IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO



Similar documents
Case 1:05-cv CCB Document 1-1 Filed 06/17/2005 Page 1 of 18

Case 2:12-cv SRC-CLW Document 1 Filed 12/06/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case: 3:12-cv wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 01/05/12 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOMEWHERE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Complaint as permitted by Case Management Order # 4 and Implementing Order PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant, by and through his attorneys LENOIR LAW FIRM, answering the complaint of plaintiff, upon information and belief,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 4:08-cv Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 05/28/08 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case3:13-cv JST Document27 Filed11/27/13 Page1 of 14

Case 3:15-cv CAR Document 9 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION

Case LT Filed 05/14/14 Entered 05/14/14 14:14:36 Doc 6 Pg. 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION PLAINTIFF MCAFEE, INC. S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

COUNTERCLAIM ALLEGING BREACH OF REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES; BREACH OF CONTRACT; AND SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION IN STOCK PURCHASE CASE

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Case No: Defendants, Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, through their

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/21/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. 08 CVH vs- ) JUDGE LYNCH

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND. of police reports in bad faith. Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted willfully, wantonly and in

virtue of Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 806 of the Corporate and

Case 3:14-cv AC Document 10 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 43

Case 3:10-cv DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:05-cv JGK Document 1 Filed 04/04/05 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiff, : Civ. No. 05cv3493

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF

CAUSE NO. DC

Case 3:08-cv JM-CAB Document 9 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No.: 15-cv-157 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION. In Re: Bankruptcy No (Chapter 11) Filed Electronically

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:11-cv CMA -CBS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:14-cv ERK-JMA Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 6 CIVIL COVER SHEET (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.

CASE 0:12-cv RHK-SER Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

Case 1:16-cv NYW Document 1 Filed 01/29/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

No. 45TH. Plaintiff EDGEWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT files its Original Petition

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 3:08-cv JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:12-cv WJM-KMT Document 1 Filed 12/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION

MEDVED DALE DECKER & DEERE, LLC; FOOTHILLS TITLE AND ESCROW, INC.; TONI M.N. DALE; HOLLY L. DECKER; and HEATHER L. DEERE,

2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 08/27/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8

Case 7:15-cv Document 1 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 11

FILED 15 JUL 27 AM 9:22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA * *

Plaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

: : : : : : : : Plaintiffs, HOLLY SCHEPISI, NEIL McPHERSON, KEVIN DRAGAN, and

Plaintiffs, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. MEDVED, P.C.; WISE POSTS, LLC; MICHAEL P. MEDVED; TRACIE D. CASTANON; BETH A. MALONEY; and PATRICK R.

Case 3:14-cv HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 1:15-cv MHC Document 1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 12 ORIGH~~AL

* Each Will Comply With LR IA 10 2 Within 45 days Attorneys for Plaintiff, Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Case 8:13-cv EAK-TBM Document 14 Filed 05/20/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

JOHN MURRAY ( Murray ), for his Complaint in this action against Defendant, Crystex Composites LLC ( Crystex ), alleges as follows:

No. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims

Case 3:15-cv LAB-BLM Document 1 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

How To Settle A Class Action Lawsuit Against Jimmy Johns

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF ECOSMART, LLC AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST CARLOS ANTONIO CABRERA

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 SEATTLE DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv WGY Document 1 Filed 01/02/14 Page 1 of 6 : : : : : : : : : : :

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:10-cv JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 8

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PH: F: Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv ) v. ) ) FAIRWARNING, INC.

No CV IN THE FOR THE RAY ROBINSON,

Case 5:11-cv SWW Document 4 Filed 08/18/11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

Case 2:15-cv DDP-AGR Document 1 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMPLAINT PARTIES. 2. COGA promotes the expansion of oil and gas supplies, markets, and transportation infrastructure.

ORIG I N A L. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LUrt 4ER D ' MAS, Clerk FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GE ORGI A By- L)Wwty c wr~ ATLANTA DIVISION

How To Get A Court Order To Stop A Man From Selling A Car To A Woman

Case 1:15-cv KMW Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2016 Page 1 of 8 UNTIED STATE DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

Case3:15-cv JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v.

