Case Activity (4730)

1. Order | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 28, 2026 Thomas v. Ackermann

   P.I.: Other | Colorado

   Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

   ORDER granting 144 Stipulated Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Court's 06/29/2026 Order [ECF No. 143]. The parties are granted an extension of time, through 8/10/2026, to file appropriate dismissal paperwork. SO ORDERED by Judge Regina M. Rodriguez on 7/28/2026. Text Only Entry(rmrja)

2. Order | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 28, 2026 American Zurich Insurance Company v. Del Mar Building Services, LLC et al

   Contract: Other | Colorado

   Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify

   MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court is Defendant Del Mar Building Services, LLC's Second Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. ECF No. 48 . Scheduling Order deadlines "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). To demonstrate good cause pursuant to Rule 16, the moving party must "show that it has been diligent in attempting to meet the deadlines, which means it must provide an adequate explanation for any delay." Strope v. Collins, 315 F. App'x 57, 61 (10th Cir. 1009) (citation omitted); Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1205 n. 4 (10th Cir. 2006). A court considers the following factors: (1) whether trial is imminent; (2) whether the request to reopen or extend discovery is opposed; (3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced; (4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the Court; (5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the Court; and (6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence. Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 169 (10th Cir. 1987). To satisfy these factors, the defendant asserts that it only recently became aware of new information that requires an extension of the discovery deadline until the deposition of Mr. Shumsky can be completed or, in the alternative, till the Court can adjudicate whether DMBS can depose Mr. Shumsky. ECF No. 48 . Specifically, the defendant expects this can be resolved on or before August 14, 2026. Id. at 34.
   
   In response, the plaintiff does not address whether there is good cause for the extension. ECF No. 52 . Instead, it uses its response to the motion as a response to whether the defendant may take the deposition it seeks to take. Id. This, however, is a discovery dispute and the parties may jointly contact the undersigned's chambers pursuant to the undersigned's Uniform Civil Practice Standards. See D.C.COLO.MJ VI. As such, finding good cause to amend the scheduling order, the Court GRANTS the motion, ECF No. 48 . The new discovery deadline shall be August 14, 2026. Entered by Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung on 07/28/2026. Text Only Entry.(agryan)

3. 4728 additional result(s)