Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 216

Filed 12/27/2006

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

04-cv-1067-REB-CBS

WILLIAM R. CADORNA, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant.

REPLY BY PLAINTIFF T D F N A TSR S O S T P AN IFSMO I N O E E D N ' E P N E O L ITF ' TO FOR E T N I NO R S O S ST D F N A T ' TO F RJ D ME T X E SO F E P N E O E E D N S MO I N O U G N AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Pa t Wia R C d ra( lni ) lni l m . a on " a t "hereby rpe t D fn a t D c mb r if l f i P if f e ls o ee d n' e e e i s 27, 2006 Respons t Pa t 'D c mb r 9 2 0 Moi fr x n i , from Friday, e o lnis e e e 1 , 0 6 t n o E t s n if f o e o January 5, 2007 to, and including Friday, March 9, 2006, of the deadlines for filing of his responses to all three motions filed by Defendant on December 11, 2006, including D fn a t Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, D fn a t Motion to Alter or ee d n' s ee d n' s Amend Judgment, and D fn a t Moi fr N wTi: ee d n' t n o a e r l s o a 1. Wi a d ers e toD fn a t c u s l lni'c l l i of the t l u e p c t ee d n' o n e Pa t s a u t n h l s , if f c ao

deadline for h rs o s s oD fn a t v r u motions, January 5, 2007, appears to i e p n e t ee d n' ai s s s o be consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e), which reads:

1

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 216

Filed 12/27/2006

Page 2 of 7

(e) Additional Time After Certain Kinds of Service. Whenever a party must or may act within a prescribed period after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under subdivision (a). 2. D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.6, ELECTRONIC CASE FILING" reads as follows: " ,

A. Electronic Filing. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(e), the court will permit materials to be filed, signed, and verified by electronic means. Parties filing by electronic means shall comply with standards and po e ue s tot i ama u l ni d"l t n C s Flg rc d rs e fr n h n a e te Ee r i a e i t l co c i n Po e ue frh Ds i o C l a o( il a e ) The current version rc d rs o te ir t f o rd Cv C s s. tc o i " o ta ma u lh l ea aa l i tec r'ofe a ds a b p s d fh t n a s a b v ib n h l k fc , n h l e o t l l e e s i l e o tec ut w bse n h o rs e i . ' t B. Paper Filings. Parties authorized or directed to file in paper format, pursuant to exceptions enumerated in the Electronic Case Filing Procedures for the District of Colorado (Civil Cases), shall continue to file in accordance with all provisions of the local rules. C. Time. Nothing in the Electronic Case Filing Procedures for the District of Colorado (Civil Cases) alters the rules governing the computation of the deadlines for filing and service of documents that are set forth at Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. D. Service. Parties are authorized to make service under Fed. R. Civ. P 5b() )ho g tec ut t n mi i fci . () ( tru h h o rs r s s o a iies. 2D ' a sn l t 3. Under D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.6(C), teDs i o C l a o e c o ic s h ir t f o rd ' l t n a e tc o s er c

fn ss m d e n t l rterl g v ri tec mp tt no d a le . . e i g yt l i e o s o a e " u s o en g h o uai f e dn s . s t t h e n o i fr a F dRCv . " Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(D) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.6(D), ot t e ..iP 6. h . s ri tru hteDs i o C l a o e c o ic s fn ss m iunquestionably ev e ho g h ir t f o rd ' l t n a e i g yt s c tc o s er c l i e service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(D). Because Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) expressly applies to service by electronic means under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(D),3d y s a b a " a s h l e dded to l tepe ci dp r d fre p n e T a i Pa t 'rs o s s r indeed not due h rsr e ei "o rs o s . h t , lnis e p n e ae b o s if f until January 5, 2007.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 216

Filed 12/27/2006

Page 3 of 7

4.

