DATE FILED: August 9, 2022 10:54 AM

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF FILING ID: 3D06F3D2AC572

Plaintiff:

FIONA SIGALLA, ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

v.

Defendants:

ROBIN Z. MEIDHOF and PAUL KYED

Attorneys for Defendants:

Andrew D. Ringel, #24762 Case Number: 2022CV31883

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND JURY

Defendants Robin Z. Meidhof and Paul Kyed, by and through their counsel, Andrew D.

Ringel, Esq., of Hall & Evans, L.L.C. hereby respectfully submit this Answer to Plaintiff’s

Complaint and Jury Demand and Defendants’ Demand for Jury Trial, as follows:
 PARTIES

1. Defendants Robin Z. Meidhof (“Ms. Meidhof”) and Paul Kyed (“Mr. Kyed”)

(collectively “Defendants”) deny the allegation in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Jury

Demand (“Plaintiff’s Complaint”) because upon information and belief Plaintiff is a resident of

Hawaii, not Colorado.

2. Defendants admit Ms. Meidhof is a resident of the State of Colorado. Defendants

admit Mr. Kyed is a resident of the State of Colorado. Defendants admit Ms. Meidhof is employed

as a Deputy Attorney General in the Revenue and Utilities Section of the Office of the Colorado

Attorney General. Defendants admit Mr. Kyed is employed as a First Assistant Attorney General

for the Public Utilities Commission Litigation Unit in the Revenue and Utilities Section of the

Office of the Colorado Attorney General.

JURISDICTION

3. Defendants deny this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter based

on the provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”), C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101 et

seq. Defendants reserve all their rights under the CGIA. Defendants admit the offices of the

Plaintiff and the Defendants are in the City and County of Denver. Defendants state the

interactions at issue occurred remotely with the Plaintiff and the Defendants working from

different remote locations.

4. Defendants admit they have taken actions in the State of Colorado. Defendants

state the interactions at issue occurred remotely with the Plaintiff and the Defendants working from

different remote locations.

2
 5. Defendants admit this Court possesses personal jurisdiction over the Defendants

for this matter. Defendants deny Plaintiff is a resident of Colorado because upon information and

belief Plaintiff is a resident of Hawaii. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 5

of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

VENUE

6. Defendants admit Plaintiff attempts tort claims against Defendants. Defendants

deny Plaintiff states any cognizable claim against the Defendants. Defendants deny this Court

possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims under the CGIA. Defendants

reserve all their rights under the CGIA. Defendants deny they defamed the Plaintiff or

intentionally interfered with any contract or prospective business advantage of the Plaintiff. All

of the Defendants’ actions taken with respect to the Plaintiff were reasonable and appropriate and

were for the purpose of ensuring Defendants and their colleagues at the Office of the Attorney

General could work in a safe and professional environment while providing legal services to Trial

Staff of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”). Defendants admit the offices of the

Plaintiff and the Defendants are in the City and County of Denver. Defendants state the

interactions at issue occurred remotely with the Plaintiff and the Defendants working from

different remote locations.

7. Defendants admit venue is appropriate in this Court.

3
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Defendants admit on July 9, 2021, Ms. Meidhof sent via e-mail a letter to Gene

Camp, Deputy Director, and Erin O’Neill, Chief Economist, Plaintiff’s supervisors with the PUC

(“Letter of July 9, 2021”). The e-mail was also sent to Doug Dean, Executive Director of the PUC,

Patty Salazar, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Eric

Meyer, Chief Operating Officer of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, and Natalie Hanlon

Leh, Chief Deputy Attorney General. The letter detailed the history of the Office of the Attorney

General raising concerns about the unacceptable conduct and unprofessional behavior of Plaintiff

with employees of the Office of the Attorney General over the course of many years. As Ms.

Meidhof stated, “over the past three months, I have had discussions with [Mr. Kyed,] the First

Assistant Attorney General of the PUC Litigation Unit, members of his team, and prior Deputy

Attorneys General responsible for the Revenue & Utilities Section, and I have reviewed various

documentation and correspondence involving [the Plaintiff]. I am deeply concerned by what I

have learned.” [See Exhibit A, at 1 (alterations added)]. A true and correct copy of the Letter of

July 9, 2021 is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Defendants deny the remaining

allegations in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

9. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendants state the letter summarized Plaintiff’s unacceptable conduct and unprofessional

behavior as follows:

[Plaintiff]’s unprofessional behavior includes, but is not limited to: written and
verbal communications that publicly ridicule or berate our attorneys; actions before
or during litigated proceedings that have undermined our legal guidance or work
product; and actions that otherwise have interfered with our office’s ability to
provide effective legal services to the Trial Staff of the PUC (and, ultimately, to the
People of the State of Colorado). I also understand [Plaintiff]’s overly aggressive

4
 and unprofessional approach to the litigation process requires PUC Litigation team
attorneys to expend a disproportionate and unnecessary amount of time on her
portions of proceedings (e.g., spending entire meetings insisting on relatively minor
edits to pleadings and insisting on unreasonable positions in settlement discussions
that distract both time and energy from attention to other witnesses and other
proceedings). As a result of the behavior, communications, and actions taken by
[Plaintiff], AAGs have been reduced to tears, senior AAGs have refused (or
seriously considered refusing) to work on matters in which [Plaintiff] is a witness,
and other AAGs have determined the only viable option for a productive and
positive work environment was to seek employment outside the AG’s office. PUC
Litigation team members are currently experiencing physical manifestations of
anxiety and stress with every written communication and interaction with
[Plaintiff].

