PUC Lawsuit Response
PUC Lawsuit Response
Plaintiff:
v.
Defendants:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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].
(a)-(f) Defendants state the Letter of July 9, 2021, in its entirety speaks for itself.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
10. Plaintiff’s claims for damages are limited and/or subject to all applicable
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
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
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.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Andrew D. Ringel .
Andrew D. Ringel, #24762
of HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
s/ Nicole Marion
Legal Assistant
11