HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022CV30661 - Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network, et al, v. Council of the City of Fort Collins - 007 - City's Response to Motion to Intervene1
11/4/2022
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\INTERVENE RESPONSE-110422.DOCX
DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
201 La Porte Ave., Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
Plaintiffs: SANCTUARY FIELD NEIGHBORHOOD
NETWORK, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; and
MIRANDA SPINDEL,
v.
Defendants: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado.
Attorneys for Defendant:
Attorney: Corey Y. Hoffmann, No. 24920
Katharine J. Vera, No. 53995
Firm Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C.
511 16th Street, Suite 610
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 825-6444
E-mail: cyh@hpwclaw.com
kjv@hpwclaw.com
Case No.: 2022CV30661
Division: 5A
DEFENDANT CITY OF FORT COLLINS RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO INTERVENE
Defendant, Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the "City"), through counsel,
Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C., hereby submits the following Response in Support
of the Motion to Intervene filed by Solitaire Homes East, LLC and Solitaire Homes, LLC
(collectively, "Solitaire"), and as grounds therefore states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
The City agrees with Solitaire that Solitaire should be authorized to intervene as a matter
of right pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2). In fact, but for the within Motion to Intervene filed by
Solitaire, the City would have been compelled to file a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join an
DATE FILED: November 4, 2022 9:07 AM
FILING ID: FBCF702F1BA32
CASE NUMBER: 2022CV30661
2
11/4/2022
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\INTERVENE RESPONSE-110422.DOCX
Indispensable Party pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and C.R.C.P. 19. See City's Answer to
Complaint for Judicial Relief Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106, dated November 1, 2022, at ¶5, and
Affirmative Defenses therein at ¶4. However, in the process of conferring with Plaintiff and
counsel for Solitaire, the undersigned became aware of Solitaire intent to seek interven tion,
which made the City's proposed Motion duplicative.1 Thus, the City respectfully requests this
Court grant Solitaire's Motion to Intervene.
II. ARGUMENT
Preliminarily, the City agrees with and joins in Solitaire 's arguments under C.R.C.P.
24(a)(2). The City agrees that Solitaire meets the "three substantive requirements" for
intervention as more particularly described in Solitaire 's Motion.
In addition, of particular importance to this case, this matter was brought by Plaintiffs
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). The Court of Appeals has specifically held that owners of
property as applicants seeking a land use approval are indispensable parties in an action
challenging the approval of a land use application. Neighbors for a Better Approach v. Nepa,
770 P.2d 1390, 1391 (Colo. App. 1989). The court specifically stated as follows:
An applicant for a use permit, like an applicant for a rezoning permit, is an
indispensable party to a proceeding challenging the grant of the applications.
C.R.C.P. 19(a).
Id.
Here, Solitaire, according to its Motion to Intervene, is the Owner and Developer of the
Property at issue in this proceeding. Plaintiffs are seeking reversal of the City’s approval of the
1 The undersigned also indicated to counsel for Plaintiff as part of the conferral process that Solitaire was an
indispensable party, and that the failure to join Solitaire and Plaintiff’s objection to Solitaire’s inclusion in this case
was not warranted by existing law
3
11/4/2022
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\INTERVENE RESPONSE-110422.DOCX
Amended Plan as defined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which Amended Plan is a land use approval.
Because Solitaire is an indispensable party in this proceeding pursuant to C.R.C.P. 19(a), it
certainly meets the requirements for intervention as a matter of right. Accordingly, the City
respectfully request this Court grant Solitaire's Motion to Intervene.
III. CONCLUSION
The City respectfully requests this Court grant Solitaire 's Motion to Intervene.
Dated this 4th day of November 2022.
HOFFMANN, PARKER, WILSON &
CARBERRY, P.C.
By: /s/ Corey Y. Hoffman
Corey Y. Hoffman
Katharine J. Vera
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
4
11/4/2022
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\INTERVENE RESPONSE-110422.DOCX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 4th day of November 2022, I caused a true and correct copy of the
foregoing DEFENDANT CITY OF FORT COLLINS RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO INTERVENE to be served via CCES, electronic mail, and/or U.S. mail on the
following:
Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C.
Andrew Pipes
4750 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80305-5500
Attorney for Plaintiff
Jenny Latta, Legal Assistant