HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV149 - SUTHERLAND V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, STEVE MILLER & IRENE JOSEY - 006 - ANSWER OF COMPASS BANKDISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
201 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
COURT USE ONLY
Plaintiff:
ERIC SUTHERLAND, pro se
v.
Defendants:
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a home rule municipality
in the State of Colorado; STEVE MILLER, in his capacity as
the Larimer County Assessor and all successors in this office;
IRENE JOSEY, in her capacity as the Larimer County
Treasurer and all successors to this office; and
Indispensable Parties: THE TIMNATH DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, an Urban Renewal Authority; and
COMPASS MORTGAGE CORPORATION, an Alabama
company doing business in Colorado.
Attorneys for Compass Mortgage Corporation
Eric R. Burris, pro hac vice pending
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
201 Third Street NW, Suite 1800
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: 505.244.0770
Email: eburris@bhfs.com
Cole J. Woodward, #50199
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202-4432
Phone: 303.223.1100
Email: cwoodward@bhfs.com
Case Number: 2018CV149
Division: 3C
COMPASS MORTGAGE CORPORATION’S ANSWER
Compass Mortgage Corporation (“Compass”) submits the following Answer to Plaintiff
Eric Sutherland’s Unamended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Equitable Relief
(“Complaint”):
DATE FILED: June 5, 2018 10:00 AM
FILING ID: 39184859CB1A0
CASE NUMBER: 2018CV149
2
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Eric Sutherland (“Plaintiff” or “Sutherland”) has filed a multitude of frivolous
and groundless claims in this District. Sutherland frequently uses litigation and the threat of
litigation as a means to strong-arm local government officials and entities into adopting his
policy preferences. While these efforts have been uniformly unsuccessful, they waste a
tremendous volume of taxpayer dollars and judicial resources.
The Complaint before the Court represents the latest chapter in this lamentable history.
Mr. Sutherland lacks standing to bring the Complaint, which has no basis in law or fact. On its
face, it appears to make allegations against at least four governmental entities not named as
defendants or indispensable parties. The Complaint is replete with unsupported
mischaracterizations of the law, and unfounded allegations of corruption against local
government officials.
To the extent that the Complaint makes any coherent allegations against Compass, those
allegations are the result of Plaintiff’s incomplete or incorrect reading of the Colorado Urban
Renewal Authority statute. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-107.
PARTIES
1. Upon information and belief, Compass admits that Plaintiff Eric Sutherland is an
individual who resides in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Compass is
without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the
Complaint and therefore denies the same.
2. Compass admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Compass admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4. Compass admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5. Paragraph 5 contains statements concerning a public record, which public record
speaks for itself and conclusions of law for which no response is required. To the extent a
response is required; Compass is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations
in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.
6. Compass admits that it is an Alabama Corporation doing business in Colorado,
with its principal address at 15 South 20
th
St., Suite 1820, Birmingham, AL 35233. Compass
denies the remaining allegations in the Complaint.
JURISDICTION
7. Compass denies that jurisdiction is proper in this Court. Compass has stated the
grounds for its denial at § I of Compass’s Motion to Dismiss, filed concurrently with this
Answer.
3
8. Compass denies that jurisdiction is proper in this Court. Compass has stated the
grounds for its denial at § I of Compass’s Motion to Dismiss, filed concurrently with this
Answer.
9. Compass denies that jurisdiction is proper in this Court. Compass has stated the
grounds for its denial at § I of Compass’s Motion to Dismiss, filed concurrently with this
Answer.
10. Compass admits that venue is proper in this Court.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11. Paragraph 11 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 11.
12. Paragraph 12 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 12.
13. Compass lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
Plaintiff’s characterizations of the legislation described in Paragraph 13 and therefore denies
same
14. Compass admits the allegation in Paragraph 14.
15. Paragraph 15 contains statements concerning a public record, which public record
speaks for itself. To the extent a response is required, Compass denies the remaining allegations
in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint
16. Paragraph 16 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 16.
17. Paragraph 17 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 17.
18. Paragraph 18 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 18.
19. Paragraph 19 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 19.
20. Paragraph 20 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 20.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
4
22. Paragraph 22 requests equitable relief from the Court without stating any basis for
that relief. To the extent that Paragraph 22 contains cognizable allegations against Compass,
Compass denies same.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
24. Paragraph 23 does not contain allegations against Compass. Furthermore,
Compass is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the
Complaint and therefore denies the same.
