HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020CV115 - STACY LYNNE V. NOAH BEALS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS - 013A - PROPOSED ORDERDISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
Larimer County Justice Center
201 Laporte Avenue, Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521-2761
(970) 498-6100
Plaintiff: STACY LYNNE
v.
Defendants:
NOAH BEALS, CITY OF FORT COLLINS
COURT USE ONLY
Case Number: 2020 CV 115
Courtroom: 5A
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, and the matter has been fully briefed by the Parties. The Court finds as follows:
There is no dispute that Defendant Noah Beals is a public employee subject to the
protections of C.R.S. §24-10-118(2)(a), and that Plaintiff’s claim for defamation lies in tort for
which sovereign immunity has not been waived under C.R.S. §24-10-106. Accordingly, C.R.S.
§24-10-110(5) requires Plaintiff “to plead the factual basis of an allegation that an act or omission
of a public employee was willful and wanton,” or the claim must be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint and hereby finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of alleging facts which
would support a claim for willful and wanton act by Defendant Beals. Accordingly, this Court
DATE FILED: April 7, 2020 5:03 PM
FILING ID: 8C4B59A0A54C4
CASE NUMBER: 2020CV115
2
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, and hereby dismisses the action pursuant to
Colorado Rule 12(b)(1).
The Court further finds that dismissal under Colorado Rule 12(b)(5) is appropriate. The
Court takes judicial notice of the previously filed action, See Stacy Lynne v. Noah Beals and
Jeremy Call, 2018 CV 220, Larimer County District Court. The Order entered in Plaintiff’s first
case was a final judgment on the merits in favor of Defendant Beals, and the prior case involved
identical parties, identical claims and identical subject matter. Holding alternatively, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) under the doctrine of
claim preclusion.
Plaintiff’s claims are governed by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in C.R.S.
§13-80-103. Plaintiff’s first filed suit conclusively establishes that her cause of action accrued on
or before December 4, 2018. The instant lawsuit was not filed until February 14, 2020, and thus
the one-year statute of limitations has passed. Holding alternatively, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) on the basis of statute of limitations.
Finally, because Plaintiff has alleged that conduct of a public employee was willful and
wanton, and failed to prevail on this claim, C.R.S. § 24-10-110(5)(a)(c) mandates that Defendant
be awarded his attorney fees against Plaintiff. Defendant shall have 15 days to submit an affidavit
of attorney’s fees incurred in defending this action.
The Court thus GRANTS Defendants’ motion, and dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint with prejudice.
3
DATED this ___ day of April, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE