Case 1:11-cv-03061-WJM-MJW Document 15 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-cv-03061-WJM-MJW SCARLET RANCH, a privately owned club; BRADLEY MITCHELL; KENDALL SEIFERT; and ERIN SCHREIBERG, Plaintiffs, v. SERGEANT DANIEL STEELE; SERGEANT ANDREW HOWARD; OFFICER CHRIS SCHOTTS [sic]; OFFICER NICK RANDOLPH; OFFICER PHILIP COLEMAN; OFFICER ROBERT FAMBROUGH; OFFICER ANTONIO GUARDADO; JOHN DOE OFFICERS I-III; and THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, Defendants.

ANSWER ______________________________________________________________________ Defendants, DANIEL STEELE, ANDREW HOWARD, CHRIS SHOTTS, NICK RANDOLPH, PHILIP COLEMAN, ROBERT FAMBROUGH, ANTONIO GUARDADO, and CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, by their attorneys, ERIC M. ZIPORIN and MONICA N. KOVACI of the law firm of SENTER GOLDFARB & RICE, L.L.C., and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 12, and 15, hereby submit the following Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint:

Case 1:11-cv-03061-WJM-MJW Document 15 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7

ANSWER 1. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 20, 27, and 55

of Plaintiffs Complaint. 2. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 23, 24, 26,

28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 3. Defendants are without sufficient information and knowledge to enable

them to form a belief as to the veracity of the allegations contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, and 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint and, as a result, deny same. 4. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 22, 25, 32, 56,

and 57 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants admit that on May 5, 2010, they participated in an undercover investigation of Scarlet Ranch pertaining to potential sale of narcotics, the distribution of alcohol on premises without a license in violation of the Denver Municipal Code and the Colorado Liquor Code, and display of adult entertainment without a license in violation of the Denver Municipal Code. Two undercover officers entered the Scarlet Ranch and they relayed information indicating violations of the Denver Municipal Code and Colorado Liquor Code. Defendants also admit that, in the course of the investigation, Bradley Mitchell was arrested on charges of resistance, interference, dispensing alcohol without a license, and for providing glasses/mixers for alcohol, and Erin Schreiberg was given a summons for failing to have an amusement facility license, dispensing alcohol without a license, and for providing glasses/mixers for

Case 1:11-cv-03061-WJM-MJW Document 15 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7

alcohol. Defendants further admit that the charges against Mitchell and Schreiberg were ultimately dismissed. paragraphs. 5. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said

Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants admit that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs federal claims, and that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said paragraphs. 6. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,

16, and 17 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants admit that Defendants Steele, Howard, Shotts, Randolph, Coleman, Fambrough, and Guardado were employed as police officers by the City and County of Denver, and that at the time of the events involved in this case, they were acting under color of state law; however, Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said paragraphs. 7. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit that the City and County of Denver is a home rule municipality established under the laws of Colorado. 8. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 33, 34 and 37 of

Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants admit that Mr. Mitchell asked if the officers had a warrant, and one of the officers responded that they did not need a warrant; however, Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said paragraphs.

Case 1:11-cv-03061-WJM-MJW Document 15 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7

9.

With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit that Mr. Mitchell was questioned; however, Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said paragraph. 10. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit that Mr. Mitchell remained seated in the chair and did not attempt to get up, despite being ordered to stand. Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said paragraph. 11. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit that after Mr. Mitchell refused to stand, Steele grasped Mr. Mitchells left wrist and attempted to place him into a twist lock hold to stand him to be handcuffed. Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said paragraph. 12. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 47 and 92 of

Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants admit that they were informed by someone that there was video surveillance of the inside of the Scarlet Ranch, which would have captured Mr. Mitchells arrest. paragraphs. 13. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 53 and 54 of Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said

Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants admit that the evidence log did not include a VHS cassette due to the fact that the police officers did not remove a VHS tape from Scarlet Ranch. Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said paragraphs.

Case 1:11-cv-03061-WJM-MJW Document 15 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7

14.

With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 99 of Plaintiffs

Complaint, Defendants admit that Steele was the supervisor during the subject incident; however, Defendants deny all other allegations contained in said paragraph. 15. Defendants hereby incorporate their responses to the paragraphs that are

realleged in paragraphs 6, 21, 58, 65, 71, 75, 84, 91, and 98 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 16. Defendants deny all allegations not otherwise expressly admitted herein. DEFENSES 1. Plaintiffs Complaint fails, at least in part, to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. 2. 3. Defendants are qualifiedly immune from Plaintiffs claims. Defendants conduct was not improper and they exercised their legal

rights in a permissible manner. 4. Plaintiffs alleged damages, if any, were caused by reason of Plaintiffs

acts and conduct, not by reason of any tortious or unconstitutional conduct of Defendants. 5. Plaintiffs. 6. 7. Plaintiffs have failed to reasonably mitigate their alleged damages. Defendant City and County of Denver is immune from Plaintiffs claim for Plaintiffs damages, if any, are not to the extent and nature as alleged by

punitive damages. 8. Defendants reserve the right to add such additional defenses as become

apparent upon disclosure and discovery.

Case 1:11-cv-03061-WJM-MJW Document 15 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7

REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants request the Court grant relief as follows: A. B. Dismissing all of Plaintiffs claims with prejudice; Entering judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs for costs and attorney fees; and C. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND DEFENDANTS HEREBY DEMAND THIS CASE BE TRIED TO A JURY PURSUANT TO FED. R .CIV. P. 38. Respectfully submitted,

s/ Eric M. Ziporin Eric M. Ziporin

s/ Monica N. Kovaci Monica N. Kovaci Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C. 1700 Broadway, Suite 1700 Denver, Colorado 80290 Telephone: (303) 320-0509 Facsimile: (303) 320-0210 E-mails: eziporin@sgrllc.com; mkovaci@sgrllc.com Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:11-cv-03061-WJM-MJW Document 15 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 10th day of January, 2012, I electronically filed a true and exact copy of the above and foregoing ANSWER with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: Lonn M. Heymann lonn@heymannlegal.com Raymond K. Bryant Raymond@heymannlegal.com Stuart Shapiro Stuart.shapiro@denvergov.org s/ Barbara A. Ortell Barbara A. Ortell, Legal Secretary E-mail: bortell@sgrllc.com

00589080.DOC