United States District Court, D. Colorado
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
S. Krieger, Senior United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant
Brian Cullen's Motion to Dismiss (# 35),
Mr. Barson's response (# 40), and Mr.
Cullen's reply (# 47); Mr. Cullen's
Motion for Summary Judgment (# 43), Mr.
Barson's response (# 53), and Mr.
Cullen's reply (#62) ; Mr. Barson's
Motion to Strike (# 58) the Defendants'
Amended Answer (# 28), and the
Defendants' response (# 68); and certain
collateral motions that will be addressed herein.
Court provides a summary of the pertinent facts herein and
elaborates as necessary in its analysis.
January 15, 2018, Mr. Barson commenced this action in the
Colorado District Court for the County of Denver. The
Complaint in that action, which remains the operative
pleading herein, alleges that as of April 2017, Mr. Barson
was the owner of a company called E Squared Solar, LLC
(“E Squared”). On April 19, 2017, Mr. Barson
agreed to sell E Squared's physical assets and business
rights to Defendant C.A.M. Solar, Inc. (“CAM”).
The terms of the agreement called for Mr. Barson to receive a
portion of CAM's profits, as well as an equity interest
in CAM based on its sales over a given period of time. Mr.
Barson joined CAM as part of its sales team.
28, 2017, CAM terminated Mr. Barson's employment. Mr.
Barson alleges that CAM breached its contract with him by
failing to pay his salary, profits owed under the sales
agreement, and commissions, as well as to tender the equity
stake called for by the sales agreement. Mr. Barson also
asserts a claim for civil theft, presumably under Colorado
law, against Mr. Cullen, CAM's President, relating to the
CAM equity and profits that CAM has refused to pay to Mr.
Barson. Finally, Mr. Barson asserts a claim for a declaratory
judgment regarding his entitlement to CAM equity and assets.
pending before the Court are several motions, described in
Motion to Strike Amended Answer
December 20, 2018, the Defendants moved (#
38) for leave to file an Amended Answer. Consistent
with D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 15.1(b), the motion contained a
redline version of the Defendants' proposed amendments.
The Court granted (# 46) that motion, and
the Defendants then filed their Amended Answer (#
48). The Amended Answer's text differs in
certain respects from that found in the redline version
attached to the Defendants' motion to amend. Mr. Barson
has moved (# 58) to strike the Amended
Answer, and the Defendants have responded that the textual
changes are merely stylistic, not substantive.
purpose of Local Rule 15.1(b) is to ensure that all parties
are aware of the amended pleading that is being contemplated
and that any rulings the Court makes with regard to such
pleadings are neither evaded nor rendered advisory by
subsequent modifications to the proposed language.
Accordingly, the Court does not permit amended pleadings as
filed to differ from those proposed and approved under Local
Rule 15.1(b) unless such modifications are ordered by the
litigation that is already contentious and shows few signs of
relenting, the Court will not waste time addressing issues
that reflect lack substantive or procedural significance. It
is not necessary to definitively determine whether the
modifications made by the Defendants to their proposed
amended answer are substantive or stylistic. Rather, the
Court deems proposed pleading found at pages 40-52 of Docket
#38 to replace the document filed at Docket #48. In this
respect, Mr. Barson's motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
Mr. Cullen's motions
Cullen has filed both a motion to dismiss (#
35) and motion for summary judgment (#