HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-cv-1983-SKC - Townley v. Fort Collins, et al - 043 - Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to DismissIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC
MICHAEL PIPER TOWNLEY, ANNA KRUGER, and JOSHUA DeLEON;
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRIAN MALLORY,in his individual capacity;
ETHAN VANSICKLE,in his individual capacity;
DANIEL NETZEL,in his individual capacity;
JARED ROBERTSON,in his individual capacity;
JOE SCHILZ,in his individual capacity;
JASON HAFERMAN,in his individual capacity;
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG,in his individual capacity.
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SHILZ, HAFERMAN, AND YOUNG’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF 22]
Plaintiffs,by and through undersigned counsel,respectfully respond to Defendant
Netzel’s Motion to Dismiss as follows:
STANDARD
“There is a strong presumption against dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6).”Deray v.City of Colo.Springs,No.11-CV-02639-MSK-CBS,2012 WL 1901220,at
*2 (D.Colo.May 25,2012).A complaint will survive a Rule 12(b)(6)motion if it contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”Bell Atl.Corp.v.Twombly,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 10
550 U.S.544,570 (2007).“Plausible”does not equate to “likely to be true,”but simply means a
nudge beyond “conceivable.”See Robbins v. Oklahoma,519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008).
The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)is to test "the sufficiency of
the allegations within the four corners of the complaint after taking those allegations as true."
Mobley v.McCormick,40 F.3d 337,340 (10th Cir.1994)."The court's function on a Rule
12(b)(6)motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial,but to
assess whether the complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be
granted."Sutton v.Utah State Sch.for the Deaf &Blind,173 F.3d 1226,1236 (10th Cir.1999).
To withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),"a complaint must contain enough
allegations of fact to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."Robbins v.Oklahoma,
519 F.3d 1242,1247 (10th Cir.2008);"The complaint must plead sufficient facts,taken as true,
to provide 'plausible grounds'that discovery will reveal evidence to support the plaintiff's
allegations."Shero v.City of Grove,Okla.,510 F.3d 1196,1200 (10th Cir.2007).Indeed,"if the
court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail,
it should do so [even]despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority."Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Ashcroft v.Iqbal,556 U.S.662,678 (2009)."A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.Nor does a complaint suffice
if it tenders naked assertion[s]devoid of further factual enhancement."Id.To survive a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),the factual allegations in the complaint "must be enough to
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 10
raise a right to relief above the speculative level."Christy Sports,LLC v.Deer Valley Resort Co.,
555 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009).
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Netzel’s Motion to Dismiss makes only one argument:that because he was not
served within ninety (90)days of the filing of the initial Complaint,the statute of limitations has
run.However,the 10th Circuit has been clear that when dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P.4(m)
would function as a bar under the statute of limitations,courts should weigh this factor against
dismissal of the action.Espinoza v.United States,52 F.3d 838 (10th Cir.1995).Here,Plaintiffs
have good cause for the delay in serving Defendant Netzel and no prejudice or delay will result
as Defendant Netzel has been served in this action.Accordingly,Defendant Netzel’s Motion to
Dismiss should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on August 8, 2022 through filing their Complaint and Jury
Demand. ECF No. 1. This Initial Complaint named Defendant Netzel as a Defendant.Id. The
claims against Defendant Netzel as alleged in the Complaint and subsequent Amended
Complaint relate to events occurring on August 8, 2020.Id. Shortly filing the initial Complaint,
undersigned counsel reached out to the City of Fort Collins to request waiver of service.Exhibit
1, ¶ 2. On August 23, 2022, counsel for Defendants emailed undersigned counsel to indicate that
he had been retained to represent certain Defendants in this case and was authorized to accept
service.Exhibit 2. Waivers of service for such Defendants were promptly provided.Exhibit 3.
Undersigned counsel also inquired as to whether “the other Defendants are no longer employed
by the city of Fort Collins or if they'll be represented by other counsel through the City.”Id.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 10
Counsel for Defendants responded that he did “not have that information.”Exhibit 4.1
Undersigned counsel then engaged in diligent efforts to locate Defendant Netzel however efforts
to locate an address for Defendant Netzel proved difficult.Exhibit 1,¶¶ 9-12. In undersigned
counsel’s experience, police officers often take efforts to restrict public information relating to
their addresses.Id ¶ 13. Undersigned counsel further understood Defense counsel’s previous
emails to mean that he had no contact with Defendant Netzel and that Defendant Netzel was no
longer employed by the Fort Collins Police.Id ¶¶6-8.
