From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rousseau v. Bank of New York

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Dec 4, 2009
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00205-PAB-BNB (D. Colo. Dec. 4, 2009)

Summary

noting that the text of Rule 120 contemplates that a plaintiff could re-raise arguments concerning the validity of a foreclosure in a subsequent proceeding

Summary of this case from Zeller v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-Nh, MCM Capital Partners, LLC

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00205-PAB-BNB.

December 4, 2009


ORDER


The parties appeared this morning for a scheduling conference. Also pending is my Order to Show Cause [Doc. # 70, filed 11/19/2009] and the plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause [Doc. # 71, filed 11/19/2-009]. The plaintiff presented evidence establishing the medical emergency which prevented him from appearing at the scheduling conference on November 19, 2009, and establishing good cause to discharge the Order to Show Cause. In addition, after review I refused the proposed scheduling orders for reasons stated on the record.

IT IS ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause [Doc. # 70] is DISCHARGED, good cause having been shown.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed scheduling orders are REFUSED. The parties shall confer and submit, on or before December 18, 2009, a revised scheduling order modified as discussed at the conference today. The revised scheduling order should include the following deadlines:

26 26

Deadline to complete Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures: December 14, 2009 Discovery Cut-Off: April 26, 2010 Dispositive Motions Deadline: May 10, 2010 Expert Disclosures: (a) The parties shall designate all experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. (a)(2) on or before February 9, 2010 (b) The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. (a)(2) on or before March 26, 2010 A Settlement Conference will be held on January 26, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 401, 4th floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. All settlement conferences that take place before the magistrate judge shall be confidential. Pro se parties, attorneys, and client representatives with full authority to settle the case must be present at the settlement conference in person. (NOTE: This requirement is not fulfilled by the presence of counsel alone. If an insurance company is involved, an adjustor authorized to enter into settlement must also be present.) Each party shall submit a confidential settlement statement to the magistrate judge on or before January 19, 2010, outlining the facts and issues in the case and containing a specific offer of compromise, including a dollar amount the client will accept or pay in settlement and any other essential terms of a settlement.

A Final Pretrial Conference will be held in this case on July 13, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. A Final Pretrial Order shall be prepared by the parties and submitted to the court no later than July 6, 2010.


Summaries of

Rousseau v. Bank of New York

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Dec 4, 2009
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00205-PAB-BNB (D. Colo. Dec. 4, 2009)

noting that the text of Rule 120 contemplates that a plaintiff could re-raise arguments concerning the validity of a foreclosure in a subsequent proceeding

Summary of this case from Zeller v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-Nh, MCM Capital Partners, LLC

noting that the text of Rule 120 contemplates that a plaintiff could re-raise arguments concerning the validity of a foreclosure in a subsequent proceeding

Summary of this case from Niederquell v. Bank of America, N.A.
Case details for

Rousseau v. Bank of New York

Case Details

Full title:LESLIE ROUSSEAU, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, BRYAN S. BLUM…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Dec 4, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00205-PAB-BNB (D. Colo. Dec. 4, 2009)

Citing Cases

Zeller v. Ventures Trust 2013-I-Nh, MCM Capital Partners, LLC

However, before the foreclosure sale has occurred, the Tenth Circuit and others have reasoned that the…

Yokomizo v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc.

Deutsche's Reply [#30] at 4 n.2. Courts that have addressed the issue have not all agreed "on whether and…