Montrose - Daily Press

Katharhynn Heidelberg

Daily Press News Editor

DENVER — A federal lawsuit filed by John Ward and other parties that named multiple defendants, including the Daily Press and a Montrose Police officer, has been dismissed in its entirety, according to a court ruling filed Monday.

Advertisement

U.S. District Court Judge Phillip Figa ruled on Ward’s single federal claim, which contended the city of Montrose and the Montrose Police Department had violated his constitutional rights when they investigated him in 2003. All of Ward’s nonfederal claims could potentially be refiled in state court, as Figa did not rule on their merits.

“I am glad the federal judge dismissed the case in its entirety,” Montrose Daily Press Publisher and Wick Communications Group Manager Stephen Woody said Tuesday. “The case against the Daily Press and its staff was, as we’ve contended all along, without merit.”

Ward’s attorney did not return calls seeking comment; it was unknown whether Ward intended to appeal or file an action in state court.

Ward was charged in 2003 with 32 offenses, including allegations of child exploitation, after some students at his business, Park Avenue Dance Works, told investigators he’d photographed them topless — including in the hot tub and shower, according to Figa’s ruling.

According to the Associated Press’ previous reports about the lawsuit, Ward maintained he’d taken photos of the girls “in various attire” at their own request and edited them before sending them — again, at the girls’ suggestion — to a nephew. He pleaded no contest in 2004 to two felony counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and one misdemeanor count of harassment. All other charges were dismissed. Since serving a 26-day jail sentence (with work release), he has reportedly moved to Mexico. Ward also received 10 years’ probation.

Former Dance Works student Bennett Hodgins was charged after the parents of a 14-year-old girl alleged he had sex with her, according to Figa’s ruling. Hodgins denied the allegations. Charges filed in connection with that complaint were dismissed in 2004.

Ward, his wife, Valerie Jones and Hodgins filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2005. Park Avenue Dance Works was also listed as a plaintiff. Defendants included the girls, some of their family members, the city of Montrose, Montrose Police Sgt. Blaine Hall, the Daily Press and some of its staff members, along with the general manager’s wife. A claim against Ouray County Sheriff Dominic Mattivi, who’d arrested Hodgins, was dismissed in March, Figa’s ruling indicated.

The plaintiffs amended the complaint twice, seeking federal jurisdiction because of a constitutional claim against the city of Montrose and “diversity of citizenship.”

In addition to claims that the Montrose Police Department hadn’t properly trained Hall, who investigated Ward criminally, the couple claimed the Daily Press had published false information. They contended Woody, Daily Press General Manager Tim Frates and then-senior writer Scott Schwebke had conspired to put Park Avenue Dance Works out of business and help Frates’ wife, Catherine, open a rival dance studio.

Woody previously called those claims “preposterous.”

The Daily Press and other defendants asked Figa to dismiss the claims against them as meritless. Instead, because of his ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to resolve those claims, Figa denied those motions as “moot” and said “This (federal) case is dismissed in its entirety.”

“On behalf of the Montrose Daily Press, we asked the judge to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims because they were not legally viable as pleaded,” attorney Steven Zansberg said Tuesday. “The judge did not reach that argument, because he dismissed all of the state claims on jurisdictional grounds instead.”

He added: “That does not preclude the plaintiffs from refiling those claims in state court.”

He said the only claim dismissed on grounds of merit had been the one against the Montrose Police Department. This claim cannot be refiled in state court, according to Zansberg.

Ward and Jones had argued the city of Montrose’s alleged failure to properly train Hall resulted in “an improper investigation and Ward’s eventual arrest which was allegedly not supported by probable cause.” This type of claim rests on whether the violation of constitutional rights exists and reflects a custom or policy of the city.

Figa’s ruling said that although Ward had claimed his First, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights were violated, “the only constitutional violation he specifically describes that could support municipal liability is a Fourth Amendment violation by Officer Hall for issuing an affidavit for the search and seizure of Ward without probable cause.”

The court found the plaintiff’s pleading had not stated a valid claim that Hall had violated Ward’s Fourth Amendment rights.

“...such alleged violations by Officer Hall do not state a constitutional violation where Ward ultimately pled no contest to three criminal counts based upon what prompted this investigation. Under Colorado law, a ‘conviction’ includes pleas of no contest accepted by the court,” Figa wrote.

“...While Ward did not plead guilty to a sex crime, from all indications in the record, the information leading up to Officer Hall’s actions against Ward formed the basis of his delinquency contribution and harassment convictions. ...a Fourth Amendment violation is not stated.”

Figa further found that a police report with specific allegations of wrongdoing and the fact that Hall interviewed witnesses to be information that “can support the finding of probable cause that a crime was committed. Ward alleges only that Officer Hall lacked probable cause that a sexual assault had occurred, not that Hall lacked probable cause to support an arrest for any crime based on many of the same alleged facts...”

Ward’s allegations could not support a his Fourth Amendment claims, the ruling stated. As to allegations Hall was improperly trained, Figa found “no underlying constitutional violation” even if those allegations were to be accepted as true.

Neither Hall nor Montrose city attorneys could be reached for comment Tuesday, but Montrose Police Chief Tom Chinn said he was pleased with the ruling. “That’s good to hear,” he said.

Figa also dismissed on jurisdictional grounds the claims arising from state law. Ward and Jones had originally asked the court to exercise jurisdction based on “diversity of citizenship.”

When parties who reside in different states become party to a lawsuit involving at least $75,000, a federal court can have jurisdiction, Zansberg explained. “But for that to happen, all defendants and plaintiffs must reside in a different state. In this case, all defendants and some of the plaintiffs are residents of Colorado.”

A federal court can also have jurisdiction when state law claims are so related to federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy. Figa ruled this “common nucleus of operative fact” did not apply because only one of 15 defendants — the city of Montrose — was involved with the federal claim. Further, Figa found, the city wasn’t implicated in any other claim.

Figa dismissed Ward’s state law claims without prejudice.

“The judge found as we asked him to find: that state law claims aren’t sufficiently connected to the federal claim to come within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction,” Zansberg said.

The full text of Figa’s ruling can be viewed at www.montrosepress.com

Comments