25. Paragraph 24 does not contain allegations against Compass. To the extent a
response is required by Compass, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 24.
26. Paragraph 25 does not contain allegations against Compass. Furthermore,
Paragraph 25 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a
response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 25.
27. To the extent that Paragraph 26 contains cognizable allegations, Compass denies
same.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
28. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
29. Paragraph 27 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
30. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
31. Paragraph 28 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
32. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
5
33. Paragraph 29 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
34. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
35. Paragraph 30 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 30 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 30.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
36. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
37. Paragraph 31 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 31 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 31.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
38. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
39. Paragraph 32 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 32 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 32.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
40. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
41. Paragraph 33 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 33.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
43. Paragraph 34 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass. To the
extent a response is required, Compass denies the allegations in Paragraph 34.
6
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
44. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
45. Paragraph 35 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass or any
other Defendant named in the Complaint. Furthermore, Paragraph 35 states a conclusion of law
to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint
are construed to require a response, Compass denies same.
46. Paragraph 36 does not contain allegations against Compass. Further, Paragraph 36
states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations in
Paragraph 36 of the Complaint are construed to require a response, Compass denies same.
47. Paragraph 37 does not contain allegations against Compass. Paragraph 37 states a
conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 37
of the Complaint are construed to require a response, Compass denies same.
48. Paragraph 38 does not contain allegations against Compass. Further, Paragraph 38
states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations in
Paragraph 38 of the Complaint are construed to require a response, Compass denies same.
49. Paragraph 39 does not contain allegations against Compass. Further, Paragraph 39
states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations in
Paragraph 39 of the Complaint are construed to require a response, Compass denies same.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
50. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
51. Paragraph 40 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 40 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
52. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
53. Paragraph 41 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 41 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
7
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
54. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
55. Paragraph 42 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 42 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
56. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
57. Paragraph 43 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 43 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
58. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
59. Paragraph 44 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 44 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
60. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
61. Paragraph 45 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 45 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
62. Compass incorporates its responses to the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth herein.
8
63. Paragraph 47 does not contain cognizable allegations against Compass.
Furthermore, Paragraph 47 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the
extent the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint are construed to require a response,
Compass denies same.
GENERAL DENIAL
Compass denies any remaining allegation not specifically denied herein, and Compass
denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested.
PRAYER
To the extent that Plaintiff’s WHEREFORE statement is directed towards Compass,
Compass denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested judgment against Compass and denies
that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. The proximate cause of Plaintiff’s claimed damages and/or injuries were the acts
or omissions of a third party or parties over whom Compass had no control and for whom
Compass is not legally responsible.
3. Plaintiff’s claimed damages, if any, were not proximately caused by Compass’s
conduct or omission, but rather were the proximate result of an intervening cause of
circumstance that Compass could not have reasonably foreseen and for which they are not
responsible.
4. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the claims.
5. Plaintiff’s claims are time barred by C.R.S. § 31-25-105.5(2)(b), C.R.S. 31-25-
107(9.7)(a), C.R.S. § 13-80-102(f), and C.R.S. § 11-57-212.
6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff has suffered no damage, injury, or
otherwise as a result of any acts or omissions of Compass.
Compass reserves the right to amend and/or supplement these affirmative and other
defenses as this matter proceeds.
9
DATED this 5
th
day of June, 2018.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Original signature on file at offices of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-26
By: s/Cole J. Woodward
Eric R. Burris, pro hac vice pending
Cole J. Woodward, #50199
Attorneys for Compass Mortgage Corporation
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 5
th
day of June, 2018, a true and correct
copy of the foregoing COMPASS MORTGAGE CORPORATION’S ANSWER was filed
with the Court and served via Colorado Courts E-filing System on pro se Plaintiff as follows:
By E-Mail and Regular Mail
Eric Sutherland
3520 Golden Currant Boulevard
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Phone: 970.224.4509
Email: sutherix@yahoo.com
s/Penny G. Lalonde
Penny G. Lalonde, Paralegal
16869317