United States District Court, D. Colorado
COCORILLA, LTD., a Delaware Corporation, COCORILLA THAILAND CO., LTD., a Thailand Corporation, COCORILLA INC., a Canadian Federal Corporation, and ENIS KOÇ a/k/a Enis Ellison, a Turkish and Canadian Citizen, Plaintiffs,
v.
TORIN KLINE, an individual, PHILLIP ALLEN, an individual, STRATEGIC CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD., a Colorado Limited Liability Company, OCCTIMACARE HOLDINGS, INC., a Colorado Corporation, and ROES and DOES 1-X, Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE OF CASE
PURSUANT TO D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2
N.
REID NEUREITER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Motion
for Extension of Time (Dkt. #53), referred to me by Judge
William J. Martinez (Dkt. #54). The Court held a Status
Conference on March 19, 2019, to discuss the joint motion and
the parties' request that all deadlines be extended due
to the current unavailability of the principal Defendant in
this case, Mr. Torin Kline.
According
to counsel, the parties in this case are also involved in a
lawsuit in the Kingdom of Thailand, where Mr. Kline is
currently located, and Mr. Kline “has been ordered to
surrender his passport to the court in Thailand to guarantee
his appearance in the matter, thereby restricting his ability
to travel and leave the Kingdom of Thailand.” (Dkt. #53
¶ 2.) In their motion, the parties also advised that
Plaintiff Enis Koc “and additional persons needed for
deposition and testimony” in this case “are
presently in Thailand for the purpose of giving testimony in
the court matter that involves the principal Defendant Kline,
” and the “status of Plaintiff Enis Koc's
passport and any travel restrictions as to him are unknown at
this time.” (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) At the
status conference, counsel advised there is no immediate
prospect that Mr. Kline will get his passport back anytime
soon, and therefore requested a multi-month extension of all
deadlines in the case.
Being
disinclined to grant indefinite extensions of time, the Court
discussed other procedural options with counsel, including
administrative closure pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, which
provides:
A district judge or a magistrate judge exercising consent
jurisdiction may order the clerk to close a civil action
adminsitratively subject to reopening for good cause.
Administrative closure of a civil action terminated any
pending motion. Reopening of a civil action does not
reinstate any motion.
D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.
This
Court routinely administratively closes cases pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 when a case would otherwise be stayed for
an indefinite period of time. See, e.g.,
Mauchlin v. Zhon, No. 12-cv-01449-RM-BNB, 2015 WL
479042, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 2015) (administratively
closing case “subject to reopening for good cause
subsequent to Plaintiff's vision problems being
addressed”); San Juan Cable LLC v. DISH
Network LLC, No. 14-mc-00261-RM-MJW, 2015 WL
500631, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 2015) (administratively
closing case “to be reopened only if the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico refers a related
enforcement matter to this Court”);
Workalemahu v. Heritage Club, No.
14-cv-02396-RM-MEH, 2015 WL 293261, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 21,
2015) (administratively closing case pending arbitration).
The
Tenth Circuit has construed an administrative closure to be
“the practical equivalent of a stay.”
Quinn, 828 F.2d at 1465 n.2 (10th Cir.1987). In
Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389
(1st Cir. 1999), the First Circuit explained the nature of
administrative closure as follows:
Administrative closings comprise a familiar, albeit
essentially ad hoc, way in which courts remove cases from
their active files without making any final adjudication. The
method is used in various districts throughout the nation in
order to shelve pending, but dormant, cases.
Id. at 392 (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). The First Circuit further explained that “an
administrative closing has no effect other than to remove a
case from the court's active docket and permit the
transfer of records associated with the case to an
appropriate storage repository [and] . . . d[oes] not
terminate the underlying case, but, rather, place[s] it in
inactive status until such time as the judge, in his
discretion or at the request of a party, cho[o]se[s] either
to reactivate it or to dispose of it with finality.”
Id.
In this
case, the Court finds that administrative closure is
appropriate because it is unclear how long it will be before
Mr. Kline's passport is returned to him so that he can
travel to the United States to attend his deposition. At the
status conference, counsel for all parties consented to an
administrative closure of this case pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.
WHEREFORE,
it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this case be administratively
closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, subject to reopening.
NOTICE:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2), the parties have fourteen (14) days after service
of this recommendation to serve and file specific written
objections to the above recommendation with the District
Judge assigned to the case. A party may respond to another
party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy. The District Judge need not consider
frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party's
failure to file and serve such written, specific objections
waives de novo review of the recommendation by the District
Judge, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-53 (1985), and also
waives ...