Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC
Document 184-2
Filed 01/16/2006
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Case No. 03-cv-2669-MSK-PAC LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP.- CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation; BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Utah corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants/Counterclaimants.
BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation, BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Utah corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Third Party Plaintiffs, v. MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dbs UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL, a California corporation, Third Party Defendant.
MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dbs UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL, a California corporation, Third Party Plaintiff/Counterclaimant, v. BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, FRICK COMPANY, and Roes 20 through 80, inclusive, Counterdefendant/Third Party Defendants.
Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC
Document 184-2
Filed 01/16/2006
Page 2 of 2
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MSK PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR RULE 56 MOTION PAGE LIMITATIONS AND CONFIRMATION AS TO DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Motion of Big-D Construction Corp California and Big-D Construction Corp. for Relief from MSK Practice Standards regarding Rule 56 Motion Page Limitations, the Court, having reviewed said motion and now being fully advised in the premises. HEREBY ORDERS that Big-D Construction Corp California and Big-D Construction Corp. shall have _____ pages within which to respond to Plaintiff Leprino Foods Company's Motion for Summary Adjudication. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication must be filed by no later than ___________________, 2006.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ___________________, 2006. ____________________________________ United States District Court Judge