From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hatch v. Sandgaard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Oct 11, 2011
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 11, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM

10-11-2011

STEPHEN T. HATCH, derivatively, on behalf of Zynex, Inc., formerly known as Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc. Plaintiff, v. THOMAS SANDGAARD, FRITZ G. ALLISON, TAYLOR SIMONTON, MARY BETH VITALE, and Defendants, ZYNEX, INC., a Nevada corporation, Nominal Defendant.


MINUTE ORDER

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Taylor Simonton ("Simonton") and Mary Beth Vitale's ("Vitale") Motion for Order Requiring Security [Docket No. 17; Filed October 10, 2011] (the "Motion"). Defendants Simonton and Vitale have failed to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., which provides as follows:

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.
The Motion is subject to denial on this basis alone. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#17] is DENIED without prejudice.


Summaries of

Hatch v. Sandgaard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Oct 11, 2011
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 11, 2011)
Case details for

Hatch v. Sandgaard

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN T. HATCH, derivatively, on behalf of Zynex, Inc., formerly known…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Oct 11, 2011

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 11, 2011)