HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV217 - MONTGOMERY V. CHERNAK, HOWARD & BROUGH - 029 - DEFENDANTS' REPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISSIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00217-REB-KLM
WILLIAM MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW CHERNAK, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLIANTIFF’S MOTION
TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF 22]
______________________________________________________________________
Defendants Matthew Chernak, Mike Howard and Matthew Brough, by and through
their counsel, Thomas J. Lyons, Esq. and Christina S. Gunn, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C.,
hereby respectfully submit this Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page Limitations
Regarding Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion to Exceed
Page Limits”):
The undersigned counsel does not ordinarily object during conferral related to
reasonable requests for additional pages by opposing counsel, and cannot recall having
filed a written response related to such a request. However, given Plaintiff’s Motion to
Exceed Page Limits remains outstanding and Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to
Dismiss is being filed contemporaneously, the undersigned felt it necessary to explain the
reason for the objection.
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 29 Filed 06/20/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2
As addressed in Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s
Response is quite long - nearly doubling the Court’s ordinary allowance - for a responsive
brief to a motion which did not exceed limitations. Rather than maintain a tight focus on
the narrow issues raised in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Response contains
lengthy arguments which unnecessarily parse each of Plaintiff’s claims and each element
of the underlying charges. This effort to intensely deconstruct Defendants’ arguments and
citations is merely a smokescreen, aimed to distract from the assertion Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim and qualified immunity applies, and instead convince the Court some
viable constitutional claim must exist somewhere within Plaintiff’s prolix argument.
Defendants have the utmost respect for this Court, the Constitutional principles
underlying this matter, and Plaintiff’s right to present arguments in support of his claims;
nonetheless the words of American humorist Henry Wheeler Shaw (pen name Josh
Billings) ring true, “There’s a great power in words, if you don’t hitch too many of them
together.” Given Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed, Defendants do not wish
to have Plaintiff’s Response stricken, requiring Defendants’ to begin their Reply anew.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Matthew Chernak, Mike Howard and Matthew Brough
respectfully request this Court grant their pending Motion to Dismiss, and for all other and
further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 29 Filed 06/20/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3
Dated this 20th day of June, 2018.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Christina S. Gunn _____
Thomas J. Lyons, Esq.
Christina S. Gunn, Esq.
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
1001 17th
Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
303-628-3300
Fax: 303-628-3368
lyonst@hallevans.com
gunnc@hallevans.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS CHERNAK,
HOWARD, AND BROUGH
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 29 Filed 06/20/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of June, 2018, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of
such filing to the following e-mail addresses:
Raymond K. Bryant
raymond@rightslitigation.com
s/ Nicole Marion, Legal Assistant to
Christina S. Gunn, Esq. of
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 29 Filed 06/20/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4