Stauffer et al v. Blair et al
ORDER denying motions 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 and 35 . By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 5/13/2015.(tscha, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03256-RM-MJW
HANNAH SHELBY STAUFFER,
COLORADO MEDICAL BILLING CORPORATION,
STAUFFER SCHOOLS, INC. and
KIDS CAMPS, INC. (nonprofit corp.),
JOLENE C. BLAIR,
KAREN E. HAYES, D.O.,
A WOMAN’S PLACE OF FORT COLLINS, P.L.L.P.,
MONTGOMERGY, KOLODNY, AMATUZIO & DUSABEK, L.L.P.,
J. BRADFORD MARCH, III,
MARCH, OLIVE, & PHARRIS, L.L.P.,
CHERYL TRINE LAW FIRM, LLC,
CHRISTINE SKORBERT, and
A WOMAN’S HEALING CENTER, LLC.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS
Plaintiffs appearing pro se, have eight motions currently before this court. (ECF No. 28;
29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34 and 35). Currently, Plaintiffs move the court pursuant to: Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b)(4), to “reject Judge Watanabe’s Recommendations,” and revers[e] its Final Judgment . .
. .” (ECF No.28 and 29); Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(4) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(2), for a “Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict and an Amendment of Judgment” (ECF No.30 and 31);“request
specific findings of fact and rulings of law on the Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion” (ECF No.32
and 33) and “request both a new magistrate and a new judge” (ECF No.34 and 35).
Plaintiffs have filed a total of three cases with this court. (See No.11-cv-02389-WYD-
MJW; No.12-cv-01702-WYD-MJW and No.13-cv-03256-RM-MJW). After careful review and
consideration of the extensive court file, this court in an order dated January 15, 2015, adopted
Magistrate Judge Watanabe’s recommendations (ECF No.8), and dismissed the instant
complaint. (ECF No.20). The court found that: (1) plaintiffs had not filed any proof of service
on any named defendants and (2) plaintiffs were re-litigating the same claims that had been
considered and dismissed in the previous cases. (ECF No.8 and ECF No.20). In other words, all
three cases filed by plaintiffs stemmed from plaintiffs’ attempts to overturn the outcome of a jury
trial (Larimer County Case No. 03-CV-1729), and the subsequent judgment which the state court
appointed receiver executed against them.
As a result, on January 27, 2015, judgement was entered in favor of Defendants Jolene C.
Blair, Daniel Kaup, Karen E. Hayes, D.O., A Woman’s Place of Fort Collins, P.L.L.P.; Peter
Dusbabek; Todd Vriesman; Montgomery, Kolodny, Amatuzio & Dusbabek, L.L.P.; J. Bradford
March, III; March, Olive & Pharris, L.L.P.; Cheryl Trine; Cheryl Trine Law Firm, LLC;
Christine Skorberg; and A Woman’s Healing Center, LLC, and against Plaintiffs Hannah Shelby
Stauffer, Colorado Medical Billing Corporation, Stauffer Schools, Inc., and Kids Camps, Inc..
Full Faith and Credit
It is well settled that the full faith and credit provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1982),
requires federal courts to give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be
given that judgment under the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered. Migra v.
Warren City Distr Board of Ed., 465 US 75, 82-83 (1984). In this matter, the Colorado Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s post-judgment orders on February 18, 2010, and on September
13, 2010, the Colorado Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari.
Plaintiffs argue that the state court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction
over them. (See e.g., ECF No. 28 and 29). However, there is nothing in the concept of due
process which demands that a defendant be afforded a second opportunity to litigate what s/he
has already had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Kremer v. Chem. Contr. Corp.,456 US
461, 483, n.24 (1982). This includes the procedural requirements of due process such as the
existence of jurisdiction. Id.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal district courts from reviewing cases such
as the instant matter, which are brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by
state court judgments and inviting the district court to reject that judgment. Exxon Mobil Corp.
v. Saudi Basic Industr. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Because plaintiffs sought (and continue
to seek), to reverse state-court proceedings, this court appropriately dismissed the case for, inter
alia, lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (ECF No.20).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) provides for relief from a judgment or order that is void. Plaintiffs
contend that the state court’s judgment is void because of lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No.3). This
court determined that plaintiffs’ argument is precluded by the legal principle of res judicata or
When applying the principles of preclusion, a federal district court must grant a state
court judgment the same preclusive effect as the state in which the judgment was rendered. Allen
v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980). Colorado law is therefore dispositive here.
To be final under Colorado law, a judgment must not be tentative, the parties must have
had an opportunity to be heard, and there must have been an opportunity for review. Carpenter
v. Young ex rel Young, 773 P.2d 561 568 (Colo 1989). Accordingly, finality means that
certiorari must have been resolved or the time to file an appeal must have passed. Barnett v.
Eleite Properties of Am. Inc., 252 P.3d 14, 22(Colo. App. 2010). In this instance, the contested
order was final in September 2010, when the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari to the
Plaintiffs’ petition from the Colorado Court of Appeals. Additionally, to the extent that this case
is duplicative of matters litigated in No.11-cv-02389-WYD-MJW and No.12-cv-01702-WYDMJW, it is precluded by the judgment in those cases as well.
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ motions (ECF Nos. 28 and 29), under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) are DENIED; Plaintiffs’ Motions for Post-trial Relief Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(2) Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and 59(a)(4) Amendment of
Judgment (ECF Nos. 30 and 31), are DENIED; Plaintiffs’ Requests for Findings of Fact and
Rulings of Law (ECF Nos. 32 and 33) are DENIED as moot and Plaintiffs’ Requests for New
Magistrate and New Judge (ECF Nos. 34 and 35) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this13th day of May 2015.
BY THE COURT:
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?