Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022CV30661 - Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network, Et Al, V. Council Of The City Of Fort Collins - 007 - City's Response To Motion To Intervene1 11/4/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\INTERVENE RESPONSE-110422.DOCX DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 201 La Porte Ave., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲ Plaintiffs: SANCTUARY FIELD NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORK, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; and MIRANDA SPINDEL, v. Defendants: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado. Attorneys for Defendant: Attorney: Corey Y. Hoffmann, No. 24920 Katharine J. Vera, No. 53995 Firm Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C. 511 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 825-6444 E-mail: cyh@hpwclaw.com kjv@hpwclaw.com Case No.: 2022CV30661 Division: 5A DEFENDANT CITY OF FORT COLLINS RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE Defendant, Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the "City"), through counsel, Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C., hereby submits the following Response in Support of the Motion to Intervene filed by Solitaire Homes East, LLC and Solitaire Homes, LLC (collectively, "Solitaire"), and as grounds therefore states as follows: I. INTRODUCTION The City agrees with Solitaire that Solitaire should be authorized to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2). In fact, but for the within Motion to Intervene filed by Solitaire, the City would have been compelled to file a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join an DATE FILED: November 4, 2022 9:07 AM FILING ID: FBCF702F1BA32 CASE NUMBER: 2022CV30661 2 11/4/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\INTERVENE RESPONSE-110422.DOCX Indispensable Party pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and C.R.C.P. 19. See City's Answer to Complaint for Judicial Relief Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106, dated November 1, 2022, at ¶5, and Affirmative Defenses therein at ¶4. However, in the process of conferring with Plaintiff and counsel for Solitaire, the undersigned became aware of Solitaire intent to seek interven tion, which made the City's proposed Motion duplicative.1 Thus, the City respectfully requests this Court grant Solitaire's Motion to Intervene. II. ARGUMENT Preliminarily, the City agrees with and joins in Solitaire 's arguments under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2). The City agrees that Solitaire meets the "three substantive requirements" for intervention as more particularly described in Solitaire 's Motion. In addition, of particular importance to this case, this matter was brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). The Court of Appeals has specifically held that owners of property as applicants seeking a land use approval are indispensable parties in an action challenging the approval of a land use application. Neighbors for a Better Approach v. Nepa, 770 P.2d 1390, 1391 (Colo. App. 1989). The court specifically stated as follows: An applicant for a use permit, like an applicant for a rezoning permit, is an indispensable party to a proceeding challenging the grant of the applications. C.R.C.P. 19(a). Id. Here, Solitaire, according to its Motion to Intervene, is the Owner and Developer of the Property at issue in this proceeding. Plaintiffs are seeking reversal of the City’s approval of the 1 The undersigned also indicated to counsel for Plaintiff as part of the conferral process that Solitaire was an indispensable party, and that the failure to join Solitaire and Plaintiff’s objection to Solitaire’s inclusion in this case was not warranted by existing law 3 11/4/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\INTERVENE RESPONSE-110422.DOCX Amended Plan as defined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which Amended Plan is a land use approval. Because Solitaire is an indispensable party in this proceeding pursuant to C.R.C.P. 19(a), it certainly meets the requirements for intervention as a matter of right. Accordingly, the City respectfully request this Court grant Solitaire's Motion to Intervene. III. CONCLUSION The City respectfully requests this Court grant Solitaire 's Motion to Intervene. Dated this 4th day of November 2022. HOFFMANN, PARKER, WILSON & CARBERRY, P.C. By: /s/ Corey Y. Hoffman Corey Y. Hoffman Katharine J. Vera ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 4 11/4/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\INTERVENE RESPONSE-110422.DOCX CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 4th day of November 2022, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT CITY OF FORT COLLINS RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE to be served via CCES, electronic mail, and/or U.S. mail on the following: Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C. Andrew Pipes 4750 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80305-5500 Attorney for Plaintiff Jenny Latta, Legal Assistant