In early January of 2023, Plaintiffs did identify an address at which Mr. Netzel could be
served and promptly completed service of process.Id ¶¶ 19-20. At that point, Defense counsel
for the first time indicated that Hall and Evans also represented Defendant Netzel.Exhibit 5.
Undersigned counsel had understood all previous communications with counsel for Defendants
to mean that they had no communication nor contact with Mr. Netzel.Exhibit 1,¶¶6-8. Upon
receipt of the January 27, 2023 email from Mr. Ratner, undersigned counsel came to understand
for the first time that Defendant Netzel had been on notice about the lawsuit from sometime in
August or early September of 2022 and had refused to accept service rather than Mr. Ratner not
being retained to represent Defendant Netzel.Id ¶21. At no time did Mr. Ratner enter any entry
of appearance on behalf of Defendant Netzel.See ECF generally.
ARGUMENT
In the Tenth Circuit, courts use a two-step process for dismissals under Rule 4(m).
Womble v. Salt Lake City Corp., 84 F. App'x 18, 20 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Espinoza, 52 F.3d at
841). The court must first consider whether the plaintiff has shown good cause for his failure to
1 Counsel for Defendants later indicated that he was representing all other Defendants other than Defendant Netzel
and all such Defendants subsequently waived process of service.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 10
serve a defendant.Id.If good cause is shown, the court must extend the time for service.Id.If
the plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause, the court may, within its discretion, dismiss the case
without prejudice or extend the time for service.Id.Plaintiffs are entitled to a good cause
extension under Espinoza because of their efforts and the conduct of Defendant Netzel.
Moreover, if the Court were to determine that good cause does not exist, then the Court should
nonetheless grant Plaintiffs an extension under the Espinoza test.
1.Good Cause Exists for Extending Period for Service of Process
Plaintiffs attempted to serve Defendant Netzel throughout the 90-day period as
contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P.4.First,Plaintiffs reached out to the City of Fort Collins to seek
a waiver of service.Exhibit 1,¶2.Plaintiffs were later informed that Defendant Netzel’s counsel
was not authorized to accept service.Exhibit 2.When Plaintiffs inquired into the status of
Defendant’s employment,Plaintiffs reasonably understood Defense counsel’s email stating that
he did “not have that information”to mean that Defendant Netzel was no longer employed by the
City of Fort Collins.Exhibit 1,¶8.Indeed,Defense counsel could easily have indicated that he
represented Defendant Netzel and that Defendant Netzel was refusing to accept service.
However,the language used suggested to undersigned counsel that Defendant Netzel was no
longer employed by the City of Fort Collins.
Undersigned counsel then engaged in diligent efforts to locate Defendant Netzel’s home
residence or new place of employment.Exhibit 1,¶¶9-13,19-20.For several months,Plaintiffs
sought a place for effective service.Id.Only in early January was undersigned counsel able to
locate an address at which Defendant Netzel could be served and promptly had Defendant Netzel
served.Id.,¶¶19-20.Moreover,Defendant Netzel was served prior to any Order to Show cause,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 10
notice or motion by Defendants and Defendant Netzel was served the day after the Scheduling
Conference.Given Plaintiffs’efforts and good faith reliance on Defense counsel’s statements,
Plaintiffs are entitled to a finding of good cause and therefore,a denial of Defendant Netzel’s
Motion to Dismiss.
