HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV220 - STACY LYNNE V. NOAH BEALS, SENIOR PLANNER, AND JEREMY CALL - 044 - ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS1
DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY,
STATE OF COLORADO
Larimer County Justice Center
201 LaPorte Avenue, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521-2761
970-494-3500
Plaintiff:
STACY LYNNE,
v.
Defendants:
NOAH BEALS
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
Case Number: 2018 CV 220
Courtroom: 3C
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against opposing
counsel, Kimberly Schutt, Esq. and Wick and Trautwein, LLC. The court has reviewed the
motion and response. After careful consideration, the Court finds and orders as follows:
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on December 4, 2018, asserting a claim for defamation
against Defendant Beals. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and a request for attorney’s fees on January 11, 2019. In its order dated April 3, 2019
the Court granted Defendant Beals’ motion to dismiss under C.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(1) finding that
Plaintiff had failed to sufficiently plead facts to support a finding that the court had subject
matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court determined in its April 3, 2019 Order that Plaintiff
failed to plead that Mr. Beals’ statements were “willful and wanton.” The court further
determined that Plaintiff failed to allege in her Complaint that Defendant Beals’ statements were
made with “actual malice.” Finding that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead her claim, the court
dismissed this matter, without prejudice.
As a result of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims, without prejudice, Defendant sought to
recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of the claim and submitted its request for attorneys’
DATE FILED: August 29, 2019 5:23 PM
CASE NUMBER: 2018CV220
2
fees and the accompanying affidavit of counsel, Kimberly Schutt, Esq. on April 18, 2019.
Plaintiff objected to Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees on May 1, 2019. Plaintiff objected
to the Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees on the basis that the court erred in dismissing the
Plaintiff’s claims and that the court should defer any ruling on Defendant’s request for attorneys’
fees until after ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for post-trial relief under C.R.C.P. Rule 59.
The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for post-trial relief on June 2, 2019 and thereafter set
a hearing on Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees in light of Plaintiff’s objection thereto. A
hearing was scheduled on Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees on August 5, 2019. On July
31, 2019 defense counsel filed with the court a notice of supplemental attorneys’ fees incurred by
the Defendant in responding to Plaintiff’s motion for post-trial relief. In response, Plaintiff filed
an emergency motion to delay the August 5, 2019 hearing on attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff again
requested that the court delay a hearing on the Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and
suggested that the court should deny the Defendant’s attorneys’ fees due to the “repeated
vexatious actions” of defense counsel to be outlined in a Plaintiff’s forthcoming Motion for
Sanctions. The court rescheduled the hearing on Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees to
September 17, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. to allow Plaintiff additional time to prepare for such hearing.
Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for sanctions which is currently pending before the
Court
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiff filed her motion for sanctions on August 7, 2019. Defendants filed their
response on August 21, 2019. As noted in the Defendant’s response, Plaintiff fails to cite any
rule or statute which would support the granting of sanctions against Ms. Schutt or the firm of
Wick & Trautwein, LLC. The Plaintiff’s motion contains a long and rambling discourse
asserting facts that have absolutely no relevance to any claim for sanctions in the present matter
or relate, in any way to “vexatious actions” on behalf of Ms. Schutt in this case.
The court finds that there is absolutely no basis in fact, or law, to impose sanctions upon
Ms. Schutt or her firm. The Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied.
SO ORDERED: August 29, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________
Stephen J. Jouard
District Court Judge