HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016CV144 - FARVER V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS - 036 - DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINTDISTRICT 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 ELECTRIC UTILITY; 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
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 most recent
motion for leave to amend her Complaint filed on September 16, 2016:
1. The parties appeared before the Court for a case management conference on
August 24, 2016. At the conference, undersigned counsel represented to the Court that they
would have no objection to the Plaintiff filing the amended complaint that she showed to them
prior to the conference that morning. The Court thus ordered the Plaintiff to file her amended
complaint with the Court no later than August 26, 2016.
DATE FILED: September 29, 2016 11:17 AM
FILING ID: C63C51AC69625
CASE NUMBER: 2016CV144
-2-
2. According to the electronic case filings, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
with the Court later that day on August 24, 2016. She also provided copies of the Amended
Complaint to counsel via email, indicating she would provide copies of exhibits to the Complaint
at a later date.
3. Without conferring with counsel for the City prior to doing so, the Plaintiff then
apparently filed another Amended Complaint on August 29, 2016, and the Court records reflect
that the exhibits to the Amended Complaint were filed the next day on August 30, 2016.
Plaintiff then contacted undersigned counsel by email on August 30
th
, after these items had
already been submitted to the Court, to “confer” regarding these filings. It was only then that
defense counsel became aware of these subsequent filings.
4. The parties agreed that the Defendants would not object to the subsequent filing
of another Amended Complaint and set of exhibits, with the understanding that the Defendants
would have until September 13, 2016 to file their responsive pleading to those submissions.
Undersigned counsel, as the responsible attorneys, filed a status report advising of the Court of
this agreement. The Defendants then timely filed their Answer to that First Amended Complaint
on September 13, 2016.
5. After the Defendants filed their Answer, the Plaintiff then filed yet another motion
to amend her Complaint and submitted another First Amended Complaint on September 16,
2016. The Plaintiff’s motion asks the Court to accept the First Amended Complaint filed on
August 29
th
and represents in her motion that she has not changed the substance of her
voluminous complaint (this representation appears to be true based on counsel’s review of the
two pleadings). However, the Plaintiff indicates she has submitted with it a corrected list of
exhibits to replace the one previously attached as page 45 of the First Amended Complaint
submitted to the Court on August 29
th
.
6. Based upon the understanding that the Plaintiff has simply modified the list of
exhibits in the First Amended Complaint to which the Defendants already responded, the
Defendants do not object to the Court accepting this latest version of the First Amended
Complaint filed September 16, 2016. However, the City would prefer to avoid further confusion
caused by the Plaintiff’s repeated filings, and thus would respectfully request the Court to simply
order that the City’s Answer filed on September 13, 2016 stands as the responsive pleading to
this latest submission by the Plaintiff. The Defendants would leave it up to the Court’s discretion
to impose any further instructions it may deem necessary with regard to any further filings by the
Plaintiff.
-3-
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29
th
day of September, 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 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
COMPLAINT was filed via Integrated Colorado Courts E-Filing System (ICCES) and served
this 29
th
day of September, 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.]