2.The Court Should Grant a Permissive Extension Regardless
The Tenth Circuit allows a district court to grant a permissive extension,even in the
absence of good cause.Shepard v.U.S.,819 F.App'x 622,624 (10th Cir.2020)(citing Espinoza
v.U.S.,52 F.3d 838 (10th Cir.1995)).“In determining whether to grant a permissive extension,
courts consider several factors,including the complex requirements of multiple service,the
plaintiff's pro se status,the statute of limitations,the danger of prejudice to the defendant,and
the length of the delay."Shepard v.United States Dep't of Veteran Affairs,2019 WL 5095680,
*6-7 (D.Colo.July 11,2019)(quoting Estate of Goodwin,376 F.Supp.3d 1133,2019 WL
1170547,at *10.Here,Defendant Netzel has identified no prejudice,the statute of limitations
will convert a dismissal without prejudice into one with prejudice,and Defendant Netzel has had
actual notice of this lawsuit since early in this case.Accordingly,the equities and test laid out in
Espinoza strongly support the Court finding that an extension should be granted regardless of
whether Plaintiffs have established good cause and accordingly,Defendant Netzel’s Motion to
Dismiss should be denied on this basis as well.
a.Defendant Has Identified No Prejudice
Defendant has identified no prejudice he will face if the Court grants an extension for
service of process and accepts Plaintiffs’Return of Service on January 20,2023 as effective in
this case.Indeed,Defendant Netzel has been aware of the lawsuit for several months,discovery
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 10
has only just commenced,and all Defendants except Defendant Haferman are represented by the
same counsel as Defendant Netzel,making any discovery issues null.Without any argument by
Defendant Netzel as to prejudice, such argument should be deemed waived.
b.Statute of Limitations
Another factor weighing in favor of granting Plaintiffs a permissive waiver is that a
dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P.4 would operate as a dismissal with prejudice.The Tenth Circuit
has "made clear that the statute of limitations for §1983 actions brought in Colorado is two years
from the time the cause of action accrued."Fogle v.Pierson,435 F.3d 1252,1258 (10th Cir.
2006).Dismissal without prejudice "can be an extreme sanction if the statute of limitations bars
refiling."Florence v.Decker,153 Fed.Appx.478,480 (10th Cir.2005).Here,Plaintiffs filed
their Complaint before the statute of limitations had run,but a dismissal without prejudice would
nonetheless preclude Plaintiffs from refiling against Defendant Netzel.“In considering
discretionary extensions,the Court must consider ‘if the applicable statute of limitations would
bar the refiled action.’"Carson v.United States,2023 WL 155875,*8 (D.Colo.January 11,
2023)(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.4(m)advisory committee's note (1993)).Here,Plaintiffs would be
unable to refile this action against Defendant Netzel were he dismissed.Therefore,contrary to
Defendant’s argument that the statute of limitations requires the dismissal of this suit,the
presence of the statute of limitations instead strongly supports the denial of Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss on this very basis.
When considering whether to impose this “extreme sanction,”Courts sometimes look to
the Ehrenhaus factors.Raeth v.Bank One,2008 WL 410596,*9 (D.Colo.February 13,2008).
The factors as laid out in Raeth are:"(1)the degree of actual prejudice to the defendant;(2)the
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 10
amount of interference with the judicial process;(3)the culpability of the litigant;(4)whether
the court warned the party in advance that dismissal of the action would be a likely sanction for
noncompliance;and (5)the efficacy of lesser sanctions."Ehrenhaus v.Reynolds,965 F.2d 916,
921 (10th Cir.1992).Here,there is no prejudice to the Defendant as none has been provided.
Here,there is no interference with the judicial process as Defendant Netzel was served with the
Amended Complaint at the onset of the discovery process and his counsel is the same counsel for
essentially all other defendants.Here,Plaintiffs are not culpable as they made efforts to serve
Defendant Netzel and were potentially misled as to his employment status with the City of Fort
Collins.Here,Plaintiffs were provided no advance notice that dismissal would be a likely
sanction as Plaintiffs served the Amended Complaint on Defendant before any Order or Motion
was filed.And here,no sanction is necessary as the delay in serving Defendant was not based on
delay or gamesmanship by Plaintiffs but instead on the difficulty of serving a police officer for
whom Plaintiffs were led to believe no longer worked for the City of Fort Collins.
