Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-cv-2187 - Kulas v. City of Fort Collins, et al. - 030 - City, Park, Hanzlicek AnswerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-02187-CNS Andru Kulas, Plaintiffs. v. City of Fort Collins, Kevin Park, Fort Collins Police Officer, in his individual capacity, and Avery Hanzlicek, Fort Collins Police Officer, in his individual capacity, Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER, DEFENSES, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Defendants, City of Fort Collins, Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek through their undersigned counsel, Hall & Evans, LLC, submit the following as their Answer, Defenses, and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Based on information and belief, these Defendants admit Plaintiff brought a lawsuit generally alleging a violation of his Constitutional rights. These Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, including but not limited to any factual allegation Plaintiff’s rights were somehow violated. 2. The allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, these Defendants deny any such allegations. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 36 2 3. The allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, these Defendants deny any such allegations. 4. The allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, these Defendants deny any such allegations. 5. The allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, these Defendants deny any such allegations. 6. The allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, these Defendants deny any such allegations. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. The allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, based on information and belief, these Defendants admit Plaintiff brought a lawsuit generally alleging a violation of his Constitutional rights. These Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 36 3 Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, including but not limited to any factual allegation Plaintiff’s rights were somehow violated. 8. The Defendants admit this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and claims in this matter, but deny any implication they violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights or Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. 9. The allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, these Defendants deny any such allegations. 10. The Defendants admit this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and claims in this matter, but deny any implication they violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights or Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees. 11. The Defendants admit venue is proper in this Court, but deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. III. PARTIES 12. Based on information and belief, these Defendants admit at the time of the incident as set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff resided in the City of Fort Collins, State of Colorado. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, are denied. 13. The Defendants admit at the time of the incident as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Kevin Park was acting within the course and scope of his position as a Fort Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 36 4 Collins Police Officer. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, are denied. 14. The Defendants admit at the time of the incident as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Avery Hanzlicek was acting within the course and scope of his position as a Fort Collins Police Officer. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, are denied. 15. The Defendants admit the City of Fort Collins a municipal corporation. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, are denied. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Defendants deny any allegations set forth between paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Complaint. 16. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, requiring denial of same. 17. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, requiring denial of same. 18. The Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. The Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 20. The Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of the Complaint. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 36 5 21. The allegations set forth in paragraph 21 of the Complaint are conclusory, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 21 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, said allegations are denied. 22. The Defendants admit FCPS Officer Andrew Ortiz spoke with Mr. Muellerleile, who indicated individuals had trespassed onto the roof of Brother's Bar, located at 147 S. College Ave. The Defendants further admit Mr. Muellerleile identified Plaintiff and Mr. Byers as the individuals who caused the trespass. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 22 of the Complaint, are denied. 23. The Defendants admit Mr. Muellerleile identified Plaintiff and Mr. Byers as the individuals who caused the trespass. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 23 of the Complaint, are denied. 24. The Defendants admit FCPS Officers Ortiz and Hanzlicek contacted Plaintiff and Mr. Byers, to discuss their trespassing on private property. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 24 of the Complaint, are denied. 25. The Defendants admit FCPS Officer Hanzlicek contacted Plaintiff to discuss his trespassing on private property, and Plaintiff was apprehensive to engage in any such discussion. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 25 of the Complaint, are denied. 26. The Defendants admit Plaintiff initially refused to provide his identification, but eventually provided the identification to Officer Hanzlicek. 27. The Defendants admit FCPS Officer Hanzlicek spoke with Plaintiff, and after being informed there was probable cause, began to write Plaintiff a citation and summons Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 36 6 for trespassing. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 27 of the Complaint, are denied. 28. The Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 30. The allegations set forth in paragraph 30 of the Complaint are denied. 31. The Defendants admit Officer Park arrived on scene. Officer Park admits he was aware of the surroundings, but denies the characterization Plaintiff was standing a “respectful” and “non-threating” distance away from FCPS Officer Hanzlicek, as the citation was being written. Officer Park denies the remaining allegations. The remaining Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information as to what FCPS Officer Park observed, requiring denial of any such allegations. The Defendants admit Plaintiff muttered and/or slurred comments regarding police officers and his status as a taxpayer and business owner. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 31 of the Complaint, are denied. 32. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 33. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 33 of the Complaint. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 36 7 34. The Defendants admit FCPS Officer Hanzlicek completed the citation and summons, and explained to Plaintiff he was receiving a citation for third degree trespass. The remaining allegations are denied. 35. The Defendants admit Plaintiff said he would not sing anything and was told by FCPS Officer Hanzlicek he did not have to sign anything, but deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 35 of the Complaint. 