Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02435-PSF-PAC

Document 244

Filed 09/02/2006

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 03-cv-02435-PSF-PAC LILLIAN F. SANDLE, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: COUNTER-CLAIM FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Defendant/Counter-claimant Anthony J. Principi, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) with respect to defendant's counter-claim for unjust enrichment, on the grounds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff, Lillian F. Sandle, received $66,600 in settlement of her administrative discrimination complaints. She admits she has not returned the money. Defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment and an Order that plaintiff return the money to the government.

Case 1:03-cv-02435-PSF-PAC

Document 244

Filed 09/02/2006

Page 2 of 6

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS Ms. Sandle is a former nurse at the VAMC in Denver. On June 29, 1991, Ms. Sandle was separated from employment. Ms. Sandle filed a number of administrative complaints with the VA challenging her termination and alleging she was the victim of discrimination. On April 2, 1997, Ms. Sandle and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement regarding her claims. Pursuant to the settlement, Ms. Sandle was paid $50,000 and her attorney was paid $16,600 in attorney's fees. Ms. Sandle admits that she received the sum total of $50,000 pursuant to the April 2, 1997 settlement, and that she has never returned any of this money. See Exhibit A-1. Thereafter, upon Ms. Sandle's own motion, the EEOC's Office of Federal Operation invalidated the settlement agreement and remanded the cases to the EEOC's Denver District Office instructing that the matters be reinstated. On August 15-22, 2001, a hearing was conducted on the consolidated formal administrative complaints before an administrative law judge "(ALJ"). At the conclusion of the week-long hearing, the ALJ ruled against Ms. Sandle on all of her claims. She administratively appealed the decision to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), but the EEOC also ruled

2

Case 1:03-cv-02435-PSF-PAC

Document 244

Filed 09/02/2006

Page 3 of 6

against her. Thereafter, she filed suit in this Court.1 She continues to pursue her claims without returning the money paid to her in administrative settlement of the claims. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1995). ARGUMENT Because she has unjustly received a benefit at the expense of the defendant, plaintiff must repay defendant the $50,000 settlement amount plus the $16,600 in attorneys fees which the defendant paid her in consideration of the now invalidated release. Under Colorado law, unjust enrichment is proven where "(1) at plaintiff's expense (2) defendant received a benefit (3) under circumstances that would make it unjust for defendant to retain the benefit without paying." Salzman v. Bachrach, 996 P.2d 1263, 1265-66 (Colo. 2000). As such, analysis of the facts are important to the determination of whether an injustice has occurred. See Dudding v. Norton Frickey &

For an additional explanation of the background of this case, please see Sandle v. Principi, Civil Action No. 02-cv-1358. 3

1

Case 1:03-cv-02435-PSF-PAC

Document 244

Filed 09/02/2006

Page 4 of 6

Assoc., 11 P.3d 441, 445 (Colo. 2000). Here, there is no genuine issue of material fact. At defendant's expense, plaintiff has received $66,600, which she has not returned. Plaintiff admits that she has not returned the $50,000. See Exhibit A-2. Thus, elements (1) and (2) of the prima facie case are not disputed. There is also no genuine issue of fact under element (3). It is unjust for plaintiff to retain the benefit of an invalidated agreement. Plaintiff has retained the settlement proceeds yet is not carrying out her promise to defendant. Defendant paid plaintiff relying upon plaintiff's agreement that plaintiff would release defendant from her claims. Plaintiff continues to pursue these claims. Defendant has not received the benefit of the bargain it agreed to. As a result, plaintiff inequitably retains the money paid to her in consideration for this now invalidated agreement. These circumstances require that plaintiff return the money. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, and any which may be presented in defendant's reply brief or at a hearing on this matter, defendants' motion should be granted and Ms. Sandle should be ordered to return the sum of $66,600 to defendant. Dated this 1 st day of September, 2006.

4

Case 1:03-cv-02435-PSF-PAC

Document 244

Filed 09/02/2006

Page 5 of 6

Respectfully submitted, TROY A. EID United States Attorney

s/ Michael C. Johnson MICHAEL C. JOHNSON Assistant United States Attorney 1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 454-0134 FAX: (303) 454-0408 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5

Case 1:03-cv-02435-PSF-PAC

Document 244

Filed 09/02/2006

Page 6 of 6

I hereby certify that on this 10 th day of August, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Counsel for Plaintiff: Elizabeth Kapukihilani Pietsch Email: [email protected] Dugan William Edward Bliss Email: [email protected] Sean Robert Gallagher Email: [email protected]

I hereby certify that on this 10 th day of August, 2006, I served the foregoing document via electronic mail on the following non-CM/ECF participant: Agency Counsel: Thomas Kennedy [email protected]

s/ Michael C. Johnson MICHAEL C. JOHNSON Attorney for Defendant United States Attorney's Office 1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 454-0134 FAX: (303) 454-0408 E-mail: [email protected]

6