c.The Length of Delay is Short
The length of delay here is short and mitigated in part by the filing of an Amended
Complaint.This Action was filed on August 8,2022,which would place November 6,2022 as
the 90 day deadline under Fed.R.Civ.P.4.Plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended Complaint
on November 28,2022.Plaintiffs served Defendant Netzel seven weeks later.In cases where
Complaints are dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P.4,generally plaintiffs have delayed service in the
length of years and in every case,have been given at least one Order to Show Cause before their
cases are dismissed under this rule.Here,Plaintiffs served Defendant Netzel shortly after the 90
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 10
day period and within the 90 days after the filing of the Amended Complaint,all without any
notice. Accordingly, this factor weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor as well.
d.No Notice to Plaintiffs
Fed.R.Civ.P.4 states that the Court shall dismiss a Defendant not served within 90 days
“on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff.”Manning v.McGahey,2022 WL 684166,
*7 (D.Colo.March 8,2022)(emphasis in the original).Here,Plaintiffs were provided no notice
of any intent to dismiss this Complaint.Plaintiffs indeed served Defendant Netzel before his
Motion to Dismiss was filed.When Defendant Netzel was served,there was no notice and
accordingly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 is inapplicable.
e.The Balance of Equity Weighs Against Dismissal
The purpose of Rule 4 is to assure that the defendant will actually get knowledge of
commencement of action against him.Hanna v.Plumer,380 U.S.460 (1965).Here,Defendant
Netzel apparently had notice of the pendency of this lawsuit in the early stages of litigation,was
offered the opportunity to waiver service,rejected this courtesy,and his attorney failed to
communicate this representation and made statements which appear calculated to misrepresent
knowledge as to Defendant Netzel’s place of employment.Defendant appears to have taken steps
to engineer an issue with service and now seeks to hide behind these efforts.Such efforts should
not be rewarded.Plaintiffs were diligent both in seeking waiver of service,in communicating
with Defense counsel about Defendant Netzel’s representation and employment,and in seeking
to serve Defendant Netzel.Accordingly,the balance of equities weigh against denying Plaintiffs
the opportunity to have their civil rights case against Mr.Netzel determined on the merits.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 10
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Netzel’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of March 2023.
E. Milo Schwab
E. Milo Schwab
2401 S Downing
Denver, CO 80210
(303) 888-4407
milo@ascendcounsel.co
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 10
I, E. Milo Schwab, being duly sworn, state:
1.I am 18 years or older.
2.In the days following the filing of the initial Complaint in Townley et al v. Fort Collins, et
all, 1:22-cv-01983-SKC, my office reached out to the City of Fort Collins to request that
the City and the Defendant officers waive process of service under the Federal Rules.
3.On August 23, 2022, I received a communication from Mark Ratner indicating that he
was representing certain, but not all, Defendants in this case.
4.I asked whether these other Defendants would be receiving alternative counsel or whether
they were no longer employed by the City of Fort Collins.
5.Mr. Rater indicated that he did not have any more information.
6.I understood this statement to mean that Mr. Ratner had not been hired to represent any of
the other Defendants and that he had not spoken with these additional Defendants.
7.Several weeks later, Mr. Ratner emailed again to inform me that he had been retained to
represent several additional officers, but made no indication about representing
Defendant Netzel.
8.Based on all of our communications, I understood that Mr. Netzel was no longer an
employee of the Fort Collins Police Department.
9.At this point, I began searching for Mr. Netzel’s current place of employment.
10.A search of publicly available records did not reveal his current place of employment.
11.I and my staff also conducted multiple searches for the residential address of Defendant
Netzel, but were unable to locate any such addresses.
12.At one point, we believed that we had located Defendant Netzel in Denver, but such
individual was approximately sixty years of age and we understand Defendant Netzel to
be much younger than that.
13.In my personal experience, police officers often take efforts to conceal their addresses out
of fear for their safety, making the finding of such personal residences much more
difficult.
14.Indeed, when Defendant Netzel was served, Mr. Ratner requested that the affidavit of
Defendant Netzel’s process of service be filed under seal to protect his privacy interests
as a police officer.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43-1 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
15.Even though I now know that Defendant Netzel had the opportunity to waive service and
protect his privacy concerns, I have nonetheless agreed to file such affidavit under seal.
16.Indeed, I intended to withhold filing this affidavit at all given that Defendant Netzel filed
a Motion to Dismiss and responded to the Compaint.
