Free Status Report - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01124-JLK-MEH

Document 148

Filed 08/16/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. O4-cv-01124-JLK-MEH LINDA FORGACS, MONICA JONES, DANIEL LINK, GRACE MORENO AND PAM ROGGE, Plaintiffs, V. EYE CARE CENTER OF NORTHERN COLORADO; WILLIAM L. BENEDICT, M.D.; JOEL S. MEYERS, M.D.; MORRIS TILDEN, M.D.; IRENE OLIJNYK, M.D.; and JAY R. HOLMS, Defendants. _________________________________________________________________________________ JOINT STATUS REPORT ______________________________________________________________________________ The parties, through their respective counsel, provide the following status report pursuant to the Court's Order of July 27, 2007. SPECIFICATION OF REMAINING CLAIMS The remaining claim in the case relates solely to the defamatory comments allegedly made by Defendant William Benedict about Plaintiff Linda Forgacs. The factual allegations in the complaint supporting that claim are stated within Paragraph 18. The operative claim for relief is the Third Claim for Relief. HOW THE PARTIES WISH TO PROCEED The parties believe that one more attempt to settle the case with Magistrate Judge Hegarty would be appropriate. If the settlement conference is not successful, the parties believe the matter should be set for trial.

Case 1:04-cv-01124-JLK-MEH

Document 148

Filed 08/16/2007

Page 2 of 3

The parties recognize the dismissal of Plaintiff's federal claim seeking relief under ERISA means the Court has discretion about whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law defamation claim. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Summum v. Duchesne City, 482 F.3d 1263, 1276 (10th Cir. 2007). There are a number of good reasons for this Court to keep this case until its conclusion, including judicial economy since discovery is complete and the remaining claim should be ready for trial, and the fact Plaintiff's defamation claim does not raise novel or complex issues of state law. Gard v. Teletronics Pacing Systems, Inc., 859 F.Supp. 1349, 1353 (D.Colo. 1994); LaSorella v. Penrose St. Francis Healthcare System, 818 F.Supp. 1413, 1415 (D.Colo. 1993). "The district court has discretion to try state claims in the absence of any triable federal claims; however, that discretion should be exercised in those cases in which, given the nature and extent of pretrial proceedings, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness would be served by retaining jurisdiction." Thatcher Enterprises v. Cache County Corp., 902 F.2d 1472, 1478 (10th Cir. 1990). "A federal court justifiably may retain jurisdiction of the pendent claims when substantial time and energy have been expended on the case prior to the disposition of the federal claims." Jones v. Intermountain Power Project, 794 F.2d 546, 550 (10th Cir.1986) (citing Transok Pipeline Co. v. Darks, 565 F.2d 1150, 1155 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1006, 98 S.Ct. 1876, 56 L.Ed.2d 388 (1978)). Respectfully submitted this 16th day of August 2007. Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C. s/ George C. Price Attorney for Plaintiff 900 Logan Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone:(303)861-5500 [email protected] By: s/John R. Paddock, Jr. Attorneys for Defendants 5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 1200 Greenwood Village CO 80111 Telephone: (303)-773-3500 [email protected]

Case 1:04-cv-01124-JLK-MEH

Document 148

Filed 08/16/2007

Page 3 of 3