Free Surreply - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW

Document 71 Document 69

Filed 03/03/2006 Filed 03/06/2006

Page 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW

Document 71 Document 69

Filed 03/03/2006 Filed 03/06/2006

Page 2 of 5 Page 2 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 00-CV-02350-LTB-MJW PAULETTE GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. KING SOOPERS, INC., Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' AND EXPERT'S FEES

Plaintiff, Paulette Gomez, through counsel, submits this Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Reply in support of Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' and Expert's Fees. In its Reply Defendant claims that Ms. Gomez lied in her sworn declaration when she claimed that she was not an experienced litigant. In support of this allegation, Defendant claims that Ms. Gomez was party to the following actions: 1. Paulette Jarrett v James Webber, 1996 CV-000038 (Pueblo District Court 1996) (a breach of contract action, the "Breach of Contract Case"); 2. People v. Paulette Gomez, No. 1992 M-001478 (Pueblo County Court 1992) (a misdemeanor assault charge, the "Misdemeanor"); 3. People v. Paulette Gomez, No. 1991 R-0180 (El Paso County Court 1991) (a traffic infraction, the "Ticket");

1

Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW

Document 71 Document 69

Filed 03/03/2006 Filed 03/06/2006

Page 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5

4.

Paulette Hernandez v. John Hernandez, 1982 DR-004774 (Denver District Court 1982) (a divorce action, "Divorce No. 1");

5.

Paulette Jarrett and Michael Jarrett, No. 1976 DR-003191 (Boulder District Court 1976) (a divorce, "Divorce No. 2");

6.

Paulette Jarrett and Michael Jarrett, No. 1976 DR-001528 (pueblo District Court 1976), and Paulette Jarrett and Michael Jarrett, No. 1975 DR-000244 (Pueblo District Court 1975) (a divorce, collectively, "Divorce No. 3").

Addressing these matters in order, The Breach of Contract Case is claimed by Defendant as the most damning evidence that Ms. Gomez is an experienced litigant. And indeed it would be if Plaintiff were the Paulette Jarrett who was the plaintiff in that case. But she is not. Plaintiff's maiden name is "Hernandez," she used the name "Paulette Hernandez" until her marriage in December, 1972 to Michael Jarrett. She used the name "Paulette Jarrett" from that time until her divorce in January, 1977. Plaintiff returned to using her maiden name, "Paulette Hernandez," from the time of her divorce from Mr. Jarrett until her marriage to Mariano Gregorio ("Greg") Gomez in April 1978. Thereafter, Plaintiff used the name "Paulette Gomez" through the present date (see, Pltf's Dec. at ¶¶ 1-5, 7, attached hereto as Exh. I). At the time the Breach of Contract Case was filed and prosecuted, Plaintiff's name was "Paulette Gomez," not "Paulette Jarrett" -- the plaintiff in that action. Ms. Gomez was not a party to the Breach of Contract Case and has no knowledge whatsoever regarding it other than the details provided in Defendant's Reply (see, Pltf's Dec. at ¶ 7). With respect to the Misdemeanor and the Ticket, at the time Ms. Gomez prepared the Declaration at issue, she did not, and does not, consider either of these matters to have been

2

Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW

Document 71 Document 69

Filed 03/03/2006 Filed 03/06/2006

Page 4 of 5 Page 4 of 5

"litigation" as she made a single court appearance in connection with each matter and was not represented by counsel in connection with either matter (see, Pltf's Dec at ¶ 6). With respect to Divorce No. 1, Defendant once again has confused Plaintiff with another. Ms. Gomez has never been married to John Hernandez. Needless to say, she was not involved in a divorce action associated with Mr. Hernandez (see, Pltf's Dec at ¶ 5). With respect to Divorce No. 2, as with the Misdemeanor and the Ticket, Plaintiff did not think of her divorce from Mr. Jarrett as "litigation" in the sense that she did not, and does not, think of those proceedings being at all similar to the type of action she initiated against Defendant. Although she understands that a court's intercession is required to effect a divorce, Ms. Gomez did not perceive that she and her ex-spouse were "suing" one another when they filed for divorce. Ms. Gomez' perception in this regard, while technically inaccurate, is not uncommon among the lay-populace and does not suggest conscious deceit on her part. Moreover, Ms. Gomez did not retain counsel in connection with her divorce from Mr. Jarrett, as Defendant concedes in its Reply with respect to the divorce action maintained in Boulder District Court (see, Pltf's Dec at ¶¶ 2, 4). With respect to Divorce No. 3, Defendant once again has confused Plaintiff with another. Plaintiff was not involved in a divorce action involving Mr. Jarrett in Pueblo District Court and, needless to say, did not retain counsel in connection with that action (see, Pltf's Dec at ¶ 3). Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, Plaintiff wishes to inform the Court and Defendant that she married Mariano Gregorio (Greg) Gomez in April, 1978 at which time she took the name "Paulette Gomez." Paulette and Greg Gomez divorced in or around 1989.

3

Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW Case 1:00-cv-02350-LTB-MJW

Document 71 Document 69

Filed 03/03/2006 Filed 03/06/2006

Page 5 of 5 Page 5 of 5

Plaintiff has continued to use the name "Paulette Gomez" through the present date (see, Pltf's Dec at ¶ 4). Plaintiff did retain an attorney to assist her in her divorce from Greg Gomez. However, as with her divorce from Mr. Jarrett, Ms. Gomez did not perceive a divorce to be a "lawsuit" or "litigation" and was not thinking of it in those terms when she stated in her earlier Declaration that she had never been a party to litigation. Likewise, Ms. Gomez did not think of her experience with a divorce attorney as being anything analogous to her experience suing Defendant in this case. When Ms. Gomez stated that she had never before hired an attorney, her intent was to convey that she had never hired an attorney to sue somebody or to defend her in a lawsuit (see, Pltf's Dec at ¶ 4). At no time was it Ms. Gomez' intent to deceive the Court or Defendant. DATED: March 3, 2006 Respectfully submitted, SMITH & WEST, LLC ______s/Jessica L. West_____ Jessica L. West, Esq. Blake Street Terrace 1860 Blake Street, Suite 420 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 391-0100/Telephone (303) 391-0102/Facsimile [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

4