Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Espinoza-Horiuchi v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

September 1, 2016

NADINE ESPINOZA-HORIUCHI, Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC. Defendant.

          ORDER

          Robert E. Blackburn United States District Judge

         The matter before me is plaintiff's Motion To Set Matter for Trial [#33], [1] filed August 31, 2016.[2] I strike the motion.[3]

         Five weeks after filing this case, plaintiff filed her purported Motion for Summary Judgment ([#17], filed March 3, 2016), which was referred to the magistrate judge for recommendation [#18]. In adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny that motion - which consisted of a single, conclusory, sentence - I specifically cautioned plaintiff that “motions” of this nature were procedurally improper and substantively ineffectual:

Plaintiff's one-sentence, conclusory “motion” violates not only the rules cited by the magistrate judge in the recommendation, but also the requirement of the local civil rules that “a motion involving a contested issue of law”must “be supported by a recitation of legal authority in the motion.”

         (Order Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge at 1-2 [#30], filed March 31, 2016.) Moreover, I specifically admonished plaintiff to familiarize herself with all rules of practice and procedure applicable to this federal lawsuit and advised that “[f]urther non-complying motions or other submissions may be stricken.” (Id. at 2.)[4]

         Apparently heedless of this warning, plaintiff's current submission likewise consists of but a single sentence:

I, Nadine Espinoza-Horiuchi, file this appeal on, August 31, 2016, the decision made on court Case No.: 16-CV-00219-REB.NYW against Walmart and request that a court date be set before the judge and jury on or before, September 16, 2016, ready for trial.

         Consistent with the court's previous warning, this unilluminating, unsubstantiated “motion” will be stricken.

         Even if the court were to consider the motion on its merits (such as they are), it would not grant plaintiff the near-immediate jury trial she requests. This case is little more than eight months old. Discovery ended barely a month ago. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment only three days prior to plaintiffs motion, and the court assumes plaintiff will wish to file a response to that motion.[5] The matter thus is not ripe to be set for trial at this time.[6] If any of plaintiffs claims survive summary judgment, the case may be set for trial in due course thereafter.

         THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion To Set Matter for Trial [#33], filed August 31, 2016, is stricken.

---------

Notes:

[1] “[#33]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

[2] Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court construes her filings more liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). That latitude, however, does not require the court to divine the factual basis for a pro se ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.