PDF ArchiveHistorical archive . public document
2011 . May . 30

5 20 11 ORDER Heumann vs. Barnett

5-20-11 ORDER Heumann vs. Barnett.pdf

PDF 1.5 2 pages 12.93 KB Filed 30/05/2011
Download this PDF
5-20-11 ORDER Heumann vs. Barnett.pdf
Web reader . 2 pages
Page 2 of 2, 5 20 11 ORDER Heumann vs. Barnett
2 / 2

File preview

DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO CASE NUMBER 09 CV 1142 DIVISION 3 JUDY HEUMANN and NORMAN HEUMANN Plaintiffs EFILED Document CO Boulder County District Court 20th JD Filing Date: May 23 2011 3:02PM MDT Filing ID: 37746985 Review Clerk: N/A vs. HARVEY BARNETT, individually, and INFANT SWIMMING RESOURCE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company Defendants 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 motion. Counsel for Plaintiffs is requested to submit a form of judgment. So ordered This 20 May 2011 Lael Montgomery District Court Judge

Download 5 20 11 ORDER Heumann vs. Barnett

5-20-11 ORDER Heumann vs. Barnett.pdf . PDF . 12.93 KB . 2 pages

Download PDF

File information

File name
5-20-11 ORDER Heumann vs. Barnett.pdf
Title
530 201105232101550661
Size
12.93 KB
Pages
2 pages
PDF version
1.5
Produced with
PScript5.dll Version 5.2 / Acrobat Distiller 6.0.1 (Windows)
Filed on
30/05/2011
Page views
2 981
Document ID
5-20-11-order-heumann-vs-barnett
MD5
e95529246120aec99d582fe8a7efac0c
SHA-512
af952b4e0cc99fb4e59856c29bf09c04d9e6d93e4de9ed6dd6c3daa11e2ec683ada545747614b12a66835acfeb2a94b8a139376ecca0e7cd995ca2e1d85a5ca9

Share this document

This address never changes. It is the one to keep, to send, or to cite.

Shorter, for a text message or a post with a character limit.

To link to this document from a website or a blog.