36. The Defendants admit FCPS Officer Park took the summons from FCPS Officer Hanzlicek, told Plaintiff to take the summons, and attempted to serve the summons on Plaintiff, but he refused to accept service. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 36 of the Complaint, are denied. 37. The Defendants admit Plaintiff said he would “fucking show up” and, “I have a client who is a fucking attorney…”, and “you can keep my fucking ID…”, but deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 38. The Defendants admit FCPS Office Park attempted to serve the summons on Plaintiff, but Plaintiff refused to accept said summons. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 38 of the Complaint, are denied. 39. The allegations set forth in paragraph 39 of the Complaint, are denied. 40. The allegations set forth in paragraph 40 of the Complaint, are denied. 41. The Defendants admit FCPS Officer Park took the summons from FCPS Officer Hanzlicek, told Plaintiff to take the summons, and attempted to serve the summons on Plaintiff, but he refused to accept service. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 41 of the Complaint, are denied. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 36 8 42. The allegations set forth in paragraph 42 of the Complaint are conclusory, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 42 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, the Defendants admit no one uttered the words, “you are not free to leave.” The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 42 of the Complaint, are denied. 43. Officer Park admits he attempted to grab Plaintiff, but denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 43 of the Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 44. Officer Park admits he did not let go of Plaintiff, but denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 44 of the Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 45. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 45 of the Complaint. 46. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 46 of the Complaint. 47. Officer Hanzlicek admits he attempted to bring Plaintiff under control, but denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 47 of the Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 47 of the Complaint. 48. The Defendants admit Plaintiff was told to stop resisting, but deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 49. The allegations set forth in paragraph 49 of the Complaint are conclusory and assume it was necessary for the words “you are under arrest” to have been uttered, Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 36 9 which is incorrect. The allegations set forth in paragraph 49 are denied on this basis. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 49 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, said allegations are denied. 50. Based on information and belief, the Defendants state FCPS Officers Hanzlicek and Park were initially involved in attempting to control the Plaintiff. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 50 of the Complaint were denied. 51. The allegations set forth in paragraph 51 of the Complaint, are denied. 52. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff was ordered to roll on his stomach. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 52 of the Complaint, are denied. 53. Kevin Park admits during his attempt to overcome Plaintiff’s unlawful resistance to arrest, Officer Park grabbed his OC cannister. Officer Park denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 53 of the Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 53 of the Complaint. 54. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 55. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 55 of the Complaint. 56. The allegations set forth in paragraph 56 of the Complaint are conclusory, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 56 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Hanzlicek admits he used lawful and reasonable force in order to overcome Plaintiff’s resistance to arrest, but denies the Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 36 10 remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 56 of the Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 57. The allegations set forth in paragraph 57 of the Complaint, are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 57 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Hanzlicek admits only to those duties imposed by law. Officer Hanzlicek and the remaining Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 57, if any. 58. Kevin Park admits he prepared the OC cannister to deploy, if Plaintiff failed to comply with lawful commands by continuing to resist arrest. Kevin Park and the remaining Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 59. The allegations set forth in paragraph 59 of the Complaint are conclusory, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 59 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, said allegations are denied. 60. Kevin Park admits he deployed his OC spray when Plaintiff would not comply with reasonable and lawful commands, and continued to resist arrest. Kevin Park and the remaining Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 60 of the Complaint. 61. Based on information and belief, these Defendants admit the City of Fort Collins Police Department provides training with respect to the deployment of OC spray. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 61 of the Complaint, are denied. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 36 11 62. The City and Kevin Park admit Officer Park received training on the deployment of OC spray, but denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 62 of the Complaint. Officer Hanzlicek denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 62 of the Complaint. 63. The allegations set forth in paragraph 63 of the Complaint, are denied. 64. The allegations set forth in paragraph 64 of the Complaint, are denied. 65. The Defendants admit subsequent to being placed in handcuffs, Plaintiff was informed he was under arrest. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 65 of the Complaint, are denied. 66. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 66 of the Complaint, requiring denial of same. The Defendants state the photograph set forth between paragraph 66 and 67 of the Complaint, speaks for itself. 67. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 67 of the Complaint. 68. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 68 of the Complaint, requiring denial of same. The Defendants state the photograph set forth between paragraphs 68 and 69 of the Complaint, speaks for itself. 69. The Defendants admit at some point Plaintiff “demanded milk,” and when he was told the Officers did not have any, Plaintiff called the Officers “stupid.” The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 69 of the Complaint, are denied. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 36 12 70. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 70 of the Complaint, requiring denial of same. 71. The Defendants admit Officer Hanzlicek charged Plaintiff with resisting and obstruction, and Plaintiff was taken to jail. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 72. Based on information and belief, the Defendants admit the charges were dismissed in exchange for Plaintiff completing a “Making Better Choices Class.” 73. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding whether Plaintiff was wearing contacts, and therefore any such allegations are denied. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 73 of the Complaint, requiring denial of same. 74. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding whether Plaintiff was wearing contacts, and therefore any such allegations are denied. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 74 of the Complaint, are denied. 75. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding how long Plaintiff was in jail for. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 75 of the Complaint. 76. The Defendants admit Plaintiff was release from jail, but deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 76 of the Complaint. 77. The Defendants deny Plaintiff was attacked. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 77 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 36 13 78. The Defendants admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 78 of the Complaint. 79. The Defendants admit there was an Internal Affairs Investigation. The City and Kevin Park admit the findings were “exonerated.” Officer Hanzlicek does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the outcome of the Internal Affairs Investigation, and therefore any such allegations are denied. The remaining allegations are denied. 80. Based on information and belief, the City admits Plaintiff’s Counsel made an Open Records Request. The City and the remaining Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 80 of the Complaint. 81. The Defendants state the document speaks for itself. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 81 of the Complaint. 82. The allegations set forth in paragraph 82 of the Complaint are conclusory, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 82 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, said allegations are denied. 83. The City admits certain portions of the Report set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, were properly redacted, but denies the remaining allegations. The remaining Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 83 of the Complaint, requiring denial of same. 84. The City admits Investigator Lynd followed protocol and forwarded the report to the proper parties. The City also admits Chief Swoboda reviewed the report. The remaining allegations are denied. Kevin Park and Officer Hanzlicek are without Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 36 14 sufficient knowledge or information regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 84 of the Complaint, requiring denial of same. 85. The allegations set forth in paragraph 85 of the Complaint are denied. 86. The City and Kevin Park admit Kevin Park was awarded the Medal of Merit, but deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 86 of the Complaint. Officer Hanzlicek denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 86 of the Complaint. 87. The allegations set forth in paragraph 87 of the Complaint, are denied. The Defendants deny any allegations set forth between paragraphs 87 and 88 of the Complaint. 88. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 88 of the Complaint. 89. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 89 of the Complaint. 90. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 90 of the Complaint. 91. The City admits a complaint made by Stanley Cropp was resolved, but denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 91 of the Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 91 of the Complaint. 92. The City admits a complaint made by Dakota McGrath was resolved, but denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 92 of the Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 92 of the Complaint. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 14 of 36 15 93. The City admits a complaint made by Joe Heneghan was resolved, but denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 93 of the Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 93 of the Complaint. 94. The City admits a complaint made by Sean Slatton was resolved, but denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 94 of the Complaint. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 94 of the Complaint. 95. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 95 of the Complaint. 96. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 96 of the Complaint. 97. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 97 of the Complaint. 98. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 98 of the Complaint. 99. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 99 of the Complaint. 100. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 100 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 100 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 100 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 15 of 36 16 101. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 101 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 101 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 101 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 102. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 102 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 102 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 102 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 103. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 103 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 103 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 103 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 104. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 104 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 104 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 104 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 105. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 105 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 105 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 16 of 36 17 Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 105 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. The Defendants deny any allegations set forth between paragraphs 105 and 106 of Plaintiff’s Complaint 106. The allegations set forth in paragraph 106 of the Complaint are conclusory and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 106 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, said allegations are denied. 107. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 107 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 107 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 107 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 108. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 108 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 108 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 108 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 109. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 109 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 109 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 17 of 36 18 extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 109 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 110. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 110 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 110 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 110 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 111. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 111 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 111 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 111 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 112. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 112 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 112 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 112 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 113. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 113 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 113 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 113 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 18 of 36 19 114. The City denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 114 of the Complaint. The allegations in paragraph 114 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to Kevin Park or Avery Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided on their behalf. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 114 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 115. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 115 of the Complaint. 116. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 116 of the Complaint. 117. The Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 117 of the Complaint. 118. The Defendants admit the actions taken by Officers Park and Hanzlicek were taken within the course and scope of their employment as Police Officers for the City of Fort Collins. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 118 of the Complaint are denied. V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim For Relief-4th Amendment (against Kevin Park, Avery Hanzlicek, and the City of Fort Collins) The Defendants deny any allegations set forth between paragraphs 118 and 119 of the Complaint. 119. The Defendants restate their responses to paragraphs 1 to 118 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 19 of 36 20 120. The allegations set forth in paragraph 120 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 120 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 120 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 120 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Park denies said allegations. 121. The allegations set forth in paragraph 121 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 121 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 121 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 121 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Park denies said allegations. 122. The allegations set forth in paragraph 122 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 122 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 122 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 20 of 36 21 the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 122 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Park denies said allegations. 123. The allegations set forth in paragraph 123 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 123 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 123 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 123 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Park denies said allegations. 124. The allegations set forth in paragraph 124 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 124 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 124 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 124 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Park denies said allegations. 125. The Defendants restate their responses to paragraphs 1 to 124 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 126. The allegations set forth in paragraph 126 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Park, and therefore no response is required. To Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 21 of 36 22 the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 126 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Park, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 126 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 126 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Hanzlicek denies said allegations. 127. The allegations set forth in paragraph 127 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Park, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 127 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Park, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 127 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 127of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Hanzlicek denies said allegations. 128. The allegations set forth in paragraph 128 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Park, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 128 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Park, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 128 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 128 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Hanzlicek denies said allegations. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 22 of 36 23 129. The allegations set forth in paragraph 129 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Park, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 129 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Park, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 129 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 129 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Hanzlicek denies said allegations. 130. The allegations set forth in paragraph 130 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Park, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 130 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Park, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 130 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 130 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Hanzlicek denies said allegations. 131. The allegations set forth in paragraph 131 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Park, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 131 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Park, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 131 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 23 of 36 24 the allegations set forth in paragraph 131of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Hanzlicek denies said allegations. 132. The allegations set forth in paragraph 132 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the City or Officer Park, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 132 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City or Officer Park, said allegations are denied. Furthermore, the allegations set forth in paragraph 132 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 132 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officer Hanzlicek denies said allegations. 133. The Defendants admit the City of Fort Collins is a governmental entity and a municipal corporation, and Fort Collins Police Services is a department within the City of Fort Collins. The Defendants further admit the City of Fort Collins enforces laws through Fort Collins Police Services. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 133 of the Complaint, are denied. 134. The allegations set forth in paragraph 134 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the Officers Park or Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 134 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to Officer Park or Officer Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. The City admits only to those duties imposed by law, and denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 134 of the Complaint. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 24 of 36 25 135. The City of Fort Collins admits it employed Officer Park and had responsibility for certain aspects of Officer Park’s training. Furthermore, the City admits that through its Police Services, there existed policies and procedures. The remaining Defendants deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 135 of the Complaint. 136. The allegations set forth in paragraph 136 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the Officers Park or Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 136 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the Officers Park or Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 136 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 136 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, the City denies the allegations. 137. The allegations set forth in paragraph 137 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the Officers Park or Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 137 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the Officers Park or Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 137 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 137 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, the City denies the allegations. 138. The allegations set forth in paragraph 138 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the Officers Park or Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 25 of 36 26 required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 138 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the Officers Park or Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 138 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 138 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, the City denies the allegations. 139. The allegations set forth in paragraph 139 of the Complaint do not purport to be set forth against the Officers Park or Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 139 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the Officers Park or Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. The allegations set forth in paragraph 139 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 139 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, the City denies the allegations. 140. The allegations set forth in paragraph 140 of the Complaint are denied. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Section 13-21-131-Arrest Without Probable Cause) (against Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek) These Defendants deny the allegations set forth between paragraphs 140 and 141 of the Complaint. 141 to 154. Paragraphs 141 to 154 do not purport to be directed to the City of Fort Collins, and therefore no response is provided on behalf of the City. To the extent the Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 26 of 36 27 allegations set forth in paragraphs 141 to 154 of the Complaint are determined to be directed to the City of Fort Collins, any such allegations are denied. 141. The Defendants hereby restate their responses to paragraphs 1 to 140 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 142. The allegations set forth in paragraph 142 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 142 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, these Defendants state the cited statutory section speaks for itself, and therefore any legal implication is denied. 143. The allegations set forth in paragraph 143 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 143 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, these Defendants state the cited statutory section speaks for itself, and therefore any legal implication is denied. 144. The allegations set forth in paragraph 144 of the Complaint are conclusory, while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 144 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, these Defendants state the cited statutory section speaks for itself, and therefore any legal implication is denied. 145. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 145 of the Complaint. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 27 of 36 28 146. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 146 of the Complaint. 147. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 147 of the Complaint. 148. Officers Park and Hanzlicek admit at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, there was no physical warrant because the arrest was a “warrantless arrest” based on probable cause, and therefore Plaintiff’s arrest was still authorized. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 148 of the Complaint, if any, are denied. 149. Officers Park and Hanzlicek admit at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, there was no physical warrant because the arrest was a “warrantless arrest” based on probable cause, and therefore Plaintiff’s arrest was still authorized. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 149 of the Complaint, if any, are denied. 150. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 150 of the Complaint. 151. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 151 of the Complaint. 152. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 152 of the Complaint. 153. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 153 of the Complaint. 154. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 154 of the Complaint. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 28 of 36 29 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 4TH Amendment-Excessive Force (against Kevin Park, Avery Hanzlicek, and the City of Fort Collins) These Defendants deny any allegation set forth between paragraphs 154 to 155 of the Complaint. 155. These Defendants restate their responses to paragraphs 1 to 154 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 156. The allegations set forth in paragraph 156 of the Complaint are denied. 157. The allegations set forth in paragraph 157 of the Complaint are conclusory and therefore no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 157 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, said allegations are denied. 158. The allegations set forth in paragraph 158 of the Complaint are denied. 159. The allegations set forth in paragraph 159 of the Complaint are denied. 160. The allegations set forth in paragraph 160 of the Complaint are denied. 161. These Defendants admit the City of Fort Collins is a governmental entity and municipality, and the City enforces its laws through Fort Collins Police Services. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 161 of the Complaint. 162. The allegations set forth in paragraph 162 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed at Officers Park or Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 162 of the Complaint are determined to be direct to Officers Park or Hanzlicek, any such allegations are denied. The City admits only to those duties imposed by law. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 162 of the Complaint, are denied. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 29 of 36 30 163. The City of Fort Collins admits it employed Officers Park and Hanzlicek, and had responsibility for certain aspects of Officer Park and Hanzlicek’s training. Furthermore, the City admits that through its Police Services, there existed policies and procedures. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 163 of the Complaint, are denied. 164. The allegations set forth in paragraph 164 of the Complaint are denied. 165. The allegations set forth in paragraph 165 of the Complaint are denied. 166. The allegations set forth in paragraph 166 of the Complaint are denied. 167. The allegations set forth in paragraph 167 of the Complaint are denied. 168. The allegations set forth in paragraph 168 of the Complaint are denied. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF C.R.S. 13-21-131-Excessive Force (against Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek) The Defendants deny any allegations set forth between paragraphs 168 and 169 of the Complaint. 