5 20 11 ORDER Heumann vs. Barnett .pdf
Original filename: 5-20-11 ORDER Heumann vs. Barnett.pdf
Title: Microsoft Word - 530_201105232101550661.doc
This PDF 1.5 document has been generated by PScript5.dll Version 5.2 / Acrobat Distiller 6.0.1 (Windows), and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 30/05/2011 at 20:10, from IP address 67.8.x.x.
The current document download page has been viewed 2904 times.
File size: 13 KB (2 pages).
Privacy: public file
Download original PDF file
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO
CASE NUMBER 09 CV 1142
JUDY HEUMANN and NORMAN HEUMANN
CO Boulder County District Court 20th JD
Filing Date: May 23 2011 3:02PM MDT
Filing ID: 37746985
Review Clerk: N/A
HARVEY BARNETT, individually, and INFANT SWIMMING RESOURCE, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
This Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees in a ruling from the bench this
date. The Court reserved ruling, however, on two issues: whether defendant, Dr. Barnett’s,
motion to dismiss lacked substantial justification and whether Plaintiffs are entitled to fees
incurred for the attorney fee litigation.
The Court has now reviewed the sworn affidavit of Dr. Barnett attached to, and forming
the factual basis for, his motion to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction. After
hearing the evidence in the trial to the Court, the Court can see that the affidavit sets forth the
same facts that the Court found to be not true at trial. It also omits information that would be
relevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction such as Dr. Barnett’s promotional trips to Colorado
and his Colorado media appearances on behalf of his programs.
Defendants were entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the dispute at
issue between Plaintiffs and themselves but not in a substantially groundless (not supported by
any credible evidence) or substantially vexatious (stubbornly litigious and disrespectful of truth)
way. The Court therefore includes the fees incurred in addressing the motion to dismiss in the
award of attorney fees.
Defendants are entitled to challenge the request for attorney fees made pursuant to C.R.S.
13-17-101. The Court is not persuaded that doing so lacks substantial justification or is
groundless or frivolous and the Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ supplement to its original
Counsel for Plaintiffs is requested to submit a form of judgment.
This 20 May 2011
District Court Judge