Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

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

Document 130

Filed 11/08/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane

Civil Action No. 04-cv-1124-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 OLIJYNK, M.D. and JAY R. HOLMS, Defendants.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER OF AUGUST 10, 2006

Comes now the Plaintiff, Linda Forgacs by and through counsel, and respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its Order of August 10, 2006 and as grounds therefore states: 1. In their Motion for Summary Judgment concerning defamation claims (document #69 filed December 14, 2005), three Defendants, Meyers, Tilden and Olijnyk asserted that they should have the defamation claims that were asserted against them dismissed because there was no support for the allegation that the Defendants defamed them and that no third party told the Plaintiff that these Defendants had defamed them.

1

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

Document 130

Filed 11/08/2006

Page 2 of 3

2. Plaintiff understands the ruling as it relates to Drs. Tilden and Olijnyk . In its ruling of August 10, 2006 the Court stated that the nodding of heads in acquiescence is insufficient to constitute publishing or republishing of a statement for purposes of a defamation claim. 3. Plaintiff urges that the statements of Drs. Tilden and Meyers, made subsequently to Ms. Hebert, as stated in her affidavit, constituted defamatory statements. It is submitted that the affidavit of Ms. Hebert is clear that Drs. Meyers and Tilden stated to her that Ms. Forgacs had stolen money from the company, and that "indicated" meant that that is what she was told. 4. As for the issue of privilege, the original motion and brief (Documents 68 and 69) did not raise the issue. 5. Additionally, it should be noted that this is not a situation like that described in Patane v. Broadmoor Hotel, Inc., 708 P.2 473 (Colo. App. 1985). The termination of all Plaintiffs took place months before the statements were made and was done for reasons totally unrelated to the statements made by Holms in June of 2003 and by Tilden and Meyers subsequently. Each Plaintiff was laid off from Defendant Eye Care Center for other reasons. Each Plaintiff received severance pay and was told that the terminations were not for performance related reasons. 6. Any statements made by these Defendants (Holms, Tilden and Meyers) did not relate to the reasons for termination of Plaintiffs. No privilege should therefore apply. 7. Finally, it should be noted that Holms was not a moving party on the motion for summary judgment related to this claim. The defamation claim should be reinstated against him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this court reconsider its order of August 10, 2006 and reinstate the defamation claim of the Plaintiffs.

2

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

Document 130

Filed 11/08/2006

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted, s/George C. Price George C. Price Attorney for Plaintiff 900 Logan Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone:(303) 861-5500 Facsimile: (303) 863-0180 [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)

I hereby certify that on November 8, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address:

John R. Paddock, Jr. Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C. 5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 1200 Greenwood Village, CO 8011-3061 [email protected]

s/George C. Price George C. Price Attorney for Plaintiff 900 Logan Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone:(303) 861-5500

3