Legal Opinion

Hoelzel v. First Select Corp.

District Court, D. Colorado

Decided May 6, 2003No. CIV.A. 02-D-1227 (BNB)PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

BOLAND, United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before me on the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, filed February 18, 2003. Because the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

Local rule 7.1A, D.C.COLO.LCivR, requires:

The court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter. The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Services, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1996
  2. Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 1999

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. AECOM Technical Services, Inc. v. Flatiron AECOM, LLCDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2024
  2. Aguilera v. City of Colorado SpringsDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2019
  3. Curtis v. Lever Up Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 2022
  4. Doe v. BarberDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2025
  5. Energy Alchemy Solutions, LLC v. Sweetlife CompanyDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2021

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API