Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01886/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01886-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond H. Armstrong
Plaintiff
Volkswagen Group of America
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 16-cv-00071-REB-MEH

RAYMOND H. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 3, 2016.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Conditional Transfer Order [filed March 2

16, 2016; docket #24]. For reasons stated in the Court’s Order granting a stay in this case [see

docket #19], the Court denies the Motion. 

Plaintiff’s Motion indicates his opposition to the stay because he does not agree the case

should be transferred to the Northern District of California, which is currently being considered by

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [JPML]. However, as explained in this Court’s

previous Order, Plaintiff has already indicated to the JPML that he objects to the transfer; thus, the

JPML has stayed the conditional transfer order pending its consideration of Plaintiff’s objection. 

See Order, docket #19 at 1-2. The Court has no reason to alter its opinion that a stay in the action

is warranted until the JPML makes its decision.

Furthermore, the Court could have denied the Motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to

confer pursuant to D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(a), which states,

Before filing a motion, counsel for the moving party or an unrepresented party

shall confer or make reasonable good faith efforts to confer with any opposing

counsel or unrepresented party to resolve any disputed matter. The moving party

shall describe in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the

specific efforts to fulfill this duty.

The Court reminds Plaintiff of his continuing obligation in the future to comply fully with D.C.

Colo. LCivR 7.1(a) or risk denial of his motions. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634,

636 (D. Colo. 2003) (because Rule 7.1(a) requires meaningful negotiations by the parties, the rule

is not satisfied by one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail). 

Case 3:16-cv-01886-CRB Document 26 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 1