17.In light of Defendant Netzel’s Motion to Dismiss making an issue out of the lack of filed
Affidavit, I have now filed such affidavit.
18.Throughout this entire period, Mr. Ratner never once stated that he represented Defendant
Netzel nor corrected his previous statement that he had no information as to Defendant
Netzel’s employment with the Fort Collins Police Department.
19.In early January, I obtained new software with which to access voting records and
addresses and was only at that time, able to identify Defendant Netzel’s address.
20.I immediately requested a Summons from this Court and promptly hired a process server
to serve Defendant Netzel at his home.
21.At this time, and for the first time, Mr. Ratner informed me that he in fact represented
Defendant Netzel.
22.It was only in January of 2023, after numerous conversations and emails, that I came to
understand that Defendant Netzel had actively rejected the waiver of service rather than
Mr. Ratner not having been retained to represent Mr. Netzel.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the facts herein are true and correct.
/s/ E. Milo Schwab
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43-1 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
3/2/23, 12:43 PM Ascend Counsel, LLC Mail - Piper v. Fort Collins, et al.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=051c192b36&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1741983743295740288&simpl=msg-f:1741983743295740288 1/1
Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co>
Piper v. Fort Collins, et al.
Ratner, Mark S. <ratnerm@hallevans.com>Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 2:05 PM
To: "milo@ascendcounsel.co" <milo@ascendcounsel.co>
Cc: "Tamborello, Amber" <tamborelloa@hallevans.com>, "Stefanick, Sarah" <stefanicks@hallevans.com>
Good Afternoon, Mr. Schwab.
With respect to the Piper matter, please be advised I have been retained to represent the interests of the City of Fort
Collins, as well as Officers Jared Robertson, Brian Mallory, Ethan Van Sickle, and CJ Young. As such, we are willing to
waive service of the Complaint on behalf of the City and these Officers only. At this time, I do not have permission to
waive service for anyone else.
When you have a moment, please forward the proper paper work to my attention.
I look forward to working with you on this matter.
Best Regards,
Mark
Mark S. Ratner | Member
ratnerm@hallevans.com
Tel: 303-628-3337
Hall & Evans, LLC
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING
website | bio | LinkedIn
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the named addressee(s)
of this message and may be subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. If you are not the named addressee,
unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited; please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
original message. Our spam protection may prevent any reply e-mail from being delivered. If I have not responded to your email
within 48 hours, please contact our office at 303/628-3300. This e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of viruses and
defects, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus-free. The sender is not responsible for any loss or damage
arising from its use.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43-2 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
3/2/23, 12:47 PM Ascend Counsel, LLC Mail - Re: Townley et al v. Fort Collins, et al.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=051c192b36&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-1318607717930293436&simpl=msg-a:r-1318607717930…1/1
Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co>
Re: Townley et al v. Fort Collins, et al.
Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co>Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 3:36 PM
To: ratnerm@hallevans.com, "Tamborello, Amber" <tamborelloa@hallevans.com>, stefanicks@hallevans.com, Nick List
<nick@ascendcounsel.co>
Mark, please find attached the waivers of service. Can you confirm whether the other Defendants are no longer employed
by the city of Fort Collins or if they'll be represented by other counsel through the City?
--
E. Milo Schwab
Ascend Counsel, LLC
T: (303) 888-4407
2401 S Downing St. Denver CO, 80210
milo@ascendcounsel.co | www.ascendcounsel.co
5 attachments
Waiver Young.pdf
263K
Waiver City of Fort Collins.pdf
263K
Waiver Mallory.pdf
263K
Waiver Van Sickle.pdf
263K
Waiver Robertson.pdf
263K
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43-3 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co>
Re: Townley et al v. Fort Collins, et al.
12 messages
Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co>Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 3:36 PM
To: ratnerm@hallevans.com, "Tamborello, Amber" <tamborelloa@hallevans.com>, stefanicks@hallevans.com, Nick List
<nick@ascendcounsel.co>
Mark, please find attached the waivers of service. Can you confirm whether the other Defendants are no longer employed
by the city of Fort Collins or if they'll be represented by other counsel through the City?
