Preview
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF DOUGLAS
STATE OF COLORADO DATE FILED: November 29, 2023 5:08 PM
4000 Justice Way Ste. 2009 FILING ID: 2FFED2DCCA562
Castle Rock, CO 80109 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30007
(720) 437-6200
Plaintiff: AMADY IVERY
v.
Defendants: MAGNA FAMILY DENTAL ▲COURT USE ONLY▲
STUDIO, LLC and MARIO MARTINEZ, DDS,
individually and in his official capacity.
Case Number: 2023CV30007
Division: 5
PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The parties, through their respective counsel, respectfully submit the following Proposed
Case Management Order:
The case management conference was set for May 18, 2023, at 8:30am MST.
1. At-Issue Date: March 20, 2023.
2. Responsible Attorneys’ Contact Information: Michael Nimmo and Charles
Mendez of Wahlberg, Woodruff, Nimmo & Sloane, LLP; 4601 DTC Blvd., Suite 950, Denver,
CO 80237; 303-571-5302; michael@denvertriallawyers.com and
charles@denvertriallawyers.com.
3. Meet and Confer Conference: On Wednesday, March 29, 2023, Charles Mendez
for Plaintiff, and Charles J. Vanstrom for Defendants met and conferred telephonically concerning
this Proposed Order and each of the issues listed in Rule 16(b)(3)(A) through (E).
4. Description of the Case:
(a) Plaintiff: This is a personal-injury case stemming from an allegation of sexual
misconduct that occurred on January 6, 2021, involving Plaintiff and Defendant Mario Martinez,
DDS (“Defendant Martinez”), which resulted in injuries to Plaintiff. Between October 2020 and
January 2021, Plaintiff had been an employee of Defendant Magna Family Dental Studio, LLC
(“Defendant Magna”), working as a practice manager under Defendant Martinez’s supervision.
On January 6, 2021, Defendant Martinez and Plaintiff were the last two remaining employees in
the office at the end of the workday. Defendant Martinez approached Plaintiff at her desk to show
her pictures on his cell phone of headshots the employees of Defendant Magna had taken several
days prior. While Plaintiff was still holding Defendant Martinez’s cell phone, Defendant Martinez
placed his hand on Plaintiff’s hand and began leaning his body weight into Plaintiff. Defendant
Martinez then began commenting on Plaintiff’s visible tattoo on her wrist, and inquired if she had
any other tattoos, to which Plaintiff responded she had another tattoo on her spine. Plaintiff
returned Defendant Martinez’s phone to him.
Defendant Martinez then requested Plaintiff come into his office to look over paperwork –
a typical procedure between Defendant Martinez and Plaintiff at the end of Plaintiff’s workday.
While Plaintiff was in Defendant Martinez’s office, Defendant Martinez approached Plaintiff from
behind and grabbed her. The Plaintiff froze in shock and fear, unable to move. Defendant Martinez
then lifted Plaintiff’s shirt, examined the tattoo on Plaintiff’s spine, and then ran his fingers down
her spine. Defendant Martinez began kissing Plaintiff’s neck. Defendant Martinez then put his
hand underneath Plaintiff’s sweater and bra and grabbed Plaintiff’s breast. Defendant Martinez
then grabbed Plaintiff’s hips and spun Plaintiff around where she was facing Defendant Martinez’s
desk. Defendant Martinez then pushed Plaintiff’s upper body down so that she was bent over the
desk. Defendant Martinez then lifted Plaintiff’s skirt and removed her underwear. Defendant
Martinez then removed his own pants, and without Plaintiff’s consent, had sexual intercourse with
Plaintiff. After the incident ended, Plaintiff stood up and left Defendant Magna’s premises.
Page 2 of 5
Between January 7, 2021, and January 13, 2021, Plaintiff attempted to return to work at Defendant
Magna, but ultimately quit her job on January 14, 2021.
As a result of Defendant Martinez’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered injuries damages, including,
but not limited to, severe emotional distress, declining mental health, mental pain and suffering,
suicidal ideation, PTSD, physical impairment, past and future lost wages, and past and future
therapy and medical costs.
(b) Defendants: Defendant Martinez denies the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint of
sexual misconduct and other claims. Plaintiff's allegations are inconsistent with the circumstances,
including failing to indicate that Plaintiff and Defendant Martinez did some off-premises training
when Plaintiff agreed to receive dental work as part of the training making the claims implausible.
