The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-cv-1341 - Erbacher v. City Of Fort Collins, et al. - 022 - City And Heaton Mot Dismiss And Request For Qualified ImmunityIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-1341-CNS-NRN Cody Erbacher, Plaintiff. v. City of Fort Collins; Jason Haferman; Sergeant Allen Heaton; and Corporal Redacted. Defendants. DEFENDANTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND SERGEANT ALLEN HEATON’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND REQUEST FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants City of Fort Collins and Sergeant Allen Heaton, through their undersigned counsel, Hall & Evans, LLC, submit the following as their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6):1 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL Undersigned Counsel conferred with Counsel for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff objects to the relief requested herein. I. INTRODUCTION This matter arises out of Plaintiff’s arrest on June 11, 2021, by former Fort Collins Police Officer, Jason Haferman, and the subsequent investigation and prosecution for the crime of 1 Plaintiff identifies “Corporal Redacted” as an individual associated with the City of Fort Collins. This Motion is not submitted on behalf of Corporal Redacted, as no such individual has been served. Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 13 2 Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). Plaintiff claims Defendant Haferman’s actions somehow implicate the City of Fort Collins (“City”) and Sergeant Heaton, as Defendant Haferman’s supervisor. The Complaint attempts to set forth claims against the City and Sergeant Heaton, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for an unconstitutional pattern and practice, failure to train and supervise, and violation of “due process” under the Fourth Amendment. (See Pltfs. Cmp., ECF 1- 1, Second Claim for Relief, at ¶¶ 163 to 175; 181 to 189). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s claims against the City and Sergeant Heaton should be dismissed. In particular, the claims rely on conclusory allegations while at the same time fail to allege facts sufficient to satisfy minimal federal pleading standards established pursuant to Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Additionally, the doctrine of qualified immunity and the lack of allegations respecting any particularized behavior or personal participation also preclude Plaintiff’s claims against Sergeant Heaton. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262 (10th Cir.1976) (personal participation is an essential allegation in a section 1983 claim…”); See also Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416 (10th Cir.1986). With respect to the claims against the City, Hinton v. City of Elwood, Kan., 997 F.2d 774, 783 (10th Cir.1993) precludes any claim against a public entity pursuant to a respondeat superior theory. Instead, to establish liability against a municipality, a plaintiff must show a public entity’s policy or custom existed, and a direct causal link between the policy or custom and the injury alleged. City of Canton Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989); Myers v. Oklahoma County Bd., 11 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.1998). Plaintiff identifies no such policy or custom. II. STANDARD To state a claim for relief, a federal complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), “that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff ’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 13 3 v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). At the pleading stage, it is not the defendant’s or the court’s responsibility to guess at plaintiff’s claims. Conley, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). A § 1983 complaint must, under Rule 12, “make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claims against him or her.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). Thus, “[w]hen various officials have taken different actions with respect to a plaintiff, the plaintiff’s facile, passive-voice showing his rights ‘were violated’ will not suffice. Likewise insufficient, is a plaintiff’s more active-voice yet undifferentiated contention ‘defendants’ infringed his rights.” Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210, 1225-26 (10th Cir. 2013). “Rather, it is incumbent upon a plaintiff to identify specific actions taken by particular defendants in order to make out a viable § 1983” claim. Pahls, 718 F.3d at 1225-26. The mere metaphysical possibility some plaintiff could prove some set of facts for the claims is insufficient; the complaint must give reason to believe this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims. Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). All well-pleaded factual allegations are viewed favorably to plaintiff. Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10th Cir. 2011). All conclusory statements of law are set aside. Kan. Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011). Rule 8, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, forbids “labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2012). To any extent Sergeant Heaton is alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights based on his individualized behavior, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields him from any damages claimed. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982). Qualified immunity affords public officials immunity from suit and exists to “protect them from undue interference with their duties, and from potentially disabling threats of liability.” Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 13 4 510, 514 (1994), citing Harlow, 457 U.S. at 806 (1982). Qualified immunity protects all governmental officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established Constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability, it provides immunity from suit. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). “One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). “These burdens include distraction of officials from their governmental responsibilities, the inhibition of discretionary decision making, the deterrence of able people from public service, and the disruptive effects of discovery on governmental operations.” Hannula v. City of Lakewood, 907 F.2d 129, 130 (10th Cir. 1990). Courts should, therefore, resolve the purely legal question raised by a qualified immunity defense at the earliest possible state in the litigation. Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2001). When a defendant pleads the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff bears a heavy two- part burden of proving that: (1) the defendants’ actions violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. Mick v. Brewer, 76 F.3d 1127, 1134 (10th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). To survive dismissal, the plaintiff must show that the right was “clearly established” in a “particularized” sense. Wilson v. Meeks, 52 F.3d 1547, 1552 (10th Cir. 1995), citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). “[F]or a right to be ‘particularized,’ there must ordinarily be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or ‘clearly established weight of authority’ from other courts.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 citing Medina v. City & County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1992). Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 13 5 III. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff fails to set forth any specific allegations against Sergeant Heaton establishing his personal participation in the alleged constitutional violation. Plaintiff ’s claims against Sergeant Heaton are based on an alleged supervisory position over Defendant Haferman. (ECF 1-1, ¶ 170). Premising claims merely as a result of a “respondeat superior” relationship, however, is improper. “Under § 1983, government officials are not vicariously liable for the misconduct of their subordinates. ‘There is no concept of strict supervisor liability under § 1983.’” Serna v. Colo. Dept. of Corrections, 455 F.3d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006), citing Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 994 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Bass v. Robinson, 167 F.3d 1041, 1048 (6th Cir. 1999) (“Liability . . . must be based upon more than a mere right to control employees.”). Liability against a supervisor, therefore, must be premised on some direct action by the supervisor. Serna, 455 F.3d at 1151, citing Scull v. New Mexico, 236 F.3d 588, 600 (10th Cir. 2000). “Supervisors are only liable under §1983 for their own culpable involvement in the violation of a person's constitutional rights. To establish supervisor liability under § 1983, ‘it is not enough for a plaintiff merely to show a defendant was in charge of other state actors who actually committed the violation. Instead, . . . the plaintiff must establish ‘a deliberate, intentional act by the supervisor to violate constitutional rights.’’” Serna, 455 F.3d at 1151, citing Jenkins, 81 F.3d at 994-95, citing Woodward v. City of Worland, 977 F.2d 1392, 1399 (10th Cir. 1992). “In short, the supervisor must be personally ‘involved in the constitutional violation,’ and a ‘sufficient causal connection’ must exist between the supervisor and the constitutional violation.” Serna, 455 F.3d at 1151 (emphasis added) citing Rios v. City of Del Rio, 444 F.3d 417, 425 (5th Cir. 2006). An affirmative link means Plaintiff must properly allege not only that the subordinate violated the Constitution, but also the “active participation or acquiescence of the supervisor in the constitutional violation by the subordinates.” Serna, 455 F.3d at 1151, citing Holland v. Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 13 6 Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001), and Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th Cir. 1997). “(T)he supervisor’s state of mind is a critical bridge between the conduct of a subordinate and his own behavior. Because ‘mere negligence’ is not enough to hold a supervisor liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish the supervisor acted knowingly or with ‘deliberate indifference’ that a constitutional violation would occur.” Serna, 455 F.3d at 1151, citing Green,108 F.3d at 1302. In addition to a culpable state of mind, Plaintiff must also establish some sort of personal participation in the alleged Constitutional violation. “Personal participation by a defendant is an essential element of a civil rights action.” Weiss v. Vasquez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183467, at *10 (D. Colo. Oct. 6, 2022), referring to Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). “There must be an affirmative link between the alleged constitutional violation and each defendant's participation, control or direction, or failure to supervise.” Weiss , 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183467, at * 10, referring to Butler v. City of Norman, 992 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th Cir. 1993). To establish supervisor liability pursuant to § 1983, Plaintiff must assert that any named individual: (i) personally participated in the conduct; (ii) exercised control or direction over it; (iii) failed to supervise; (iv) failed to train; or (v) tacitly authorized the conduct that resulted in a constitutional deprivation. See Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008); Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff recounts his arrest on June 11, 2021, but nowhere in his Complaint does he identify any specific involvement of Sergeant Heaton implicating a violation of any constitutional rights. In particular, Plaintiff alleges he was stopped because Defendant Haferman believed Mr. Erbacher’s truck accelerated too quickly (ECF 1-1, ¶ 51). After questioning by Defendant Haferman, Plaintiff admitted to consuming one beer, earlier in the day (ECF 1-1, ¶ 52). Mr. Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 13 7 Erbacher was asked by Defendant Haferman to engage in road-side tests to prove he was safe to drive (ECF 1-1, ¶ 54). After performing the road-side tests, Defendant Haferman arrested Mr. Erbacher and asked him to select either a blood or breath test. (ECF 1-1, ¶ 62). Based on his questioning of Plaintiff, Defendant Haferman made the decision a blood draw would be the more appropriate test (ECF 1-1, ¶ 64). The blood draw was performed, and on November 10, 2021, Defendant Haferman received Mr. Erbacher’s blood results which were negative for alcohol and all drugs (ECF 1-1, ¶ 79).2 Nowhere in the recitation of Defendant Haferman’s interaction with Plaintiff on June 11, 2021, is Sergeant Heaton mentioned. Plaintiff criticizes the roadside tests and conclusions of Defendant Haferman as the basis for the wrongful arrest and violation of his constitutional rights. There are no allegations, however, identifying Sergeant Heaton’s participation in the roadside tests, conclusions of Defendant Haferman, or any other actions which might be construed as a violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. According to Plaintiff’s own allegations, it was Defendant Haferman who allegedly: (i) failed to activate his body-worn camera during the encounter with Mr. Erbacher (ECF 1-1, ¶¶ 50 & 68), and lied about it (ECF 1-1, ¶ 69); (ii) deliberately omitted from the arrest report that Mr. Erbacher suffered from multiple traumatic brain and back injuries (ECF 1-1, ¶¶ 55-56); (iii) made false statements and exaggerations of impairment (ECF 1-1, ¶ 57); (iv) failed to properly administer the road-side tests “in the standardized manner he was trained” (ECF 1-1, ¶ 58); (v) lied elsewhere in his arrest report about Mr. Erbacher showing clues/signs of impairment where there were none (ECF 1-1, ¶ 61); (vi) made the determination a breath test could not be performed because Mr. Erbacher was taking antibiotics (ECF 1-1, ¶¶ 64- 2 The Defendants reserve the right to contest the validity of these facts in any subsequent proceedings. Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 13 8 65); and (vii) had the preference of obtaining blood specimens over administration of a breath test from the people he arrested for DUI, because he knew the method would cast the widest net, capture any and all drugs, and when combined with the exaggerated arrest reports and missing body-camera videos could make his wrongful DUI arrests appear more justified on paper. (ECF 1-1, ¶ 66). There are no non-conclusory allegations establishing an affirmative link between Defendant Haferman’s actions, the alleged constitutional violations, and involvement by Sergeant Heaton. Weiss , 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183467, at * 10, referring to Butler v. City of Norman, 992 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th Cir. 1993). There are also no non-conclusory allegations Sergeant Heaton exercised control or direction over Defendant Haferman’s determinations, failed to supervise the specific stop of Mr. Erbacher, or tacitly authorized Defendant Haferman’s conduct resulting in a constitutional deprivation. See Fogarty, 523 F.3d at 1162 and Currier, 242 F.3d 925. Likewise, the allegations in the Complaint identifying Sergeant Heaton fail to describe any specific action taken which might have possibly violated Mr. Erbacher’s constitutional rights. For example, the Complaint states, “(a)s of March 20, 2021…Sergeant Heaton…personally, again had notice that Haferman was wrongfully arresting innocent people.” (ECF 1-1, ¶¶ 31(g)-32). But this allegation refers to the arrest of “C.B.” and not Plaintiff (ECF 1-1, ¶ 31). This allegation has nothing to do with Plaintiff, and it is also conclusory and insufficient to state a claim for relief against Sergeant Heaton. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. There is no information to suggest Sergeant Heaton had any sort of “notice,” especially regarding the specific arrest of Plaintiff. Any claim against Sergeant Heaton should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to meet federal pleading standards. B. Sergeant Heaton is entitled to qualified immunity. Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 13 9 As discussed above, Plaintiff bears a heavy, two-part burden of overcoming the defense of qualified immunity. In particular, Plaintiff must properly allege that: (1) the defendants’ actions violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. Mick, 76 F.3d at 1134. 1. Plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional right. As argued above, there are no allegations identifying specific action taken by Sergeant Heaton which might have possibly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (See § III (A), supra). Plaintiff’s inability to comply with federal pleading standards, and to identify a constitutional violation, is likewise detrimental to his burden with respect to Sergeant’s defense of qualified immunity. 2. Plaintiff fails to identify a clearly established right. To survive dismissal, the plaintiff must show that the right was “clearly established” in a “particularized” sense. Wilson, 52 F.3d at 1552. “[F]or a right to be ‘particularized,’ there must ordinarily be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or ‘clearly established weight of authority’ from other courts.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 citing Medina, 960 F.2d 1498. Here, Plaintiff alleges Sergeant Heaton violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by failing to supervise and/or train Defendant Haferman with respect to his DUI arrest. The basis for Plaintiff’s allegations is the notion Sergeant Heaton purportedly failed to review other DUI arrests thereby precipitating Haferman’s actions with respect to Plaintiff (ECF 1-1, ¶¶ 171-175). Besides being improperly speculative, a search of Tenth Circuit jurisprudence fails to reveal any particularized case allowing for the imposition of Constitutional liability on this theory, including a failure to review previous DUI arrests unrelated to a plaintiff’s arrest. Without any clearly established authority, Plaintiff can state no claim for a Constitutional violation, and Sergeant Heaton is entitled to qualified immunity. Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 13 10 C. Plaintiff fails to properly set forth any proper allegations to maintain a claim against the City of Fort Collins. Plaintiff’s claims against the City of Fort Collins (“City”) fare no better than those against Sergeant Heaton. To establish liability of a public entity under 42 U.S.C. §1983, “a plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a municipal custom or policy and (2) a direct and causal link between the custom or policy and the violation alleged.” Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 993 (10th Cir. 1996), citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). The Supreme Court described the requirements a plaintiff must meet to impose public entity liability as follows: “It is not enough for a §1983 plaintiff merely to identify conduct properly attributable to the municipality. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct, the municipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged. That is, a plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1998) (emphasis added). Under these standards, municipal liability may arise only out of official customs or policies, or for the actions of a final policymaker to any extent that such policies, customs, or policymakers can be shown to be responsible for a constitutional violation. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 403-404. Establishing deliberate conduct and the “requisite degree of culpability,” means municipal liability attaches only where “a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483 (1986); Myers v. Oklahoma Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 151 F.3d 1313, 1319 (10th Cir. 1998). “Where a plaintiff claims that the municipality has not directly inflicted an injury, but nonetheless has caused an employee to do so, rigorous standards of culpability and causation must Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 13 11 be applied to ensure that the municipality is not held liable solely for the actions of its employee.” Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760, 770 (10th Cir. 2013), citing Brown, 520 U.S. at 405. “The causation element is applied with especial rigor when the municipal policy or practice is itself not unconstitutional, for example, when the municipal liability claim is based upon inadequate training, supervision, and deficiencies in hiring.” Schneider, 717 F.3d at 770, citing Martin A. Schwartz, Section 1983Litigation Claims & Defenses, § 7.12. “[A] plaintiff seeking to establish municipal liability on the theory that a facially lawful municipal action has led an employee to violate a plaintiff's rights must demonstrate that the municipal action was taken with ‘deliberate indifference’ as to its known or obvious consequences.” Schneider 717 F.3d at 770 (10th Cir. 2013) citing Brown, 520 U.S. at 407; see also City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989). “The deliberate indifference standard may be satisfied when the municipality has actual or constructive notice that its action or failure to act is substantially certain to result in a constitutional violation, and it consciously or deliberately chooses to disregard the risk of harm.” Schneider, 717 F.3d at 771, citing Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1307 (10th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff supports his claim against the City on generalized allegations it had a duty to train and supervise Defendant Haferman, it and was somehow aware of his propensity for wrongfully arresting citizens to increase his DUI arrest numbers by falsifying his reports, and it deliberately chose not to remedy the situation. (ECF 1-1, ¶ 184). The Complaint alleges the City’s “failure to supervise and train Haferman” was the moving force behind Plaintiff’s wrongful arrest (ECF 1-1, ¶ 185), and those actions “violated plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights.” (ECF 1-1, ¶ 186). Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 13 12 Those allegations, however, are factually unsupported in the Complaint, conclusory, and improper under federal pleading standards. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. There are simply no allegations in the Complaint establishing deliberate indifference by the City with respect to any specific policy or custom, nor are there any allegations the City’s actions (or failure to act) was substantially certain to result in a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and that the City consciously or deliberately chose to disregard any such harm. Schneider, 717 F.3d at 771, citing Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1307 (10th Cir. 1998). Any claim against the City should be dismissed. IV. CONCLUSION Wherefore, Defendants, City of Fort Collins and Sergeant Allen Heaton, respectfully request the Court grant their Motion, order Sergeant Heaton is entitled to qualified immunity, dismiss all claims against them with prejudice, and for entry of any other relief deemed just. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of August, 2023. s/ Mark S. Ratner Mark S. Ratner, Esq. Robert A. Weiner, Esq. Katherine N. Hoffman, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202 303-628-3300 /Fax: 303-628-3368 ratnerm@hallevans.com weinerr@hallevans.com hoffmank@hallevans.com Attorneys for the City of Fort Collins and Allen Heaton Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 13 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on the 21st day of August 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND SERGEANT ALLEN HEATON’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND REQUEST FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY was filed with the Court via CM/ECF and served on the below-listed party by email: Sarah Schielke, Esq. sarah@lifeandlibertylaw.com Jonathan M. Abramson, Esq. jonathan@kandf.com Yulia Nikolaevskaya, Esq. julie@kandf.com s/ Sarah Stefanick Case No. 1:23-cv-01341-CNS-NRN Document 22 filed 08/21/23 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 13