Free Order - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00687-PSF-BNB

Document 98

Filed 05/26/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Phillip S. Figa Civil Action No. 05-cv-01313-PSF-CBS CAROL K. AUSTIN, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a body politic and corporate of the State of Colorado, acting by and through its BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS; and CHRISTOPHER R. DERMODY, in his official capacity, Defendants.

CORRECTED AND AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

On May 24, 2006, this Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff' Unopposed s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 78) as superfluous. The Court reached its conclusion based on its review of the Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil Version 2.0) of this District, available on its website at http://www.uscourts.gov/forms/ecfPro.pdf, which states at p.12 in Rule V.G.5: " ThreeDay Rule. The three-day rule in Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) for service by mail shall apply to service by electronic means." The Court now understands that D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C, governs the time limits for responses to motions for summary judgment and that such time runs from the date of filing of the motion without consideration of the method of service. Thus, plaintiff' response was due on May 23, 2006. s Therefore, the Court now GRANTS Plaintiff' Motion for Extension of Time to s

Case 1:04-cv-00687-PSF-BNB

Document 98

Filed 05/26/2006

Page 2 of 2

Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 78) and based on that motion allows plaintiff until May 26, 2006 to file a response. However, in addition, on May 25, 2006 this Court directed defendants to respond to Plaintiff' Motion for an Order Staying the Time to Respond to Motion for Summary s Judgment Pending Ruling on Objections to Magistrate' Order on Document 74, s Entered on May 19, 2006 (Dkt. # 81) by June 1, 2006, and plaintiff to respond within seven days. In order to clarify the effect of this latter Order, the Court further stays the time for plaintiff to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment until the motion for stay is ruled upon. When that motion is ruled upon, the Court will set a date for plaintiff to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. DATED: May 25, 2006. BY THE COURT: s/ Phillip S. Figa ________________________________ Phillip S. Figa United States District Judge

2