D fn a t cai t R BCv Pa teSa d r IG 1fi t ee d n' i t n o E i rcc tn ad I . as o s to . i . l

acknowledge that this Court does not deem inconvenience to counsel or the parties, pe s f u i s, r o f t i sh d lg"o dc u e fr x n i s U L S te rs o b s e s o c nl sn c e un g o a s "o e t s n " N E S h n i c i e o c c ms n e aeU A TCP T DA DU A O D B E.(mp a is p ld. i u t c s r N N IIA E N N V IA L " E h s u pe ) r a s i 5. Pa t 'moi d sr e c c ms n e comprising scheduling conflicts, lnis t n e ci s i u t c s if f o b r a

press of other business, and inconvenience to counsel that were completely unanticipated and unavoidable. 6. D fn a t s g e t nta Pa t irs o s l frh d l b c u e ee d n' u g so h t lni s e p n ie o te e y e a s s i if f b a

h t lmo e fr nr o j g n flwn tej y v ri ia s r. e i y v d o e t f d me too i h u ' ed t b ud me y u l g rs cs 7. Likewise, Defendant suggestion that "ohp re h dteb n f o te b t at s a h e ei fh i t

s mea u t fi "nw i t " r l ete s ae i fr e lgwt p s a mo n o t me i h h o f mu t h i t tg s o d an i o t c o a rr e i h j g n moi s n s b e u n rpe " nonsensical, and ignores the gross u me t t n a d u s q e te ls is d o i disparity in resources between the parties. 8. Plaintiff could not, through clairvoyance, have predicted the precise legal

or factual arguments or assertions upon which Defendant would base its post-judgment motions. Plaintiff is represented by a single attorney, not a battery of in-house and outside counsel. Plaintiff could not spare the considerable sum necessary to purchase the trial transcript until it became absolutely necessary, and so did not purchase it until December 6, 2006. 9. D fn a tauet d p t Pa t 'a ee d n fir o i ue lnis ssertion in his motion for extension l s if f

ta D fn a t mu iec u s l s h v d v tda l s trew e s o h t ee d n' l l o n e mu t a e e oe t a the e k t s t p e pe aai o te v r u moi s u p r Pa t 'a s ro ta terq e td rp rt n fh i ai s t n s p ot lnis set n h th e u s o r o o s if f i e

3

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 216

Filed 12/27/2006

Page 4 of 7

extension is minimally adequate to place Plaintiff and defendant on an equal footing in p r r n w r d ma d db D fn a t moi s ef mi ok e n e y ee d n' t n . o g s o 10. It is obvious that Defendant seeks not to place the parties on an equal

footing, but to gain an unfair advantage and cause Plaintiff serious prejudice created by unanticipated and unavoidable circumstances beyond the undersigned'control. s 11. Pa t imi fl f o h a y h C ut d ce i and certainly does lni s n u o h w e v ti o rs o k t , if f d s ' s

not mean to suggest that this Court was in any way dilatory in issuing its Order Granting Judgment. To the contrary, Plaintiff has learned well just how conscientious this Court is in discharging its enormously important duties, and knows that it has in recent mo ts e nb s t i n meo s t r o n l smp r n eta Pa t 'c s . nh b e e e wt u ru mat s f o e i ot c h n lnis a e h e s a if f 12. The fact remains, however, that Pa t 'counsel did his best to plan his lnis if f

schedule in the latter half of 2006 and early 2007 on the seemingly reasonable assumption that judgment would enter well prior to November 28, 2006. 13. Through unanticipated and unavoidable circumstances completely beyond

Pa t 'c nrlo, n o be l tiC ut)j g n e trdo ad t ta lnis o t (ru d u td ,h o rs, d me t nee n ae h t if f o y s ' u created a grave scheduling conflict that seriously threatens, if it is not modified, to i e ePa t 'c u s l a iy og eb t mp d lnis o n es bi t i ohPlaintiff, and his client whose case goes if f ' l t v to trial in February, the benefit of his best possible effort in their respective cases. In tirs e tPa t 'c u s ln s i e i mu htes mep si i w i ti h e p c lnis o n e f d h s , if f i ms ln c h a f oi nn h h h t o c s Court found itself in being unable through no fault of its own to issue its Order granting judgment until November 27, 2006.