How To Get A Court Order To Let A Customer Account From Gorter To Minecraft To Be Transferred To A Customer Of Kfoi

ORDER. Objections of Defendants Laurence A. Mester ( Mester ) and Villa Development, LLC

Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 1:07-cv B Document 7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Case 1:14-cv BNB Document 1 Filed 04/02/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2014

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF UTAH. Case No. : Judge:

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. INFANT SWIMMING RESEARCH, INC., v. Plaintiff, FAEGRE & BENSON, LLP, MARK FISCHER, JUDY HEUMANN, NORMAN HEUMANN, BOULDER ESCROW, LLC Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Infant Swimming Research, Inc., by and through its undersigned attorneys, alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Infant Swimming Research, Inc. is a Florida corporation ( ISR ). 2. On information and belief, Defendant Faegre & Benson, LLP is a Minnesota limited liability partnership located at 1700 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80203. 1

3. On information and belief, Defendant Mark Fischer is an individual located at 285 Iroquois Drive, Boulder, Colorado 80303 ( Fischer ). 4. On information and belief, Defendants Judy and Norman Heumann are individuals located at 428 Wewoka Drive, Boulder, Colorado 80303 ( Heumann ). 5. On information and belief, Boulder Escrow, LLC is a limited liability company located at 2425 Canyon Boulevard, Boulder, Colorado 80302 ( Boulder Escrow ). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to, without limitation, 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a) in that the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 7. Venue is properly placed in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391(a) in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff s claims occurred in this district and Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. On February 2, 2004, a jury in this Court in the matter entitled Harvey Barnett, Inc., et. al. v. Ann Shidler, Judy Heumann, et. al., 00-CV-00731, entered a verdict in favor of ISR and against Defendant Judy Heumann (the Prior Action ). 2

9. A Judgment On Remand was entered by this Court based upon the jury verdict in the Prior Action. On April 28, 2004, the Judgment On Remand entered against Defendant Judy Heumann and in favor of ISR in the Prior Action was recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder. The recorded judgment acted as a lien in favor of ISR and against real estate owned by Defendant Judy Heumann. 10. On April 26, 2005, Defendants fabricated a Certificate Of Stay Of Judgment/Release Of Judgment Lien (the Fabricated Order ) which purports to be issued and entered by this Court. This Court never issued or entered the Fabricated Order. A copy of the Fabricated Order is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 11. On April 26, 2005, Defendants filed the Fabricated Order with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder and thereby fraudulently released ISR s lien on Defendant Judy Heumann s real property. 12. The Fabricated Order allowed Defendant Judy Heumann to obtain funds from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. which she would not have been able to obtain but for the Fabricated Order. Some of the funds obtained by use of the Fabricated Order were paid to Fischer and Faegre & Benson. This wrongfully provided the financial resources to allow Defendant Judy Heumann to continue her litigation in the Prior Action, at great expense and damage to ISR, and wrongfully provided the financial resources for Fischer and Faegre & Benson to receive additional attorneys fees. 3

13. ISR did not discover the Fabricated Order until on or about March 28, 2007. 14. On April 9, 2007, Fischer admitted his misconduct as set forth herein by the letter to Magistrate Hegarty attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. 15. At the time of the fabrication and recording of the Fabricated Order and thereafter until on or about April 9, 2007, Fischer was a partner with Faegre & Benson. Pursuant to, without limitation, Colorado Revised Statutes section 7-60-113, Faegre & Benson is liable to ISR to the same extent as Fischer. 16. Boulder Escrow improperly facilitated the filing of the Fabricated Order and improperly failed to require a certified copy of the Fabricated Order. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation Of Colorado Revised Statutes Section 38-35-109) (As Against All Defendants) 17. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 18. By the actions and omissions set forth herein, Defendants have violated Colorado Revised Statutes section 38-35- 109(3). 19. ISR is entitled to the relief set forth in Colorado Revised Statutes section 38-35-109(3), including an award of reasonable attorneys fees. 20. As a direct and proximate result of foregoing, ISR has sustained damages, together with interest, costs, and reasonable 4

attorneys fees and is entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. 21. Defendants actions were, and continue to be, attended by circumstances of malice and/or constituted misconduct purposefully, heedlessly and/or recklessly committed without regard to the consequences or rights of ISR. 22. ISR is entitled to an award of punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraudulent Transfer) (As Against All Defendants) 23. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 24. All transfers of Defendant Judy Heumann s real estate from the date of the Fabricated Order were fraudulent transfers pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 38-8-105(a). 25. On February 22, 2007, this Court amended its previous Judgment On Remand to award additional attorneys fees and costs to ISR and against Defendant Judy Heumann. 26. On March 8, 2007, Defendant Judy Heumann recorded a quit claim deed attempting to transfer her interest in real property to Defendant Norman Heumann. 27. By the quit claim deed recorded March 8, 2007, Defendant Judy Heumann and Norman Heumann have engaged in a fraudulent transfer pursuant to 38-8-105(a) and (b). 28. ISR is entitled to the relief set forth in Colorado Revised Statutes section 38-8-108. 5

