Free Order on Motion to Reset - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-00693-LTB-BNB

Document 215

Filed 09/27/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 01-cv-00693-LTB-BNB TY REX, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MARK NEWMAN and JAPHETH B. BOYCE, individually and d/b/a RJB ROCK SHOP, TRANS UNION GEN & MINERAL, INC., KAREN NEWMAN, ROBERT L. STODDARD, and GAIL L. STODDARD, Defendants, MARK NEWMAN and JAPHETH B. BOYCE, Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, v. JEFFREY S. MILLER,
Third Party Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter is before me on Plaintiff' and Third-Party Defendant' Motion to s s Postpone Supplemental Scheduling Conference and Submission of Proposed Scheduling Order (the " Motion" filed September 26, 2005. The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and ), DENIED IN PART. At one point, the parties announced that the case had been settled. The terms of the

Case 1:01-cv-00693-LTB-BNB

Document 215

Filed 09/27/2005

Page 2 of 3

Stipulation of Settlement never have been fully performed, however, and no party ever moved to dismiss the case based on performance of the settlement. Consequently, on August 23, 2005, I found that the parties had abrogated or rescinded the Stipulation of Settlement, and I recommended that the case be restored to active status, that final pretrial proceedings be scheduled, and that the case be set for trial. The plaintiff and third-party defendant have been granted leave to file an objection to my recommendation on or before October 1, 2005. Based on its intention to object to my recommendation, the plaintiff and third-party defendant have filed the Motion, which is unopposed, and which requests that I delay setting a schedule for pretrial matters until after the district judge rules on the anticipated objection. Contrary to the thrust of the Motion, in this district cases ordinarily are not stayed pending the determination of dispositive motions or the determination of objections to recommendations of magistrate judges. A contrary policy would lead to substantial delay in the processing of cases for trial. It is not uncommon for the determination of objections to take several months. The plaintiff and third-party defendant have not advanced any persuasive justification for deviating from the usual procedure and delaying this case while the objection is pending. And here, where the case was filed in 2001 and already has experienced substantial delay as a result of the aborted settlement, further delay is especially inappropriate. Although I will not stay the case pending the determination of the objection, I will grant a reasonable continuance of the supplemental scheduling conference to allow the parties to consider what additional pretrial proceedings are necessary and how the case should proceed from here. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the supplemental scheduling conference set for September 30, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., is VACATED and RESET to November 3, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom

Case 1:01-cv-00693-LTB-BNB

Document 215

Filed 09/27/2005

Page 3 of 3

401, 4th floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall prepare a proposed supplemental scheduling order and submit it to the court no later than October 28, 2005. Dated September 27, 2005. BY THE COURT: /s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge