Sladek v. City of Colorado Springs, CO. et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 27 the Unopposed Motion for Protective Order from Discovery and to Vacate Scheduling Conference and All Associated Deadlines. Discovery is stayed as to all parties, pending resolution of the Motions to Dismiss. The parties shall file a joint status report within ten (10) days of a ruling on their Motions to Dismiss. The October 30, 2013 Scheduling Conference is vacated. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/7/2013. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02165-PAB-MEH
DENNIS SLADEK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO,
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL,
STEPHEN BACH,
EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO,
CITY OF FOUNTAIN, COLORADO,
TOWN OF GREEN MOUNTAIN FALLS, COLORADO,
TOWN OF MONUMENT, COLORADO,
TOWN OF WOODLAND PARK, COLORADO, and
TOWN OF PALMER LAKE, COLORADO,
Defendants.

ORDER

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the City of Colorado Springs, the City of Colorado Springs Council,
and Stephen Bach’s (collectively, the “Colorado Springs Defendants”) Unopposed Motion for
Protective Order from Discovery and to Vacate Scheduling Conference and All Associated
Deadlines [filed October 2, 2013; docket #27]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and D.C.
Colo. LCivR 72.1C, this matter has been referred to this Court for disposition. (Docket #28.)
The Court finds that oral argument would not assist the Court in its consideration of this matter.
For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion.
I.

Background
Plaintiff “seeks to open a legal recreational marijuana dispensary” in Colorado Springs.

1

Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 14-15 (docket #5). Plaintiff claims that the Defendants’ legislation
banning marijuana dispensaries violates his due process and equal protection rights, constitutes an
unconstitutional restraint on trade, and is negligent. Id. at ¶¶ 20-34. On September 11, 2013, the
Colorado Springs Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, asserting:
(1) qualified immunity as to Mayor Bach, (2) governmental immunity as to the negligence claim,
(3) absolute immunity as to Mayor Bach and the City of Colorado Springs Council, (4) failure to
state claims as to the alleged constitutional violations, and (5) Plaintiff’s lack of standing.
(Docket #18). On October 3, 2013, Defendants El Paso County, City of Fountain, Town of Green
Mountain Falls, Town of Monument, and the Town of Woodland Park filed a Motion to Dismiss
on the same grounds as the Colorado Springs Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, except they did not
raise qualified or absolute immunity defenses. (Docket #31.) The Town of Palmer Lake is the
only defendant that has not filed a Motion to Dismiss; its Answer or Response to the Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint is due on November 18, 2013. (Docket #25.) The Court anticipates that
the Town of Palmer Lake will file a Motion to Dismiss raising similar defenses as those filed by
the other Defendants. Plaintiff does not oppose the present Motion for Protective Order.
II.

Qualified, Governmental, and Absolute Immunity
Legal questions regarding the court’s subject matter jurisdiction should be resolved as

early as possible in the litigation, before incurring the burdens of discovery. See Behrens v.
Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 & 310 (1996) (noting that discovery can be particularly disruptive
when a dispositive motion regarding immunity is pending); Moore v. Busby, 92 F. App’x 699, 702
(10th Cir. 2004) (affirming trial court’s stay of discovery pending resolution of absolute immunity
question); Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir.1995) (“the Supreme Court has
repeatedly ‘stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage
in litigation.’” (citation omitted)). The Supreme Court has emphasized the broad protection
2

qualified immunity affords, giving officials “a right, not merely to avoid ‘standing trial,’ but also
to avoid the burdens of ‘such pretrial matters as discovery.’” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299,
308 (1996) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)); see also Crawford-El v.
Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998). The Supreme Court established that evaluating the defense of
qualified immunity is a threshold issue, and “[u]ntil this threshold immunity question is resolved,
discovery should not be allowed.” Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233, (1991) (citing Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).
In this case, the Colorado Springs Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that
Mayor Bach and the Colorado Springs Council are protected from Plaintiff’s claims by absolute
immunity, and Mayor Bach is protected by qualified immunity.

Additionally, Defendants

contend, in both Motions to Dismiss, that the Plaintiff’s negligence claim is barred by the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), which states, “[i]f a public entity raises the issue of
sovereign immunity prior to or after the commencement of discovery, the court shall suspend
discovery ....” C.R.S. § 24-10-108 (2013).
The Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its
own docket, see Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).

Because the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss raise legal

questions of this Court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, the Court will grant a
temporary stay of discovery pending resolutions of these questions.
III.

Standing
In addition to the pending immunity issues, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff lacks

standing as to all of his claims. Courts have routinely held that discovery should be stayed while
the issues related to jurisdiction are being resolved. See, e.g., Siegert, 500 U.S. at 231-32 (1991);
Harlow, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992).
3

Standing is a threshold requirement, and without it, the Court lacks jurisdiction. Summers v.
Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009). Accordingly, a stay of discovery is also
appropriate until the standing issue is resolved.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion for

Protective Order from Discovery and to Vacate Scheduling Conference and All Associated
Deadlines [filed October 2, 2013; docket #27] is granted. Discovery is stayed as to all parties
pending resolution of the Motions to Dismiss. The parties shall file a joint status report within ten
(10) days of a ruling on their Motions to Dismiss. The October 30, 2013 Scheduling Conference
is vacated.
Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 7th day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

4