HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021CV30426 - City Of Fort Collins V. Aaron Million, Jordan Fox-Million; Million Agricultural Investments, Ltd., Arlo Richardson Aka Arlo Lee Richardson; The Pleasant Valley And Lake Canal Ditch Company - 030 - Proposed Case Management Order
Page 1 of 6
JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER Page 1 of 6
District Court, Larimer County, Colorado
201 Laporte Avenue, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) 494-3500
Court Use Only
Plaintiff: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a Colorado
home rule municipality,
v.
Defendants: AARON MILLION a/k/a AARON P.
MILLION; JORDAN FOX-MILLION;
MILLION AGRICULTURAL
INVESTMENTS, LTD., a Colorado
limited partnership; ARLO
RICHARDSON a/k/a ARLO LEE
RICHARDSON; THE PLEASANT
VALLEY AND LAKE CANAL DITCH
COMPANY; and ALL UNKNOWN
PERSONS WHO CLAIM AN INTEREST
IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS
ACTION.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Peter J. Dauster (#37139)
Daniel M. St. John II (#46653)
Johnson Muffly & Dauster, PC
323 South College Avenue, Suite 1
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Telephone: 970-482-4846; FAX: 970-482-3038
pdauster@nocolawgroup.com *
dstjohn@nocolawgroup.com
Case No. 2021CV30426
Courtroom: 5B
PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 16(b), the parties should discuss each item below. If they agree, the
agreement should be stated. If they cannot agree, each party should state its position briefly. If an item
does not apply, it should be identified as not applicable.
This form shall be submitted to the court in editable format. When approved by the court, it shall constitute
the Case Management Order for this case unless modified by the court upon a showing of good cause.
This form must be filed with the court no later than 42 days after the case is at issue and at least 7 days
before the date of the case management conference.
The case management conference is set for January 3, 2022, 2021, at 11:00 a.m.
1. The “at issue date” is November 8, 2021.
2. Responsible attorney’s name, address, phone number and email address:
Daniel M. St. John II, #46653
Johnson Muffly & Dauster, PC
323 South College Avenue, Suite 1
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Telephone: 970-482-4846
DATE FILED: December 29, 2021 4:09 PM
FILING ID: 1C9969E0E5A02
CASE NUMBER: 2021CV30426
Page 2 of 6
JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER Page 2 of 6
3. Daniel M. St. John, II lead counsel for Plaintiff, Scott Slawson, lead counsel for Defendants Aaron
Million a/k/a Aaron P. Million, Jordan Fox-Million, Million Agricultural Investments, Ltd., (collectively,
“Million Defendants”) and Arlo Richardson a/k/a Arlo Lee Richardson (“Defendant Richardson”), met and
conferred by telephone regarding this Proposed Order and each issue listed in Rule 16(b)(3)(A) through
(E), on the following dates: October 28, 2021 and December 17, 2021.
Mr. St. John and Alden Hill, lead counsel for The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company (“Defendant
PVLC”), met and conferred by telephone regarding this Proposed Order and each issue listed in Rule
16(b)(3)(A) through (E), on November 18, 2021.
4. Brief description of the case and identification of the issues to be tried (not more than one page,
double-spaced, for each side):
Plaintiff City of Fort Collins:
In November 2007, the City of Fort Collins purchased an approximately 2-acre parcel from the
Colorado State University Research Foundation (“CSURF”), which is located in the Reservoir Ridge
Natural Area (“Disputed Parcel”). The Disputed Parcel is part of a much larger land acquisition from
CSURF. Prior to CSURF’s ownership, the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System
and their predecessors (collectively, “CSU”) owned the Disputed Parcel. CSU acquired the Disputed
Parcel in 1942. From 1942 to now, the Disputed Parcel has been owned by a public entity.
When the City began to study removing, repairing, and replacing fences on the Disputed Parcel,
City officials communicated with neighboring property owners, including Aaron Million about its plans.
