From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. City of Aurora

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 30, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00010-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Jan. 30, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00010-PAB-KMT

01-30-2012

GEORG K. HILL, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, Defendant.


Judge Philip A. Brimmer


(consolidated with 10-cv-01134-PAB-KMT)


ORDER

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On June 8, 2011, the Court consolidated this action with Civil Action No. 10-cv-01134-PAB-KMT because, in each, plaintiff alleged substantially similar facts against the same defendant. See Docket No. 24. In Civil Action No. 10-cv-01134-PAB-KMT, plaintiff was ordered to "file an amended complaint consolidating the factual allegations and causes of action previously contained in the complaints" from both consolidated cases, see Docket No. 164 in No. 10-cv-01134-PAB-KMT, which plaintiff has now done. See Docket No. 169 in No. 10-cv-01134-PAB-KMT. Therefore, the Court discerns no reason to keep the present matter open during the pendency of Civil Action No. 10-cv-01134-PAB-KMT and will administratively close it pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. In the event there is a reason that this case remain open, the parties may seek to have it reopened for good cause. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.

To the extent defendant might seek to renew its request for attorney's fees, see Docket No. 32 at 2 (denying a request for fees for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3), the Court is empowered to address such collateral matters and will continue to have jurisdiction even after a dismissal and entry of judgment. See Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Engida, 611 F.3d 1209, 1218 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990)); cf. Qureshi v. United States, 600 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 2010) ("[T]he court may, notwithstanding dismissal of the underlying action, . . . impose attorney's fees . . . .") (citations and footnote omitted). Moreover, as noted, D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 permits the Court to reopen administratively closed matters for good cause.

For the foregoing reasons, it is

ORDERED that this case is administratively closed.

BY THE COURT:

_________________

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Hill v. City of Aurora

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 30, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00010-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Jan. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Hill v. City of Aurora

Case Details

Full title:GEORG K. HILL, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO, a municipal…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 30, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00010-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Jan. 30, 2012)