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

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 150

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 1 of 3

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 150

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 2 of 3

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STRIKE THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF' OBJECTIONS (#105) S

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on York International Corporation' (" s York" ) Request to Strike Third-Party Plaintiff University Marelich Mechanical' Untimely Filed s Objections (#105). Having considered the motion, the response (#114), and the reply (#116), the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that: York moves to strike University Marelich Mechanical' (" s UMM" objection (#104) to ) York' motion to dismiss (#101) on the grounds that it was filed one day late and defectively s served upon York' counsel. York contends that the certificate of service shows that the s objection was not served upon York' counsel, Mr. Montgomery and Ms. Strickland, although it s concedes that Mr. Montgomery received a copy of the objections from the Court when it was electronically filed.1 UMM concedes that its certificate of service was defective but argues that because York was actually served a copy of the objection, the objection should not be stricken. It also asserts that it timely filed its response (#103) to the motion to dismiss. The objection (#104) objects to the evidence attached to the motion to dismiss. York has since filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. There being no prejudice to either the untimely filing or to the delay in notice, the Court declines to strike the objections.

In its reply, York argues that the Court should also strike the response (#103) to the motion to dismiss as noncompliant. The Court will not consider this argument because it was not raised in York' motion. s 2

1

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 150

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 3 of 3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that York' Request to Strike Third-Party Plaintiff s University Marelich Mechanical' Untimely Filed Objections (#105) is DENIED. s Dated this 31st day of October, 2005. BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge

3