Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 04-22-2024
Case Style:
Case Number: 1:23-cv-01608
Judge: Michael E. Hegarty
Court: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Bailey Christine Pompea and Patrick D. Vellone
Defendant's Attorney: Kevin Scott Neiman and Oliver M. Birman
Description: Denver, Colorado civil litigation lawyers represented the parties in a breach of contract declaratory judgment action.
This case arises out of a consent judgment entered on January 18, 2018, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado against Defendant in favor of Plaintiffs. The Parties entered into a forbearance agreement in which Plaintiffs agreed to forgo immediately collecting on the consent judgment's entire amount if Defendant complied with the terms of the agreement. Plaintiffs now contend Defendant breached, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to collect the consent judgment's full amount immediately. Plaintiffs registered the consent judgment before this Court and commenced collections proceedings.
Defendant has long argued he is not in default. To that end, he filed an action in Colorado seeking a determination as to whether he actually defaulted on the Parties' agreement. Given that the Colorado case could have a determinative effect on the present case, the undersigned recommended this case be stayed pending its outcome. The District Court adopted that recommendation and sent the case back to the undersigned for a bond determination.
Plaintiffs correctly note the undersigned found several “badges of fraud” regarding Defendant's transfer of money into a joint brokerage account at the Vanguard Group (“Vanguard”) shared with his wife. Plaintiffs, citing these findings, request the Court to grant them a bond of $2.2 million, or 110 percent of the judgment, as is allowed under the local rules. Otherwise, Plaintiffs argue, Defendant will abscond with whatever money he has, leaving them with nothing to collect should they succeed in the Colorado case.
Defendant responds that Plaintiffs are not entitled to anything more than they had at the beginning of this dispute, which is nothing other than the payments under the forbearance agreement. Defendant notes he has continued to make the payments under the plan and contends there is no good reason to believe he will abscond with any money.
Outcome: The Parties have filed a "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice." ECF 35 . Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), that Stipulation is self-effectuating, and the claims between the Parties were dismissed with prejudice as of the filing of the Stipulation. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 4/15/2024. (dgumb, ) (Entered: 04/15/2024)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: