Opinion ID: 2204353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Respondent Responds to Motion for Summary Judgment in 03-M-1183

Text: On August 8, 2003, Mr. Boog filed a motion for summary judgment in the federal court, 03-M-1183, citing Judge Lass' order in 99CV277. Thereafter, Respondent filed three separate motions for an extension to respond to motions for summary judgment filed by defendants named in 03-M-1183. On October 30, 2003, Respondent filed a motion to stay the federal proceedings in 03-1183 pending the outcome of water court litigation in 93CW213. On November 14, 2003, Judge Matsch held a status conference and asked Respondent directly why she filed the RICO complaint, Respondent answered that we're here under RICO because there is a criminal enterprise which has formed and has as it's intention the deprivation of my client's, to separate them from their property interests in order to use those property interests for the development of adjacent property, which is owned by Elk Dance. While alleging that the SCR HOA engaged in a criminal conspiracy, she admitted she had drafted the pleading in 03-M-1183 before she was able to do much investigation. Five months earlier, on May 1, 2003, she emailed one of her clients before filing her COCCA complaint, a virtual template of the RICO complaint, and stated that she would have to draft some kind of suit this afternoon (emphasis added) just to file it tomorrow. . . . It is going to be very slapdash, but I can amend it after it's filed as a matter of right. . . . I just have to have a case number to put in the notice of lis pendens.  [22] The Hearing Board finds that these statements reveal Respondent's inept and misguided view of her ethical obligation to prepare these complaints competently and within the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. During these proceedings Respondent also testified that she believed letters sent by the SCR HOA to her clients threatening to file liens for failure to pay home owner's dues and other assessments constituted mail fraud. Respondent also alleged, without stating facts upon which she based her allegations, that Elk Dance was connected to organized crime. [23] This attitude about litigation is aptly characterized as shoot first and aim later. [24] At the status conference on November 13, 2003, Judge Matsch told Respondent that he would not accept jurisdiction on the state claims alleged in 03-M-1183 but would give Respondent thirty days to amend her complaint. She did not do so. On January 27, 2004, Judge Matsch dismissed 03-M-1183 without prejudice and released the lis pendens after giving Respondent ample time to amend her pleadings as she requested. Judge Matsch did not rule on Mr. Boog's motion for summary judgment and contrary to Respondent's assertions in these proceedings, Judge Matsch did not approve her complaint as proper or adequate. [25] However, Judge Matsch did not assess attorney fees as requested by the defendants because he determined that litigating the matter would have unduly delayed the proceedings.