4

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 216

Filed 12/27/2006

Page 5 of 7

14.

D fn a t c i ta terq e tde tn i wl a s i n u ee d n' lm h th e u s s a e x s n ic u e t d e e o l u

prejudice in the form of additional interest is disingenuous, since there is little question that Defendant will do its level best to avoid paying the judgment for as long as possible through further frivolous motions and appeals. The requested extension will cause additional interest far smaller than the interest Defendant has already quite deliberately chosen to incur, and will continue to quite deliberately choose to incur for months and years to come, in furtherance of its bureaucratic goal of never admitting mistakes and its tactical goal of pressuring Plaintiff to settle for less than the full sum to which he is entitled. 15. Moreover, whatever extra interest accrues on the judgment because of

the requested extension will be nothing compared to the enormous financial and personal prejudice Defendant has since December 7, 2002 imposed on Plaintiff through its willfully unlawful conduct, which is yet to be corrected or remedied. 16. Nevertheless, if this Court remains concerned that the requested

extension from January 5, 2007 to March 9, 2007 may cause Defendant undue financial prejudice, and if tiC ut e mst c n i no ga t gPa t 'moi fr h o rd e i o d i f rni lnis t n o s a t o n if f o extension, Plaintiff hereby offers to stipulate to tolling of the accrual of post-judgment interest for whatever period of time passes between twenty days after January 5, 2007 (an extension this Court would presumably grant without hesitation given the magnitude a dt n o D fn a t moi s, or such other time as the Court deems proper, and n i g f ee d n' t n ) mi s o the actual date on which Pa t c mp ts h fn o h rs o s s oD fn a t lni o l e te i g f i e p n e t ee d n' if f e l i s s three pending motions.

5

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 216

Filed 12/27/2006

Page 6 of 7

17.

Such tolling will completely relieve Defendant of any theoretically

ra o a l o ce ieb s u o w i t o p s Pa t 'w l e s n b r rd l a i p n h h o p o e lnis e-founded motion for e b s c if f l extension. It will also create a significant incentive for Plaintiff to do everything he can t e p d eh rs o s s oD fn a t p n i moi s wti tec n i rb o x e i i e p n e t ee d n' e d g t n , i n h o s ea l t s s n o h d e limits of his ability to do so. WHEREFORE, good cause having been shown, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this honorable Court grant an extension, from Friday, January 5, 2007 to, and i l i Fi y Mac 9 2 0 , fh d a le fri go Pa t 'rs o s s oa n u n r a , rh , 0 6 o te e dn s o fn f lnis e p n e t l cdg d i l i if f l tremoi s idb D fn a t nD c mb r 1 2 0 :D fn a t Moi fr he tn f o l y ee d n o e e e 1 , 0 6 ee d n' t n o e s o J d me t s Matr f a , ee d n'Moi t Atr Amend Judgment, and u g n a a t o L w D fn a t e s t n o l or o e D fn a t Moi fr N wTi. ee d n' t n o a e r l s o a DATED this 27th day of December, 2006. Respectfully submitted, /S/

Mark E. Brennan

Mark E. Brennan, P.C. P.O. Box 2556 Centennial, CO. 80161-2556 (303) 552-9394 (office) (303) 797-7687 (cell) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

6

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 216

Filed 12/27/2006

Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 6.1(D), the undersigned hereby certifies that, on this 27th day of December, 2006, he served a copy of the foregoing Reply to D fn a t R s o s t Pa t 'Motion for Extension o Pa t 'R s o s s o ee d n' e p n e o lnis s if f f lnis e p n e t if f D fn a t P s ee d n' o t s -Judgment Motions on the following person(s) via electronic mail:
Mr. William R. Cadorna 5503 S. Moore Street Littleton, CO. 80127 [email protected] Christopher Lujan, Esq. 210 W. Colfax, Dept 1108 Denver, CO. 80202 [email protected] Richard Barkley, Esq. th 410 17 St., No. 2200 Denver, CO. 80202 [email protected]

/S/

Mark E. Brennan

7