Stroh Ranch Development, LLC v. Cherry Creek South Metropolitan District No. 2 et al

Filing 212

ORDER Requesting SUbmission of Additional Materials in Regards to Ecf No. 165 . Should Plaintiffs or Defendants Counsel have questions with respect to this Order, they may contact Chambers on the following line: [phone], by Judge William J. Martinez on 2/11/2013. (ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02216-WJM-KLM
STROH RANCH DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
(1) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2,
(2) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 3,
(3) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 4,
(4) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 5,
(5) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 6,
(6) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 7,
(7) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 8,
(8) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 9,
(9) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 10,
(10) CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 11,
(11) THE PIVOTAL GROUP, INC.,
(12) PIVOTAL PARKER INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company a/k/a
(13) Parker Investments 2009, LLC,
(14) PIVOTAL COLORADO II, LLC,
(15) NORTH PARKER INVESTMENTS, LLC,
(16) KURT WOLTER,
(17) KIMBERLY JENSEN,
(18) GREG MCILVAIN,
(19) MARK EAMES,
(20) GREG EPP,
(21) BILLY HARRIS, and
(22) JOHN DOES 1 through 8,
Defendants.

ORDER REQUESTING SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL
MATERIALS IN REGARDS TO ECF NO. 165

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ (1)-(15) (“Defendants”) Joint
Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). (ECF No. 165.) Plaintiff Stroh Ranch

Development, LLC has filed a Response, (ECF No. 184) and Defendants have filed a
Reply. (ECF 196.) To assist in the disposition of the Motion, the Court directs as
follows:
1.

By 5pm, February 14, 2013, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff’s Counsel and
Defendants’ Counsel to prepare schematics reflecting Plaintiff’s claims,
and the relationship between each of the named-Defendants.1 For
example, the disputed facts contend that District No. 3 acts as an agent
for District No. 2 and No. 4-11 (i.e. the Metro District Defendants); while
the relationship between the Pivotal named-Defendants and Defendant
North Parker is also quite complex. Given this state of affairs, each of the
parties to the instant Motion are DIRECTED to file two contemporaneous
schematics visualizing: (a) the alleged contractual relationships between
Plaintiff and the Defendant-entities (for e.g. reflecting Plaintiff’s alleged
claims (1)-(4) (ECF No. 38)); and (b) in a separate document, the alleged
equitable relationships between Plaintiff and the Defendant-entities (for
e.g. reflecting Plaintiff’s alleged claims (5)-(8)2 (Id.) The schematics

1

The Court notes that the proceedings involves 22 Defendants, but for the present
purposes this Order only applies to the first 15 Defendants. Like the Defendants’ Joint Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 165), it is assumed that these schematics (and the
chronologies per Item No. 2.) will be jointly filed by Defendants’ Counsel who were signatories
to the Motion ECF No. 165. The Court will use the submitted materials in the course of its
rulings on all five of the pending Motions for Summary Judgment, including ECF Nos. 166, 167,
168 and 169.
2

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Eighth Claim of Relief seeks a “declaration by the Court
concerning the rights and legal relations of the parties under the Reimbursement Agreements.”
(ECF No. 38 at ¶ 77.) Plaintiff also contends in their Response that in “order to escape liability
for their actions, Defendants have raised [a] myriad [of] defenses, from technical deficiencies
previously concealed from SRD [through to] . . . elaborate shell games between entities and

2

should be no more than 1 page, reflecting the Plaintiff’s claims, and the
relationship between each of the named-Defendants.
The Court recently found schematics to be helpful in other similar actions.
See, for example, Civil Action 12-cv-3157 (ECF No. 24, Exh. 2) and Civil
Action 12-cv-0682. (ECF Nos. 43, 44-1.)
2.

By 5pm, February 15, 2013, the Court DIRECTS that Plaintiff’s Counsel
and Defendants’ Counsel to the instant Motion are to file
contemporaneous chronologies. This should include a tabulated
date/event time-line, tracing the key dates from 2003 through to 2010. For
example:

Date

Event and ECF No. (Citation)

Dec. 8, 2004

Exec. of Reimb. Agree. No. 3 (ECF No. ### at ##.)

References should be cited solely from the Statement of Facts filed in
Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 165)/Reply (ECF No. 196), and Plaintiff’s
Response (ECF No. 167). Each side’s chronology will be limited to 3
pages.
3.

By February 18, 2013, the Court DIRECTS Defendants to prepare a
document(s) (in Word Perfect) that redlines those clauses in the operative
agreements that are inconsistent with a previous agreement. For
example, ECF 165-8; 165-15 and 165-16 are all agreements relevant to

Districts, so as to “minimize the risk” of ever repaying SRD.” (ECF No. 184 at 3.) It is
envisaged that the schematics will better illustrate the relief sought by Plaintiff, and the
interrelationship between the named-Defendants entities.

3

the instant Motion; but some have been superseded by the subsequent
agreements. The Court seeks documents that reflect those clauses that
are no longer operative because of inconsistency with (or supersession) of
a subsequent agreement.

Should Plaintiff’s or Defendants’ Counsel have questions with respect to this
Order, they may contact Chambers on the following line: [phone].
Dated this 12th day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

4