Opinion
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02045-RM-MEH
04-13-2020
MARK LASSER, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and PETER BROWN, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case for Clarification (ECF No. 39). The Court finds no response is required before ruling. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). Here, Plaintiff requests clarification of the Court's "ambiguous" order as to whether this case is "fully terminated and closed" or stayed pending arbitration. The Court finds its Order of March 31, 2020 (ECF No. 38) is not ambiguous, but that Plaintiff misunderstands the nature of an administrative closure.
As the Magistrate Judge recommended, the Court granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and administratively closed this case, subject to reopening for good cause. An administrative closure is "the practical equivalent of a stay." Quinn v. CGR, 828 F.2d 1463, 1465 n.2. (10th Cir. 1987). The "[u]se of the administrative-closure mechanism allows district courts to remove from their pending cases suits which are temporarily active elsewhere (such as before an arbitration panel) or stayed (such as where a bankruptcy is pending)." Patterson v. Santini, 631 F. App'x 531, 534 (10th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "Because an administratively closed case 'still exists on the docket of the district court,' it 'may be reopened upon request of the parties or on the court's own motion.'" Id. (quoting Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2004)). "[G]ood cause to reopen a case exists where the parties wish to litigate the remaining issues that have become ripe for review." Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, no clarification is required. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case for Clarification (ECF No. 39) is DENIED.
DATED this 13th day of April, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge