Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021CV30470 - CITY OF FORT COLLINS v. AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS, INC. AND AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS, LLC - 015 - Joint Motion to Stay Case DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO 201 La Porte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▼ Plaintiff: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, v. Defendants: AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS, INC.; and, AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS, LLC. Attorneys for Defendants: J. Scott Lasater, 16070 Max S. Gad, 43291 LASATER & MARTIN, P.C. 8822 Ridgeline Blvd., Ste. 405 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 303/730-3900 Scott@LasaterandMartin.com Max@LasaterandMartin.com Case Number: 2021CV30470 Division: 3B JOINT MOTION TO STAY CASE 91 DAYS PENDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS Plaintiff and Defendants, through their respective attorneys, submit the following Joint Motion to Stay Case 91 Days Pending Settlement Discussions as follows: C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-15(8) Certificate of Conferral This is a joint motion brought by both parties. No party opposes the relief sought herein. DATE FILED: September 6, 2022 4:26 PM FILING ID: EB3D703712AC9 CASE NUMBER: 2021CV30470 Motion 1. As the Court is aware, this case stems from Defendants’ design and construction of the pedestrian underpass located in the Plaintiff City of Fort Collins’ (“Plaintiff”) right-of- way at Prospect Road and Center Avenue in the City of Fort Collins (“the Underpass”). 2. The background, history of the design and construction of the Underpass, and the parties’ investigation of claimed construction defects at the Underpass are further described in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff’s October 10, 2021 Status Report, the parties’ October 25, 2021 Joint Motion for Stay of Case to Facilitate Settlement, and Plaintiff’s December 17, 2021 and March 25, 2022 Status Reports. 3. The parties have actively been discussing settlement and resolution under the protections of CRE 408. The parties are working together collegially and cooperatively. 4. The parties and their attorneys attended an in-person meeting in Fort Collins on August 31, 2022. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Plaintiff’s proposed repair to the Underpass, Defendants’ positions on the repair proposal, and Plaintiff’s counter positions and questions regarding Defendants’ positions. 5. The meeting was productive. No formal agreement was reached. However, the parties made positive progress. The issues that the parties could not agree on immediately require some research and work. For example, the parties need to call in “locates” and pull excavation permits for the area. 6. The parties have scheduled a follow up CRE 408 conference to occur via Zoom on September 20, 2022 at 9am. 7. On August 23, 2022, the Court issued its At Issue Order, which triggered several deadlines under C.R.C.P. 16 and 26, such as scheduling a case management conference (September 6), serving C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) Disclosures (September 20), filing a proposed case management order (at least 7 days before the case management conference), and holding a case management conference (October 11). In addition, Plaintiff’s deadline to file a certificate of review is September 26. 8. The parties jointly wish to conserve resources, time, and attorneys’ fees spent on these deadlines to continue to pursue settlement and therefore jointly request a 91 day stay of this case. The parties request that, during the stay, all case deadlines be held in abeyance. 9. “Courts, in general, have the power to stay proceedings before them.” Town of Minturn v. Sensible Housing Co., Inc., 273 P.3d 1154, 1159 (Colo. App. 2012). This power “is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.” Id. (quoting Landis v. N. Amer. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). 10. The parties do not make this request lightly. The parties are aware of how long this matter has been pending and that it was previously stayed once before. The parties do not wish to unnecessarily delay this action. The parties would not be making this request if they did not believe in good faith that resolution was possible. Staying the case would facilitate an inexpensive determination of this action. The parties incurring significant attorneys’ fees will not facilitate settlement. 11. No party will be prejudiced by the relief requested herein. To the contrary, the parties will be prejudiced if the relief requested is denied. 12. A proposed order is attached for the Court’s convenience. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of September, 2022. LASATER & MARTIN, P.C. /s/ Max S. Gad ________________________________ J. Scott Lasater, #16070 Max S. Gad, #42391 Attorneys for Defendants MILL CONSTRUCTION LAW, LLC /s/ John W. Mill John W. Mill, #22348 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 6th day of September, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing JOINT MOTION TO STAY CASE 91 DAYS PENDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS was filed and served via Colorado Courts E-filing, to all Counsel of Record. /s/ Kimberly Coupal Kimberly Coupal In accordance with C.R.C.P. 121, §1-26(7), a printable copy of this document with electronic signatures is maintained by the filing party and is available for inspection by other parties or the Court upon request.