From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hicks v. Cadle Company

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jun 23, 2010
Civil Action No. 04-cv-02616-ZLW-CBS (D. Colo. Jun. 23, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-cv-02616-ZLW-CBS.

June 23, 2010


ORDER


The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion To Hold Daniel C. Cadle In Contempt (Doc. No. 418). The Court has reviewed carefully the moving and responding papers and the applicable legal authority. It is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Hold Daniel C. Cadle In Contempt (Doc. No. 418) is denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court hereby clarifies that the portion of the Court's Order of July 11, 2005 (Doc. No. 50) which ordered that "Defendants Daniel C. Cadle, William E. Shaulis, and representatives of Defendants The Cadle Company and Buckeye Retirement Co., LLC, LTD., shall not have communications, orally or in writing, including by email or telephone, with . . . Plaintiff's counsel unless it is a communication approved by counsel or unless they are pro se," means that Defendants shall not have any communication with any attorney representing Plaintiff on any matter, in any jurisdiction, unless the communication is approved by counsel or unless the Defendant is pro se.


Summaries of

Hicks v. Cadle Company

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jun 23, 2010
Civil Action No. 04-cv-02616-ZLW-CBS (D. Colo. Jun. 23, 2010)
Case details for

Hicks v. Cadle Company

Case Details

Full title:KERRY R. HICKS, Plaintiff, v. THE CADLE COMPANY, BUCKEYE RETIREMENT CO.…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jun 23, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 04-cv-02616-ZLW-CBS (D. Colo. Jun. 23, 2010)