29. As a direct and proximate result of foregoing, ISR has sustained damages, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys fees and is entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. 30. Defendants actions were, and continue to be, attended by circumstances of malice and/or constituted misconduct purposefully, heedlessly and/or recklessly committed without regard to the consequences or rights of ISR. 31. ISR is entitled to an award of punitive damages. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Supervision) (As Against Faegre & Benson) 32. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 33. Faegre & Benson had a duty to ISR to properly supervise Fischer. 34. Faegre & Benson failed to properly supervise Fischer. 35. Faegre & Benson breached its duties to ISR. 36. As a direct and proximate result of Faegre & Benson s negligent supervision, ISR has sustained damages, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys fees and is entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6

(Fraud) (As Against All Defendants) 37. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 38. Defendants made representations of material fact as set forth above which were in fact false. Defendants materially misrepresented that the Court had issued and entered the Fabricated Order. 39. When Defendants made the representations, Defendants knew they were false or Defendants had no reasonable ground for believing the representations were true. 40. Defendants made the representations with the intent to defraud ISR and did defraud ISR. 41. ISR reasonably and properly relied upon its recording of the Judgment On Remand in the Prior Action as a lien against Defendant Judy Heumann s real property, which would have remained as a lien against Defendant Judy Heumann s real property but for Defendants fraud. 42. As a direct and proximate result of foregoing, ISR has sustained damages, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys fees and is entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. 43. Defendants actions were, and continue to be, attended by circumstances of malice and/or constituted misconduct purposefully, heedlessly and/or recklessly committed without regard to the consequences or rights of ISR. 44. ISR is entitled to an award of punitive damages. 7

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Misrepresentation) 45. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 46. The misrepresentations made by Defendants as set forth herein were made by Defendants without reasonable grounds for Defendants to believe the misrepresentations were true. 47. ISR reasonably and properly relied upon its recording of the Judgment On Remand in the Prior Action as a lien against Defendant Judy Heumann s real property, which would have remained as a lien against Defendant Judy Heumann s real property but for Defendants negligent misrepresentations. 48. As a direct and proximate result of foregoing, ISR has sustained damages, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys fees and is entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) (As Against Boulder Escrow) 49. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 50. Boulder Escrow had a duty to ISR to reasonable and properly review the Fabricated Order prior to participating in its filing and require a certified copy of the Fabricated Order. 8

51. Boulder Escrow failed to ISR to reasonable and properly review the Fabricated Order prior to participating in its filing and failed to require a certified copy of the Fabricated Order. 52. Boulder Escrow breached its duties to ISR. 53. As a direct and proximate result of foregoing, ISR has sustained damages, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys fees and is entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conspiracy) (As Against All Defendants) 54. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 55. Defendants maliciously conspired together with intent to injure ISR. 56. Defendants had an agreement to create the Fabricated Order and wrongfully record it with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder. 57. Defendants fraudulent created and recorded the Fabricated Order in furtherance of the conspiracy. 58. As a direct and proximate result of foregoing, ISR has sustained damages, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys fees and is entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Contempt) 9

(As Against Faegre & Benson, Fischer, & Judy Heumann) 59. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 60. Faegre & Benson, Fischer and Heumann willfully disobeyed the Judgment On Remand by the Fabricated Order. 61. Faegre & Benson, Fischer and Heumann interfered with the ability of the Court to function properly by the Fabricated Order. 62. As a direct and proximate result of foregoing, Faegre & Benson, Fischer and Heumann should be held in contempt, and ISR awarded damages, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys fees and declaratory and/or injunctive relief. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief) (As Against All Defendants) 63. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 64. There is an actual controversy between the parties. 65. A judicial determination is required regarding the Fabricated Order. Defendants have taken the position that the Fabricated Order is a true and correct Order of this Court and is properly filed with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder. ISR has taken the position that the Fabricated Order was never issued or entered by this Court and was not properly filed with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder and should be voided. 10

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive Relief) (As Against All Defendants) 66. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 67. Injunctive relief is necessary to void the Fabricated Order and/or the Quit Claim deed and/or to avoid further disposition of Defendant Judy Heumann s real property. 68. Injunctive relief is expressly provided by Colorado Revised Statutes section 38-8-108. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Vicarious Liability) (As Against Faegre & Benson and Judy Heumann) 69. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each of the 70. Fischer was acting within the scope of his employment and/or agency duties when he participated in creating the Fabricated Order. Fischer s tortuous conduct is imputable to Faegre & Benson and/or Defendant Judy Heumann. JURY DEMAND A trial by jury is hereby demanded. 11

Dated: April 24, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS JAFFE /s_ Douglas Jaffe Douglas Jaffe 402 West Broadway, 4th Floor San Diego, California 92101 (619) 595-4861 Douglasjaffe@aol.com 12