169 to 179. Paragraphs 169 to 179 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed to the City of Fort Collins, and therefore no response is provided. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraphs 169 to 179 of the Complaint are determined to be direct to the City of Fort Collins, said allegations are denied. 169. The Defendants restate their responses to paragraphs 1 to 168 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 170. At the time of the incident as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Officers Park and Hanzlicek were acting within the course and scope of their employment with the City Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 30 of 36 31 of Fort Collins, as Fort Collins Police Services Police Officers. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 170 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, are denied. 171. Officers Park and Hanzlicek admit that at the time of the incident as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, they were peace officers as that term is commonly used. Officers Park and Hanzlicek, however, deny they violated Plaintiff’s rights, constitutional or otherwise, and are therefore not subject to liability as a peace officer as that term is used in the cited Statute. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 171 of the Complaint, if any, are denied. 172. The allegations set forth in paragraph 172 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 172 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, Officers Park and Hanzlicek admit Plaintiff had certain constitutional rights, but deny any such rights were violated. 173. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 173 of the Complaint. 174. Officers Park and Hanzlicek admit at the time of the arrest, no physical warrant existed because the arrest was a “warrantless arrest.” 175. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 175 of the Complaint. 176. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 176 of the Complaint. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 31 of 36 32 177. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 177 of the Complaint. 178. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 178 of the Complaint. 179. Officers Park and Hanzlicek deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 179 of the Complaint. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF First Amendment-Retaliation (against Kevin Park) The Defendants deny any allegations set forth between paragraphs 179 and 180 of the Complaint. 180 to 185. Paragraphs 180 to 185 of the Complaint do not purport to be directed at the City of Fort Collins or Officer Hanzlicek, and therefore no response is provided. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraphs 180 to 185 of the Complaint are determined to be directed at the City of Fort Collins or Officer Hanzlicek, said allegations are denied. 180. The Defendants restate their responses to paragraphs 1 to 179 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 181. The allegations set forth in paragraph 181 of the Complaint are conclusory while at the same time purport to set forth a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 181 of the Complaint are determined to be factual, said allegations are denied. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 32 of 36 33 182. Officer Park admits Plaintiff had certain constitutional rights, but denies any such rights were violated. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 182 of the Complaint, are denied. 183. Officer Park denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 183 of the Complaint. 184. Officer Park denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 184 of the Complaint. 185. Officer Park denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 185 of the Complaint. GENERAL DENIALS 186. The Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth in the Complaint, not specifically admitted herein. 187. The Defendants deny each and every allegation after the words “WHEREFORE” on page 34 of the Complaint. 188. The Defendants deny Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. Demand for jury trial The City of Fort Collins, Kevin Park, and Avery Hanzlicek, demand a trial by jury of all clams in this matter. Affirmative Defenses 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Probable cause existed supporting Plaintiff’s arrest, thereby negating any claim for false arrest and/or false imprisonment. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 33 of 36 34 3. The failure of Plaintiff to accept service of the citation and summons, justified his arrest for the crime of Third Degree Trespass. 4. Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief being sought or claimed in the Complaint under any legal theories asserted therein. 5. On information and belief, some or all of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any, were either pre-existing or not aggravated by any action omission of or by the Defendants, nor proximately caused by or related to any act or omission of the Defendants. 6. All or part of Plaintiff’s claims never achieved the level of any constitutional violation sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, no claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be grounded in any theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. 7. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any, in whole or in part, were proximately caused by their own acts or omissions, either in combination with one another or independent of one another. 8. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused by the acts or omissions of third parties over whom this Defendant possessed no ability to control or right to control. 9. Plaintiff cannot satisfy all or some of the prerequisites to a grant of injunctive or declaratory relief in this matter. Any request for injunctive or declaratory relief is moot. 10. Defendants are not liable for any punitive damages pursuant to state or federal law and no Defendant could become liable for any such damages. Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 34 of 36 35 11. There is no custom, practice, policy, or procedure in place which is a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s alleged Constitutional violations. 12. The individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for all claims. 13. Defendants reserve their rights to assert other or additional defenses and affirmative defenses as may become known in the course of proceedings. WHEREFORE, after answering all the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint requiring a response, the City of Fort Collins, Kevin Park and Avery Hanzlicek request the Court enter an order dismissing all elements of all claims against them, awarding them costs and attorneys’ fees, and ordering any other relief as deemed just. Respectfully submitted this 11th day of December 2023. s/ Mark S. Ratner Mark S. Ratner, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1001 17th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202 303-628-3300 /Fax: 303-628-3368 ratnerm@ hallevans.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 35 of 36 36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on the 11th day of December 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER, DEFENSES, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT was filed with the Court via CM/ECF and served on the below-listed party by email: Sarah Schielke, Esq. sarah@lifeandlibertylaw.com Matthew Haltzman, Esq. matthew@haltzmanlaw.com s/ Sarah Stefanick Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-CNS-KAS Document 30 filed 12/11/23 USDC Colorado pg 36 of 36