UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Judge Raymond P. Moore 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02306-RM-KLM 

LARRY D. FREDERICK, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Hartford Underwriters Insurance 

Company’s (“Hartford”) motion to dismiss (“Motion”)1. (ECF No. 85.) Plaintiff Larry D. 

Frederick (“Frederick”) did not respond to the Motion nor did he seek an extension of time in 

which to respond. (See generally Dkt.) 

Based on the following, the Court: (1) REOPENS the matter; and (2) GRANTS 

Defendant’s Motion. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On January 10, 2014, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 41.2, the parties moved to 

administratively close the matter. (ECF No. 82.) The parties, in pertinent part, agreed that if the 

Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari in Maxwell v. USAA, Case No. 2006CV323 (Boulder 

 

1 The Court construes the Motion as under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 1:11-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 86 Filed 03/27/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Dist. Ct. Colo.) (“Maxwell”), and Plaintiff did not move to reopen the matter within thirty days, 

then the matter would be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 82 at 2-3.) Both parties signed the 

stipulation. (ECF No. 82.) On January 21, 2014, the Court granted the parties’ motion to 

administratively close the case. (ECF No. 84.) 

 On January 20, 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari in Maxwell. (ECF 

No. 85-1.) 

 To date, Plaintiff has not moved to reopen the matter. (See generally Dkt.) On February 

20, 2015, Defendant moved to dismiss the matter pursuant to the parties’ agreement (ECF No. 

82). (ECF No. 85.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. Administrative Closure 

 Local Civil Rule 41.2 provides that a “district judge . . . may order the clerk to close a 

civil action administratively subject to reopening for good cause. Administrative closure of a 

civil action terminates any pending motion. Reopening of a civil action does not reinstate any 

motion.” D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 41.2. 

B. Dismissal of Actions 

 Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[e]xcept as provided 

in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on 

terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

III. ANALYSIS 

 Because administrative closure is a purely administrative act, it has no effect on the 

parties’ rights or claims. See Crystal Clear Commc’ns, Inc. v. SW Bell Tel. Co., 415 F.3d 1171, 

1176 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Quinn v. CGR, 828 F.2d 1463, 1465 (10th Cir. 1987)). Here, 

Case 1:11-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 86 Filed 03/27/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

Defendant seeks a determination of the parties’ rights and claims. (See ECF No. 85.) Thus, 

good cause exists to reopen the matter. 

 Further, Defendant seeks to dismiss the matter with prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s not 

filing a motion to reopen within the time period allowed by the Court’s prior order (ECF No. 84) 

and the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 82). (ECF No. 85.) Defendant attached to its Motion a 

copy of the Colorado Supreme Court’s order denying the petition for writ of certiorari to that 

court in Maxwell. (ECF No. 85-1.) Again, as stated previously, because Defendant moves for 

dismissal based on the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 82), the Court construes Defendant’s request 

as one for dismissal by Court order. Because one of the documents upon which Defendant relies 

is subject to judicial notice as it is part of another court’s proceedings and has been called to the 

court’s attention by the parties, see St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 

F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979), the Court takes such notice of the Colorado Supreme Court’s 

order (ECF No. 85-1). 

 Therefore, based upon (1) the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 82); (2) the Colorado 

Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Maxwell (ECF No. 85-1); and (3) Plaintiff’s failure to 

seek to reopen the matter for good cause within the time permitted (see generally Dkt.), the 

Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Case 1:11-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 86 Filed 03/27/15 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

IV. CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court: 

 (1) REOPENS the matter; 

 (2) GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 85); and 

 (3) DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 3). 

DATED this 27th day of March, 2015. 

 BY THE COURT: 

____________________________________ 

RAYMOND P. MOORE 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 86 Filed 03/27/15 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4