Allstate Ins. Co. Defendants


Civil Access Pilot Project Initial Order

(rev. 12/31/2011)

NOTICE: New time limits in the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure as of January 1, 2012.

Supreme Court Rule Change 2011(18) is available at the Colorado State Judicial Branch website at

http://www-Wurts.stateco-Us/asert;1es/rile/Court Probation/Supreme Court/Rule Changes /2011/2011 18 redlined.pdf

Your case falls within the Civil Access Pilot Project ("CAPP"). CAPP cases are subject to the Pilot Project Rules ("PPR"). The PPR are published at the link to Chief Justice Directive

11 -02 at http://www . courts, state. co. us/Courls/Civil Rules.cfm,

A. It is extremely important that counsel become familiar with the Pilot Project Rules. This Court is obligated to enforce them.
B. The CAPP rules are construed to secure the just, timely, efficient, and cost-effective determination of an action. PP Rule 1.3.
C. The pleading rule (PPR 2.2) is intended to identify and narrow disputed issues at the earliest stage of the litigation. Although notice pleading is retained, pleadings which include a claim or affirmative defense should include all material facts known to the pleader - - such as the "who, what, when, where, and how" for each element of the claim or affirmative defense. See PPR 2.2.
D. The filing of a motion to dismiss does not delay the filing of an answer. PPR 4.1.
E. The concept of broad discovery allowed by the CRCP has been replaced with proportionate discovery. PPR 9.1 and 9.2, Discovery limits and other proportionate to the case will be set at the case management conference. Proportionality factors are listed at PPR 1.3.
F. Rules for expert discovery are substantially changed. PPR 10.
G. PPR 1.4 provides: "Continuances and extensions are strongly disfavored. Absent extraordinary circumstances, motions for continuances or extensions will be denied by the court upon receipt and without waiting for a response."
H. Lead trial counsel is obligated to attend the initial case management conference. PPR 7.1.

I. Important deadlines at this early stage of the case include:

1. Service of Process: Returns of service must be filed promptly. Failure to promptly file returns of service may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute of the claims against non-served parties. See CRCP Rule 121 §1-10.
2. Initial Disclosures: A party asserting a claim for relief must file with the Court a disclosure statement and certification within 21 days after the claim is served on any opposing party. PPR 3.1.
3. Default Judgment: Motions for default judgment shall be promptly filed after default occurs. Failure to promptly file motions for default judgment may result in dismissal of the claims for failure to prosecute against the defaulting party. See CRCP Rule 121 §1-10.
4. Initial Case Management Conference: Within seven days after the last answer is filed, Plaintiff shall serve a Notice to Set the initial case management conference. The initial case management conference must be held within 49 days after the last answer is filed. PPR 7.1 (modified).
5. Seven days before the initial conference, the parties must file a proposed "Initial Case Management Conference Joint Report of the Parties." See PPR 7.1 and Appendix B.
6. The trial will be set at the Initial Case Management Conference,
J. The Clerk of this Division (Ms. Lissa Ellis, 303-654-3290) sets hearings Mondays through Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. K. If an attorney or pro se (self-represented) party fails to comply with this order, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. This order is the initial notice required by CRCP Rule 121 §1-10 and CRCP Rule 41(b)(2). L. Plaintiff shall provide a copy of this order to all parties who enter an appearance. M. The letters "CAPP1" shall appear with the case number in all filings.

BY THE COURT:

____________

Edward C. Moss

District Court Judge


Summaries of

Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co.

District Court, Adams County, State of Colorado
Apr 9, 2012
1:12-cv-00946-PAB (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2012)
Case details for

Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Stephen Francis, et al. Plaintiff v. Allstate Ins. Co. Defendants

Court:District Court, Adams County, State of Colorado

Date published: Apr 9, 2012

Citations

1:12-cv-00946-PAB (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2012)