HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV01 - SUTHERLAND V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, ET AL - 033 - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIN FOR CLARIFICATION OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDERFORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL COURT
215 N. Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Phone (970) 221 6800
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
Plaintiffs: Eric Sutherland, J & M Distributing, DBA Fort
Collins Muffler and Automotive
v.
Defendant : THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, the governing body of a Colorado municipal
corporation; and THE ADMINISTRATION BRANCH OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, by and through its City Manager,
Darin Atteberry.
Intervenor: NEXT CHAPTER PROPERTIES, LLC
Party without attorney
Eric Sutherland
3520 Golden Currant
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 224 4509
sutherix@ yahoo.com
Case Number:
2018civil01
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
Defendants City of Fort Collins and Next Chapter Properties have both
submitted Responses opposing the relief requested in my Motion for Clarification.
Both Defendants urge this court to strike this Motion.
There can be no surprise that neither the City or Next Chapter acknowledged
or addressed the spirit of the Motion or sought to refute the very simple and sound
logic underlying my request for relief. I am attempting to save this court valuable
time by eliminating any necessity to review a very lengthy and involved record that
need never have been certified to this court in its entirety to begin with.
The City and Next Chapter could not bring themselves to address the crux of
my Motion; the only part of the record of the court below that required review by
this court would have been that part of the record, if it existed, that refuted the
allegation of the Plaintiffs that a complete absence of necessary design details and
review of the same represented an abuse of discretion. Of course, no part of the
record could be said to refute the allegation of complete absence. If there was,
2
then that part of the record and only that part of the record needed to be certified
and reviewed.
What has happened here was a classic case of lawyers doing what lawyers
do. When there is no law or facts to argue before the court, lawyers engage in
conflation, obfuscation and general mischaracterization in the hopes of creating
enough confusion to induce a decision contrary to the ends of justice. This court,
unfortunately, appears to have been susceptible to the exercise of bad faith of the
defendants and, as a result, has labored unnecessarily.
As a means of illustrating the bad faith underfoot here, this court is urged to
consider the alternative path that might have been taken by Defendants in response
to my Motion for Clarification. If it were possible, Defendants could have
assisted this court by pointing to that part of the 500+ page record that needed to be
reviewed to support their position and defeat Plaintiffs’ allegations. In other
words, Defendants might have finally shouldered the burden of proof that they
should have born in this proceeding. This approach, of course, was not chosen
because there is no part of the 500+ page record to point to.
My Motion for Clarification should not be stricken. No earnest efforts of
parties in any judicial proceeding taken to arrest or reduce judicial inefficiency and
the toll it takes should be discouraged … and certainly not this effort. Instead, the
assistance offered to all parties and this court by an earnest attempt for clarification
of an Order of this court should be taken at face value and the relief requested
should be granted.
WHEREFOR, Plaintiff Eric Sutherland respectfully requests that this Court Clarify
why the review of 500 pages of record from the court below is necessary when this
entire case is decided exclusively on the absence of elements alleged to be absent
… with no refutation of such absence by Defendants.
Respectfully submitted this 26th day of November, 2018
Eric Sutherland
___Eric Sutherland____________
I hereby certify that the above Motion was served to the Defendants City and Next Chapter via
email on 11/26/2018
___Eric Sutherland____________