Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01124-JLK-MEH

Document 114

Filed 09/26/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane Civil Action No. 04-cv-1124-JLK LINDA FORGACS, MONICA JONES, DANIEL LINK, GRACE MORENO, and PAM ROGGE, Plaintiffs, v. EYE CARE CENTER OF NORTHERN COLORADO; WILLIAM L. BENEDICT, M.D.; JOEL S. MEYERS, M.D.; MORRIS TILDEN, M.D.;IRENE OLIJYNK, M.D. and JAY R. HOLMS, Defendants.

ORDER Kane, J. In light of the series of settlement conferences conducted by Magistrate Judge Hegarty which resulted in settlement with most or all of the Plaintiffs and my various rulings on Plaintiffs'ERISA and defamation claims, it has become clear that the two Motions for Summary Judgment pending in this case no longer reflect the claims and/or parties that remain. Defendants'Motion for Summary Judgment as to Colorado Wage Act Claims, FLSA Claims and Breach of Contract Claim (Doc. 62), for example, is directed to claims that have either been confessed, dismissed or no longer exist. Defendants'Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs'ERISA Claim Based on Eye Care Center' 401k Plan (Doc. 66) is also outdated and includes arguments no longer s salient or material. Accordingly,

Case 1:04-cv-01124-JLK-MEH

Document 114

Filed 09/26/2006

Page 2 of 2

Defendants'two pending Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 62, 66) are deemed MOOT and are DENIED on that basis. The denial is without prejudice to Defendants're-filing either or both Motions, if appropriate, at a later date. I fully expect, however, that such an eventuality will not come to pass.

Dated September 26, 2006.

s/John L. Kane SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE