Free Supplement/Amendment - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01841-EWN-CBS

Document 69

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-CV-1841-EWN-CBS SANDRA BAFIA, Plaintiff, vs. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, COLORADO, in their official and individual capacities; et al. Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT WASHINGTON COUNTY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Sandra Bafia, through her counsel David A. Lane and Marcel Krzystek of KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, and Michelle L. Lazar, hereby submits the following supplemental authority in support of its response to Defendant Washington County's Motion for Summary Judgment: 1. On June 16, 2005, Judge Robert E. Blackburn entered an Order denying

Defendant Alamosa County's Motion to Dismiss in de Herrera v. Board of County Commissioners, Alamosa County, et al., 04-CV-1107-REB-CBS. In that case, Defendant Alamosa County advanced the same argument that Washington County advances in this case, i.e., that the Board of County Commissioners cannot be held liable for the conduct of the county sheriff. Washington County also raised this argument in its Motion to Dismiss and Stay Discovery filed on December 2, 2004. 2. In its June 16, 2005 Order, the court noted that the Board of Commissioners'

1

Case 1:04-cv-01841-EWN-CBS

Document 69

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 2 of 3

argument "carries the seeds of its own undoing" and that "[r]ather that insulating the county from responsibility . . . it is this very delegation of final policymaking authority that renders the Board potentially liable for the Sheriff's actions in a section 1983 action."1 3. The argument advanced by Defendant Alamosa County in de Herrera was

identical to Washington County's argument in its Motion for Summary Judgment that is presently before the Court. THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, and for all of the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Washington County's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Washington County's Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of June, 2005. KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN LLP /s/ Marcel Krzystek David A. Lane Marcel Krzystek 1543 Champa St., Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 571-1000 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on June 21, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: Andrew Macdonald, Esq., [email protected]; [email protected] Office of the County Attorney Office of the County Attorney PO Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306
1

A copy of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. 2

Case 1:04-cv-01841-EWN-CBS

Document 69

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 3 of 3

Counsel for Boulder County and Sheriff Epp Sean A. Lane, Esq., [email protected]; [email protected] Jonathon A. Cross, Esq., [email protected]; [email protected] Cross & Liechty, PC 400 S. Colorado Blvd., Suite 900 Denver, CO 80246 Counsel for Washington County Michelle L. Lazar, Esq., [email protected] 600 Cherry Street, Suite 305 Denver, CO 80246 Counsel for Plaintiff KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN LLP /s/ Marcel Krzystek Marcel Krzystek Attorney for Plaintiff 1543 Champa St., Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 571-1000 (303) 571-1001 ­ FAX [email protected]

3