Through this process, the City learned that the Million Defendants claimed the Disputed Parcel as their
own real property. During the City’s ownership of the Disputed Parcel, cattle owned by one or more of
the Million Defendants had been grazing on the Disputed Parcel. The City had its surveyor survey the
property line in October 2019, which included posting survey stakes on the Disputed Parcel. The Million
Defendants removed those stakes.
The following issues need to be resolved: (1) ownership of the Disputed Parcel; (2) rights of the
respective parties in and to the Disputed Parcel; and (3) whether the Million Defendants committed
trespass by removing survey stakes from the Disputed Parcel.
Million Defendants:
Defendant Richardson:
No objection to the proposed case management order.
Defendant PVLC:
Defendant PVLC requests that the ditch be recognized in its current position and that right-of-way
access be recognized as follows: 15’ on the uphill side from the edge of the ditch and 50’ from the center
line on the downhill side and there be no impediments to Defendant PVLC’s access to the ditch.
5. The following motions have been filed and are unresolved:
Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record; Request to Reschedule Case
Management Conference Hearing filed by counsel for the Million Defendants on December 22, 2021.
Page 3 of 6
JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER Page 3 of 6
6. Brief assessment of each party’s position on the application of the proportionality factors, including
those listed in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1):
Plaintiff City of Fort Collins:
The City estimates the value of the Disputed Parcel to be $100,000.00. Further, determining the
City’s ownership of the Disputed Parcel and preventing further conflict about use of the Disputed Parcel
is an important issue, both between the parties and as to the public. Notwithstanding the importance of
the issues, discovery in this case should be straightforward. Primarily, this will be a case focused on
public real property records, few witnesses, and expert testimony regarding property boundaries.
Million Defendants:
Defendant Richardson:
No objection to the proposed case management order.
Defendant PVLC:
Defendant PVLC does not seek any modification from the presumptive discovery rules.
7. The lead counsel for each party met and conferred concerning possible settlement. The prospects
for settlement are:
As between the Plaintiff and the Million Defendants, the parties have been engaged in
settlement discussions throughout litigation and held an informal settlement conference. With the
pending withdrawal of the Million Defendants’ counsel, the prospects of settling the case are unclear.
As between the Plaintiff and Defendant Richardson, Richardson is expected to disclaim his
interest in the Disputed Parcel and the City anticipates dismissing the trespass claim against
Richardson only.
As between the Plaintiff and Defendant PVLC, the parties have reached an agreement in
principle and are determining whether a global settlement can be achieved or whether the Plaintiff and
Defendant PVLC should enter into a settlement agreement without the Million Defendants. The
concerns are purely logistical—it would create a clear record in the Larimer County Clerk and
Recorder’s office property records if a single decree quieting title to the Disputed Parcel were entered in
this case.
The parties propose to complete mediation/ADR on or before June 17, 2022.
8. Deadlines for:
a. Amending or supplementing pleadings: February 21, 2022
b. Joinder of additional parties: February 21, 2022
c. Identifying non-parties at fault: February 21, 2022
Page 4 of 6
JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER Page 4 of 6
9. Dates of initial disclosures: Plaintiff: N/A; Million Defendants: N/A; Defendant Richardson: N/A;
Defendant PVLC: N/A.
Objections, if any, about their adequacy: None at this time.
10. If full disclosure of information under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(C) was not made because of a party’s
inability to provide it, provide a brief statement of reasons for that party’s inability and the expected
timing of full disclosures and completion of discovery on damages: The parties agreed to delay
exchange of initial disclosure while they attempted to informally resolve this dispute. Full disclosure of
damages is expected within 60 days.
11. Proposed limitations on and modifications to the scope and types of discovery, consistent with the
proportionality factors in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1): No modification to the presumptive limits is necessary.
Number of depositions per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(A) limit 1 of adverse party + 2 others + experts per
C.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A)): 1 of adverse party + 2 other + experts per C.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)(A).
Number of interrogatories per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(B) limit of 30): 30
Number of requests for production of documents per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(D) limit of 20): 20
Number of requests for admission per party (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(E) limit of 20): 20
Any physical or mental examination per C.R.C.P. 35: None.
