United States District Court, D. Colorado
LARRY D. FREDERICK, Plaintiff,
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company's ("Hartford") motion to dismiss ("Motion"). (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.
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 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).
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, Defendant seeks a determination of the parties' ...