Watson v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al
Marie Watson |
Automatic Data Processing, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Dell Technologies Inc., DELL EMC, ADP, Dell Inc and EMC Corporation |
1:2019cv02667 |
September 18, 2019 |
US District Court for the District of Colorado |
Raymond P Moore |
Nina Y Wang |
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) |
29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on January 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 ORDER granting #11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 11/12/2019. Plaintiff shall file her Response to the Amended Motion to Dismiss on or before 12/2/2019. Text Only Entry(nywlc2, ) |
Filing 12 MEMORANDUM regarding #11 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #9 Amended MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Marie Watson. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. Entered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 11/12/2019. (Text Only Entry) (rmsec) |
Filing 11 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #9 Amended MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Plaintiff Marie Watson. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Ferrell, R.) |
Filing 10 MEMORANDUM regarding #9 Amended MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. Entered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 10/21/2019. (Text Only Entry) (rmsec ) |
Filing 9 Amended MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Separation Agreement, #2 Exhibit B - Plan Document, #3 Exhibit C - Nov. 29, 2016 Letter, #4 Exhibit D - Jan. 17, 2019 Letter, #5 Exhibit E - Mar. 6, 2019 Letter, #6 Exhibit F - Apr. 2, 2019 Letter)(Englert, Jack) |
Filing 8 ORDER: Defendant Metlife's Motion to Dismiss #7 , filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), is before the Court sua sponte for failure to show compliance with Judge Raymond P. Moore's Civil Practice Standards. Specifically, although the Local Rules do not require conferral, the Judge's Civil Practice Standards require a party to confer before filing a motion to dismiss. See Civil Practice Standard IV.N(2)(a). The Motion to Dismiss #7 is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If, after conferral, refiling is appropriate, Defendant Metlife is granted leave to refile on or before Monday, October 21, 2019. However, Defendant is advised this should not be construed as a second bite of the apple (e.g., raising a new basis for dismissal in any refiled motion). SO ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 10/16/2019. (Text Only Entry)(rmsec ) |
Filing 7 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Separation Agreement, #2 Exhibit B - Plan Document, #3 Exhibit C - Nov. 29, 2016 Letter, #4 Exhibit D - Jan. 17, 2019 Letter, #5 Exhibit E - Mar. 6, 2019 Letter, #6 Exhibit F - Apr. 2, 2019 Letter)(Englert, Jack) |
Filing 6 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 9/19/19 Setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference. Scheduling Conference set for 12/19/2019 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. (nmarb, ) |
Filing 5 MINUTE ORDER: With the assignment of this matter, the parties are advised that throughout this case they are expected to be familiar and comply with not only the Local Rules of this District, but also Judge Raymond P. Moore's Civil Practice Standards, which may be found at: http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/JudicialOfficers/ActiveArticleIIIJudges/HonRaymondPMoore.aspx. SO ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 9/19/2019. (Text Only Entry) (rmsec) |
Filing 4 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, (4) conduct a pretrial conference and enter a pretrial order, and (5) conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions. Court sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the recommendation or informal request of the magistrate judge or on the request of the parties by motion, this court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. Entered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 9/19/2019. (Text Only Entry) (rmsec ) |
Filing 3 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). No Summons Issued. (cmadr, ) |
Filing 2 Case assigned to Judge Raymond P. Moore and drawn to Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. Text Only Entry. (cmadr, ) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Automatic Data Processing, Inc., DELL EMC, Dell Technologies Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Filing fee $ 400,Receipt Number 1082-6901593)Attorney R. Garth Ferrell added to party Marie Watson(pty:pla), filed by Marie Watson. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ferrell, R.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.