By extension, Defendant Magna Family Dental Studio rejects it is vicariously liable for something
that did not occur.
Plaintiff continued working beyond the dates alleged in the Complaint, receiving pay as
late as January 18, 2021. Plaintiff's allegations that sexual intercourse occurred are not valid and
based on contemporary text messages received from her purported fiancé, the dates therein are
inconsistent in the claims.
5. Pending Motions: None.
6. Evaluation of Proportionality Factors: The parties agree the discovery plan set forth
in this order is proportional to (a) the needs of the case, (b) the importance of the issues at stake,
(c) the amount in controversy; (d) the parties’ access to relevant information; (e) the parties’
resources; (f) and the importance of such discovery in resolving the issues. The parties agree that
the burden or expense of the discovery proposed in this order does not outweigh the likely benefit
of such discovery.
7. Initial Exploration of Prompt Settlement and Prospects of Settlement: The parties
intend to explore a prompt settlement as soon as sufficient information has been exchanged to
allow the parties to make a meaningful settlement evaluation. Alternative dispute resolution is to
be completed before: April 11, 2024.
Page 3 of 5
8. Proposed Deadlines for Amendments:
(a) Amending or supplementing of pleadings: (Not more than 105 days (15
weeks) from at issue date.) July 3, 2023.
(b) Joinder of additional parties: (Not more than 105 days (15) weeks from at
issue date.) July 3, 2023.
(c) Identifying non-parties at fault: (90 days after commencement of the action)
June 19, 2023.
9. Disclosures: The Parties’ initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were due on April 17,
2023. Plaintiff served her Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on April 17, 2023. Defendants served their
Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on June 30, 2023.
10. Computation and Discovery Relating to Damages: Plaintiff has disclosed the
known damages incurred to date. Plaintiff’s therapy bills total over $1,200 and she continues to
receive care. Plaintiff is also claiming past wage losses. The calculation of her wage losses is
subject to expert opinion; however, her lay witness calculation of her past wage losses total
$43,880.00. Plaintiff has non-economic damages and physical impairment damages, which
consists of ongoing mental suffering, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, trust betrayal, and emotional
distress. As such, Plaintiff’s damages continue to increase, and Plaintiff will supplement her
damages computation as required by C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(C).
11. Discovery Limits and Schedule: Discovery shall be limited to that allowed by Rule
26(b)(2). The parties may need additional fact discovery depositions beyond the presumptive limits
due to the number of witnesses who were present before and after the altercation; however, Parties
are not requesting any modification to the amounts of discovery permitted in Rule 26(a)(2),
including limitations of awardable costs at this time.
12. Subjects for Expert Testimony:
Plaintiff anticipates offering expert testimony from certain of her treating healthcare providers and
a retained expert on liability, causation, and damages.
The Defendant anticipates offering expert testimony from:
13. Proposed Deadlines for Expert Disclosures: Neither party desires proposed
deadlines for expert disclosures other than those in Rule 26(a)(2)(C).
a. production of expert reports:
i. Plaintiff/claimant (126 days b/f trial): February 5, 2024.
ii. Defendant/opposing party (98 days b/f trial): March 4, 2024.
Page 4 of 5
b. production of rebuttal expert reports (77 days b/f trial): March 25, 2024.
c. production of expert witness files: 14 days after production of expert reports.
State the reasons for any different dates from those in C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(C): None.
14. Oral Discovery Motions: The court does require discovery motions to be presented
orally, without written motions or briefs. After conferral, if the parties are unable to agree, they
are to contact the Division Clerk at 23DOUG-Div5@judicial.state.co.us to set a discovery dispute
hearing. If time permits prior to the discovery dispute hearing, the parties are to file a short (one
page or less) joint statement of the issues to be discussed.
15. Electronically Stored Information: The parties do not anticipate needing to discover
a significant amount of electronically stored information.
16. Parties’ best estimate as to when discovery can be completed: 45 days before trial.
Parties’ best estimate of the length of the trial: 3 days
Trial will commence on June 10, 2024, at 8:30am. The trial readiness hearing will be held on
May 03, 2024, at 10:30am.
17. Other appropriate matters for consideration: None at this time.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of November 2023.
WAHLBERG, WOODRUFF, NIMMO CHARLES J. VANSTROM, P.C.
& SLOANE, LLP
/s/ Michael Nimmo /s/ Charles J. Vanstrom
Michael Nimmo, #36947 Charles J. Vanstrom, #20479
Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants
DATED: _____________
BY THE COURT:
_________________________________________
District Judge
Page 5 of 5
Preview
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF DOUGLAS STATE OF COLORADO DATE FILED: November 29, 2023 5:08 PM 4000 Justice Way Ste. 2009 FILING ID: 2FFED2DCCA562 Castle Rock, CO 80109 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30007 (720) 437-6200 Plaintiff: AMADY IVERY v. Defendants: MAGNA FAMILY DENTAL ▲COURT USE ONLY▲ STUDIO, LLC and MARIO MARTINEZ, DDS, individually and in his official capacity. Case Number: 2023CV30007 Division: 5 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The parties, through their respective counsel, respectfully submit the following Proposed Case Management Order: The case management conference was set for May 18, 2023, at 8:30am MST. 1. At-Issue Date: March 20, 2023. 2. Responsible Attorneys’ Contact Information: Michael Nimmo and Charles Mendez of Wahlberg, Woodruff, Nimmo & Sloane, LLP; 4601 DTC Blvd., Suite 950, Denver, CO 80237; 303-571-5302; michael@denvertriallawyers.com and charles@denvertriallawyers.com. 3. Meet and Confer Conference: On Wednesday, March 29, 2023, Charles Mendez for Plaintiff, and Charles J. Vanstrom for Defendants met and conferred telephonically concerning this Proposed Order and each of the issues listed in Rule 16(b)(3)(A) through (E). 4. Description of the Case: (a) Plaintiff: This is a personal-injury case stemming from an allegation of sexual misconduct that occurred on January 6, 2021, involving Plaintiff and Defendant Mario Martinez, DDS (“Defendant Martinez”), which resulted in injuries to Plaintiff. Between October 2020 and January 2021, Plaintiff had been an employee of Defendant Magna Family Dental Studio, LLC (“Defendant Magna”), working as a practice manager under Defendant Martinez’s supervision. On January 6, 2021, Defendant Martinez and Plaintiff were the last two remaining employees in the office at the end of the workday. Defendant Martinez approached Plaintiff at her desk to show her pictures on his cell phone of headshots the employees of Defendant Magna had taken several days prior. While Plaintiff was still holding Defendant Martinez’s cell phone, Defendant Martinez placed his hand on Plaintiff’s hand and began leaning his body weight into Plaintiff. Defendant Martinez then began commenting on Plaintiff’s visible tattoo on her wrist, and inquired if she had any other tattoos, to which Plaintiff responded she had another tattoo on her spine. Plaintiff returned Defendant Martinez’s phone to him. Defendant Martinez then requested Plaintiff come into his office to look over paperwork – a typical procedure between Defendant Martinez and Plaintiff at the end of Plaintiff’s workday. While Plaintiff was in Defendant Martinez’s office, Defendant Martinez approached Plaintiff from behind and grabbed her. The Plaintiff froze in shock and fear, unable to move. Defendant Martinez then lifted Plaintiff’s shirt, examined the tattoo on Plaintiff’s spine, and then ran his fingers down her spine. Defendant Martinez began kissing Plaintiff’s neck. Defendant Martinez then put his hand underneath Plaintiff’s sweater and bra and grabbed Plaintiff’s breast. Defendant Martinez then grabbed Plaintiff’s hips and spun Plaintiff around where she was facing Defendant Martinez’s desk. Defendant Martinez then pushed Plaintiff’s upper body down so that she was bent over the desk. Defendant Martinez then lifted Plaintiff’s skirt and removed her underwear. Defendant Martinez then removed his own pants, and without Plaintiff’s consent, had sexual intercourse with Plaintiff. After the incident ended, Plaintiff stood up and left Defendant Magna’s premises. Page 2 of 5 Between January 7, 2021, and January 13, 2021, Plaintiff attempted to return to work at Defendant Magna, but ultimately quit her job on January 14, 2021. As a result of Defendant Martinez’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered injuries damages, including, but not limited to, severe emotional distress, declining mental health, mental pain and suffering, suicidal ideation, PTSD, physical impairment, past and future lost wages, and past and future therapy and medical costs. (b) Defendants: Defendant Martinez denies the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint of sexual misconduct and other claims. Plaintiff's allegations are inconsistent with the circumstances, including failing to indicate that Plaintiff and Defendant Martinez did some off-premises training when Plaintiff agreed to receive dental work as part of the training making the claims implausible. By extension, Defendant Magna Family Dental Studio rejects it is vicariously liable for something that did not occur. Plaintiff continued working beyond the dates alleged in the Complaint, receiving pay as late as January 18, 2021. Plaintiff's allegations that sexual intercourse occurred are not valid and based on contemporary text messages received from her purported fiancé, the dates therein are inconsistent in the claims. 