Free Objection to Report and Recommendations - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

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

Document 118

Filed 10/12/2006

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. ___________________________________________________________________ RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL _________________________________________________________________ Plaintiffs Jones, Link, Moreno and Rogge, through counsel, respond to the recommendation of dismissal entered by United States Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty on September 29, 2006. As stated by Magistrate Judge Hegarty in the recommendation, settlement conferences were held in May of 2006 resulting in settlement agreements for the above listed Plaintiffs. Issues arose concerning the contents of proposed settlement agreements drafted by Defendant's counsel and modifications were made. Subsequent to those changes there were other unresolved issues concerning the stipulation to dismiss and how the Defendants interpreted the settlements. There were a number of discussions with the Magistrate Judge concerning these problems and suggestions were made about resolution of the issues that were not

1

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

Document 118

Filed 10/12/2006

Page 2 of 3

workable. The litigants in this matter have not been recalcitrant. Any delay has been based upon counsel not being able to agree on the formalities of dismissal and dismissal issues unrelated to the litigants. Counsel for the settling Plaintiffs, as mentioned above had several discussions with the Magistrate Judge about the lingering issues. Counsel, based upon the discussions, did not believe that he was in violation of any order issued by the Court. Additionally, there has been no showing of any prejudice to the opponent by the delay in dismissing the settling Plaintiffs from the litigation. Further, any disputes that remained after the settlement conferences did not involve the litigants. They were not involved in any way in the postsettlement discussions and the issues did not relate to them. They did everything they were supposed to do. Dismissal as a sanction for the problems that arose was not discussed prior to receipt of the recommendation. It is urged that dismissal of the case, as it relates to the settling Plaintiffs is not proper under the circumstances. Jones v. Thompson, 996 F2d 261 (10th Cir 1993). The settlement agreements have been signed by the settling Plaintiffs and a Motion to Dismiss is being filed contemporaneously with this response. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of October 2006,

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

2

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

Document 118

Filed 10/12/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on October 10, 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 80111-3061 [email protected]

s/George C. Price George C. Price Attorney for Plaintiff 900 Logan Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone:(303)861-5500 Facsimile: (303) 484-2421 [email protected]

3