HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016CV144 - FARVER V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS - 019 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWERDISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
201 La Porte Ave., Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Plaintiff: VIRGINIA FARVER,
v.
Defendants: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, FORT
COLLINS CITY COUNCIL, DARIN ATTEBERRY,
FORT COLLINS UTILITIES, FORT COLLINS
UTILITIES MANAGEMENT and STAFF, DENNIS
SUMNER, STEVE CATANACH; and DOES 1-100.
COURT USE ONLY
Kimberly B. Schutt, #25947
WICK & TRAUTWEIN, LLC
323 South College Avenue, Suite 3
P.O. Box 2166, Fort Collins, CO 80522
Phone Number: (970) 482-4011
E-mail: kschutt@wicklaw.com
FAX Number: (970) 482-8929
John R. Duval, #10185
FORT COLLINS CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Phone: (970) 221-6520
Email: jduval@fcgov.com
Case Number: 2016 CV 144
Courtroom: 5B
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW all of the above-named defendants (“Defendants”), by and through
counsel, Kimberly B. Schutt of Wick & Trautwein, LLC, and John R. Duval of the Fort Collins
City Attorney’s Office, and respectfully submit the following response to Plaintiff’s “Reply” to
the Defendant’s Answer and her motion for leave to amend her Complaint:
1. On June 30, 216, the pro se Plaintiff in this action filed a “Reply” to the
Defendants’ Answer which also contained a motion for leave to amend her Complaint.
Plaintiff’s motion did not contain a certification that she had conferred with defense counsel
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, §1-15, nor did she actually confer with defense counsel prior to filing
the Reply and Motion. The motion also did not include a copy of the proposed amended
complaint which Plaintiff sought leave to file.
DATE FILED: July 19, 2016 7:52 AM
FILING ID: C0D84B7C17F2F
CASE NUMBER: 2016CV144
-2-
2. Defense counsel Kimberly Schutt and John Duval met with the Plaintiff on July 5,
2016, for purposes of discussing the various case management issues required by Rule 16.1 and
this Court’s procedural order. During that meeting, defense counsel provided Plaintiff with a
copy of Rule 121, §1-15 and explained the need to provide a copy of the proposed amended
complaint in order for defense counsel to determine whether to object or consent to the motion.
They asked Plaintiff to provide that information as soon as possible in order to allow for a
meaningful opportunity to review and evaluate the proposed amended complaint. Plaintiff
committed to do so.
3. Almost two weeks have passed, and Plaintiff has not still provided a copy of the
proposed amended complaint. Undersigned counsel followed up with the Plaintiff on July 13,
2016, and was told that she would provide it by the end of the week. Instead, Plaintiff simply
provided the letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1 outlining what she intends to do with her
amended complaint.
4. Accordingly, at this point, the Defendants must object to the Plaintiff’s motion on
the grounds that she failed to comply with Rule 121, §1-15 and provide a copy of her proposed
amended complaint, to the Defendants’ prejudice.
5. Moreover, based on what Plaintiff has outlined in her letter of July 13, Defendants
believe her amended complaint will simply retool her allegations to reframe them based on the
Answer filed by the Defendants and make legal arguments which are more appropriately left for
summary judgment proceedings, rather than serving as a basis for amending her Complaint. The
rules of civil procedure do not allow her to file a reply to the Defendants’ Answer, which is what
she has done in her Reply pleading and appears to be what she intends to further do in her
proposed amended complaint, based upon what she has outlined in her letter. She also fails to
address at all the Defendants’ contention that she has not alleged with sufficient particularity the
claims of fraud, deceit and willful misrepresentation.
6. As reflected above, Defense counsel have attempted to work through these issues
with the Plaintiff, but she has failed to timely provide them with the information they need to
truly evaluate what she is trying to do. Though the Plaintiff is choosing to represent herself in
this matter, she is still obligated to comply with the same rules of procedure as though she were
represented by an attorney.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request the Court to enter an order denying
the Plaintiff’s Reply and Motion to Amend, with the understanding that she can resubmit the
motion if she actually provides a copy of the proposed amended pleading and confers with
defense counsel prior to doing so. The parties anticipate setting this matter in for a case
management conference to occur in the latter part of August. If the Plaintiff provides a proposed
amended complaint to defense counsel prior to that time, then the Court can always take up this
issue at the conference, to the extent there are any issues needing to be resolved at that time.
-3-
DATED this 19
th
day of July, 2016.
WICK & TRAUTWEIN, LLC
This document was served electronically pursuant to
C.R.C.P. 121 §1-26. The original pleading signed by
Kimberly B. Schutt is on file at the offices of Wick &
Trautwein, LLC
By: s/Kimberly B. Schutt
Kimberly B. Schutt, #25947
Attorneys for Defendant
And
John R. Duval, #10185
FORT COLLINS CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
(970) 221-6520
CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT was filed via Integrated Colorado
Courts E-Filing System (ICCES) and served this 19
TH
day of July, 2016, on the following:
Sent via email to vrfarv@hotmail.com and sent by U.S. Mail to:
Virginia L. Farver
1214 Belleview Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Pro se Plaintiff
/s/ Jody L. Minch_______________________
[The original certificate of electronic filing signed by Jody L. Minch
is on file with the law offices of Wick & Trautwein, LLC.]