--
E. Milo Schwab
Ascend Counsel, LLC
T: (303) 888-4407
2401 S Downing St. Denver CO, 80210
milo@ascendcounsel.co | www.ascendcounsel.co
5 attachments
Waiver Young.pdf
263K
Waiver City of Fort Collins.pdf
263K
Waiver Mallory.pdf
263K
Waiver Van Sickle.pdf
263K
Waiver Robertson.pdf
263K
Ratner, Mark S. <ratnerm@hallevans.com>Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 4:08 PM
To: Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co>
Cc: "Tamborello, Amber" <tamborelloa@hallevans.com>, "Stefanick, Sarah" <stefanicks@hallevans.com>, Nick List
<nick@ascendcounsel.co>
Thanks. I do not have that information. The status of accepting service and representation may change with respect to the
other officers.
Sent from my iPhone
Mark S. Ratner | Member
ratnerm@hallevans.com
Tel: 303-628-3337
Hall & Evans, LLC
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43-4 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING
website | bio | LinkedIn
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the named addressee(s)
of this message and may be subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. If you are not the named addressee,
unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited; please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
original message. Our spam protection may prevent any reply e-mail from being delivered. If I have not responded to your email
within 48 hours, please contact our office at 303/628-3300. This e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of viruses and
defects, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus-free. The sender is not responsible for any loss or damage
arising from its use.
On Aug 23, 2022, at 3:36 PM, Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co> wrote:
**CAUTION: This email originated outside H&E. Please scrutinize all links and attachments.**
[Quoted text hidden]
<Waiver Young.pdf>
<Waiver City of Fort Collins.pdf>
<Waiver Mallory.pdf>
<Waiver Van Sickle.pdf>
<Waiver Robertson.pdf>
Ratner, Mark S. <ratnerm@hallevans.com>Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 4:24 PM
To: Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co>
Cc: "Tamborello, Amber" <tamborelloa@hallevans.com>, "Stefanick, Sarah" <stefanicks@hallevans.com>, Nick List
<nick@ascendcounsel.co>, "Ringel, Andrew D." <ringela@hallevans.com>
Good Afternoon, Milo.
Please be advised I have authority to accept service on behalf of the remaining officers, except for Officer Netzle. That,
of course, may change and if it does I will let you know.
Please forward the appropriate documentation, and I will execute.
Best Regards,
Mark
Mark S. Ratner | Member
ratnerm@hallevans.com
Tel: 303-628-3337
Hall & Evans, LLC
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING
website | bio | LinkedIn
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43-4 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
3/2/23, 12:54 PM Ascend Counsel, LLC Mail - Townley
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=051c192b36&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1756191567700175412&simpl=msg-f:1756191567700175412 1/1
Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co>
Townley
Ratner, Mark S. <ratnerm@hallevans.com>Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 8:52 AM
To: Milo Schwab <milo@ascendcounsel.co>
Cc: "Ringel, Andrew D." <ringela@hallevans.com>, "Hoffman, Katherine N." <hoffmank@hallevans.com>, "Tamborello,
Amber" <tamborelloa@hallevans.com>, "Lesar, Kristin" <lesark@hallevans.com>, "Stefanick, Sarah"
<stefanicks@hallevans.com>, Nick List <nick@ascendcounsel.co>
Milo, it is our understanding Officer Netzel has been served with the Summons and Complaint in this matter. As indicated
in one of our past discussions, this office represents Officer Netzel. I am assuming contact through your office was an
oversight, but please direct any future communications through me.
In addition, due to his position as a police officer and the fact he was served at home, I would ask the Return of Service
which might contain his home address, be filed under seal. If this is a problem, please let me know immediately so I may
seek Court intervention.
Mark
Mark S. Ratner | Member
ratnerm@hallevans.com
Tel: 303-628-3337
Hall & Evans, LLC
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
COLORADO | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEW MEXICO | UTAH | WYOMING
website | bio | LinkedIn
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the named addressee(s)
of this message and may be subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. If you are not the named addressee,
unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited; please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
original message. Our spam protection may prevent any reply e-mail from being delivered. If I have not responded to your email
within 48 hours, please contact our office at 303/628-3300. This e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of viruses and
defects, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus-free. The sender is not responsible for any loss or damage
arising from its use.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01983-SKC Document 43-5 filed 03/03/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1