5. Pending Motions: None. 6. Evaluation of Proportionality Factors: The parties agree the discovery plan set forth in this order is proportional to (a) the needs of the case, (b) the importance of the issues at stake, (c) the amount in controversy; (d) the parties’ access to relevant information; (e) the parties’ resources; (f) and the importance of such discovery in resolving the issues. The parties agree that the burden or expense of the discovery proposed in this order does not outweigh the likely benefit of such discovery. 7. Initial Exploration of Prompt Settlement and Prospects of Settlement: The parties intend to explore a prompt settlement as soon as sufficient information has been exchanged to allow the parties to make a meaningful settlement evaluation. Alternative dispute resolution is to be completed before: April 11, 2024. Page 3 of 5 8. Proposed Deadlines for Amendments: (a) Amending or supplementing of pleadings: (Not more than 105 days (15 weeks) from at issue date.) July 3, 2023. (b) Joinder of additional parties: (Not more than 105 days (15) weeks from at issue date.) July 3, 2023. (c) Identifying non-parties at fault: (90 days after commencement of the action) June 19, 2023. 9. Disclosures: The Parties’ initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were due on April 17, 2023. Plaintiff served her Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on April 17, 2023. Defendants served their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on June 30, 2023. 10. Computation and Discovery Relating to Damages: Plaintiff has disclosed the known damages incurred to date. Plaintiff’s therapy bills total over $1,200 and she continues to receive care. Plaintiff is also claiming past wage losses. The calculation of her wage losses is subject to expert opinion; however, her lay witness calculation of her past wage losses total $43,880.00. Plaintiff has non-economic damages and physical impairment damages, which consists of ongoing mental suffering, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, trust betrayal, and emotional distress. As such, Plaintiff’s damages continue to increase, and Plaintiff will supplement her damages computation as required by C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(C). 11. Discovery Limits and Schedule: Discovery shall be limited to that allowed by Rule 26(b)(2). The parties may need additional fact discovery depositions beyond the presumptive limits due to the number of witnesses who were present before and after the altercation; however, Parties are not requesting any modification to the amounts of discovery permitted in Rule 26(a)(2), including limitations of awardable costs at this time. 12. Subjects for Expert Testimony: Plaintiff anticipates offering expert testimony from certain of her treating healthcare providers and a retained expert on liability, causation, and damages. The Defendant anticipates offering expert testimony from: 13. Proposed Deadlines for Expert Disclosures: Neither party desires proposed deadlines for expert disclosures other than those in Rule 26(a)(2)(C). a. production of expert reports: i. Plaintiff/claimant (126 days b/f trial): February 5, 2024. ii. Defendant/opposing party (98 days b/f trial): March 4, 2024. Page 4 of 5 b. production of rebuttal expert reports (77 days b/f trial): March 25, 2024. c. production of expert witness files: 14 days after production of expert reports. State the reasons for any different dates from those in C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(C): None. 14. Oral Discovery Motions: The court does require discovery motions to be presented orally, without written motions or briefs. After conferral, if the parties are unable to agree, they are to contact the Division Clerk at 23DOUG-Div5@judicial.state.co.us to set a discovery dispute hearing. If time permits prior to the discovery dispute hearing, the parties are to file a short (one page or less) joint statement of the issues to be discussed. 15. Electronically Stored Information: The parties do not anticipate needing to discover a significant amount of electronically stored information. 16. Parties’ best estimate as to when discovery can be completed: 45 days before trial. Parties’ best estimate of the length of the trial: 3 days Trial will commence on June 10, 2024, at 8:30am. The trial readiness hearing will be held on May 03, 2024, at 10:30am. 17. Other appropriate matters for consideration: None at this time. Respectfully submitted this 29th day of November 2023. WAHLBERG, WOODRUFF, NIMMO CHARLES J. VANSTROM, P.C. & SLOANE, LLP /s/ Michael Nimmo /s/ Charles J. Vanstrom Michael Nimmo, #36947 Charles J. Vanstrom, #20479 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants DATED: _____________ BY THE COURT: _________________________________________ District Judge Page 5 of 5