[See Exhibit A, at 2 (alternations added)].

(a)-(f) Defendants state the Letter of July 9, 2021, in its entirety speaks for itself.

Defendants deny any statement in the Letter of July 9, 2021, is defamatory.

10. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

11. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint because,

as stated in the Letter of July 9, 2021, “Our goal is twofold; to provide a safe and respectful working

environment for our PUC Litigation team and to provide excellent client service to PUC Trial

Staff.” [See Exhibit A, at 3].

12. Defendants admit counsel for the Plaintiff on November 8, 2021, sent a Notice of

Claim to Phil Weiser, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado. Defendants understand no

response to the Notice of Claim was provided to the Plaintiff by the Office of the Attorney General.

Defendants affirmatively state nothing in the CGIA requires a public entity to respond to a Notice

of Claim.

5
 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Defamation)

13. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all of their responses to the allegations

in paragraphs 1-12 above, including the responses to all subparagraphs of paragraph 9, as their

response to the allegations in paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as if set forth in full herein.

14. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

15. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

16. Defendants admit the Notice of Claim requests a retraction of statements contained

in the Letter of July 9, 2021. Defendants deny any statement in the letter is defamatory and deny

any retraction is necessary.

17. Defendants admit that the Letter of July 9, 2021 states, among other things,

“[Plaintiff] has demonstrated and continues to engage in unacceptable bullying and unprofessional

behavior that has created a toxic workplace for the PUC Litigation team within the Colorado

Attorney General’s Office.” [See Exhibit A, at 1 (alteration added)]. Defendants deny the

remaining allegations in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

18. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

19. Defendants do not believe the allegations in paragraph 19 are applicable to this

matter and instead believe they are taken from another complaint filed in a different matter.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint including the allegations

in subparagraphs (a) and (b).

6
 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Interference With Contract/Prospective Economic Advantage)

20. Defendants incorporate herein by reference all of their responses to the allegations

in paragraphs 1-19 above, including the responses to all subparagraphs of paragraph 9, as their

response to the allegations in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as if set forth in full herein.

21. Defendants admit Plaintiff was and is employed by the State of Colorado to work

at the PUC. Defendants deny Plaintiff has any enforceable contractual interest in her employment

necessary to form the legal predicate for an interference with contract claim.

22. Defendants admit Plaintiff was and is employed by the PUC. Defendants are

without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny awareness Plaintiff had a valid

agreement to act as an employee of the PUC under applicable Colorado law. Defendants deny

Plaintiff has any enforceable contractual interest in her employment sufficient to form the legal

predicate for an interference with contract claim.

23. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

24. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

25. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

26. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Defendants deny Plaintiff is entitled to any damages or other relief alleged or sought in

Plaintiff’s Complaint.

7
 GENERAL DENIAL

Defendants deny each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint not specifically

admitted in this Answer.

DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against

Defendants.

2. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims based on the

provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”), C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101 et seq.

Specifically, Defendants affirmatively state their actions related to the Plaintiff either as alleged in

the Plaintiff’s Complaint or in actual reality were not willful and wanton within the meaning of

the CGIA as a matter of law. Defendants reserve all rights under the CGIA and applicable law

and intend on raising this issue with this Court by appropriate motion after conducting necessary

discovery in this matter.

3. Defendants’ actions respecting Plaintiff were taken for legitimate reasons and not

in violation of any provision of Colorado law or any alleged contract between Plaintiff and the

PUC.

4. Defendants acted in accordance with all contractual, common law, and statutory

obligations and without any intent to cause Plaintiff any harm.

5. At all times, Defendants acted in good faith and had reasonable and appropriate

grounds for believing they were not in violation of any aspect of Colorado law.

6. No statement made by either Defendant regarding Plaintiff contained in the Letter

of July 9, 2021, or otherwise constitutes defamation as a matter of law. Any statement made by

8
the Defendants regarding the Plaintiff was true, substantially true, was a statement of opinion, or

was privileged.

7. At all times, Defendants’ actions were lawful, justified, and made in good faith.

8. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s residency in Hawaii and not Colorado

violates Colo. Const. Art. XII, § 13(6)(a), making any employment agreement between Plaintiff

and the PUC unenforceable as a matter of law.

9. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages, if any, as required by law.

10. Plaintiff’s claims for damages are limited and/or subject to all applicable

limitations, offsets, or other similar provisions of applicable Colorado law.

11. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were not caused by any act or omission of or by

Defendants.

12. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in the Plaintiff’s Complaint under any of

the theories asserted.

13. Defendants specifically reserve the right to amend their Answer to include

additional defenses and affirmative defenses and/or delete defenses and affirmative defenses which

have become applicable or non-applicable upon additional investigation and discovery.

WHEREFORE, having answered the Plaintiff’s Complaint and Jury Demand in full,

Defendants Robin Z. Meidhof and Paul Kyed move the Court for entry of an Order dismissing all

elements of all claims against them in complete and total fashion, with prejudice, awarding their

costs and attorney’s fees against the Plaintiff pursuant to applicable Colorado law, and ordering

such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

9
 JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 38, Defendants hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so

triable.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Andrew D. Ringel .
Andrew D. Ringel, #24762
of HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

10
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S

Samuel M. Ventola, Esq.

s/ Nicole Marion
Legal Assistant

11