Any limitations on awardable costs: To the extent applicable, damages and costs against Plaintiff are
limited by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et seq.
State the justifications for any modifications in the foregoing C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2) limitations: No
modifications from the presumptive limits are sought.
12. Number of experts, subjects for anticipated expert testimony, and whether experts will be under
C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) or (B)(II):
If more than one expert in any subject per side is anticipated, state the reasons why such expert is
appropriate consistent with proportionality factors in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) and any differences among the
positions of multiple parties on the same side:
Plaintiff City of Fort Collins:
Plaintiff anticipates expert testimony from a land surveyor under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) and an
expert concerning the documents recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder that affect the
title to the Disputed Property, as well as any expert necessary to rebut other the other parties’ expert
reports.
Million Defendants:
Page 5 of 6
JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER Page 5 of 6
Defendant Richardson:
No objection to the proposed case management order.
Defendant PVLC:
Defendant PVLC anticipates possible expert testimony about the needs and requirements
regarding the management of the ditch.
13. Proposed deadlines for expert witness disclosure if other than those in C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2):
a. production of expert reports:
i. Plaintiff/claimant: April 1, 2022.
ii. Defendant/opposing party: April 29, 2022.
b. production of rebuttal expert reports: May 27, 2022.
c. production of expert witness files: concurrently with expert report.
State the reasons for any different dates from those in C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(C): N/A
14. Oral Discovery Motions. The court does not require discovery motions to be presented orally,
without written motions or briefs. Written motions are required if a party seeks relief under C.R.C.P. 37,
pursuant to Court’s November 15, 2021 case procedure order.
15. Electronically Stored Information. The parties do not anticipate needing to discover a significant
amount of electronically stored information. The following is a brief report concerning their agreements
or positions on search terms to be used, if any, and relating to the production, continued preservation,
and restoration of electronically stored information, including the form in which it is to be produced and
an estimate of the attendant costs.
16. Parties’ best estimate as to when discovery can be completed: July 15, 2022.
Parties’ best estimate of the length of the trial: 3-day bench trial.
Trial will commence on (or will be set by the court later): Trial will be set once ADR is complete.
17. Other appropriate matters for consideration:
The caption needs to be amended to change the name of “The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal
Ditch Company” to its correct name, which is “The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company.”
Defendant Richardson recently informed Plaintiff that he conveyed his interest in real property
subject to this lawsuit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff anticipates filing a motion to amend the complaint to
add the party or parties Defendant Richardson conveyed his interest in the property to as defendants.
Upon information and belief, the anticipated additional defendants are entities associated with
Defendant Jordan Fox-Million.
Page 6 of 6
JDF 622SC 5/18 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER Page 6 of 6
By checking this box, I am acknowledging I am filling in the blanks and not changing anything else on
the form.
X By checking this box, I am acknowledging that I have made a change to the original content of this
form.
__________________________________________________________________________________
DATED this 29th day of December, 2021.
AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES:
JOHNSON MUFFLY & DAUSTER, PC
Duly Signed Original on file at
Johnson Muffly & Dauster PC
/s/ Daniel M. St. John II
Peter J. Dauster, #37139
Daniel M. St. John II, #46653
Johnson Muffly & Dauster, PC
323 South College Avenue, Suite 1
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Counsel for Plaintiff City of Fort Collins
MCDONOUGH LAW LLC
Duly Signed Original on file at
McDonough Law LLC
/s/ Scott Slawson
Crystal J. McDonough, #4462
Scott Slawson, #4600
1635 Foxtrail Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Counsel for Million Defendants and Defendant Richardson
On behalf of Defendant Richardson only.
HILL AND HILL, LLC
Duly Signed Original on file at
Hill and Hill LLC
/s/ Alden V. Hill
Alden V. Hill, #2021
Scott Slawson, #4600
160 W. Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Counsel for Defendant Pleasant Valley
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the foregoing, including any modifications made by the court, is and shall
be the Case Management Order in this case.
Dated this ______ day of ________________________, 20__.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
District Court Judge