Valued Inc. v. Sitler et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00926-SKC-SBP
VALUED INC., a Colorado Corporation d/b/a Floyd’s of Leadville
f/k/a Floyd’s of Leadville, Inc.
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY JACOB SITLER a/k/a Jake Sitler, an individual;
HEATHER MACKEY, an individual; and
JW INNOVATION CO., a Pennsylvania limited liability company,
Defendants.
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS SITLER’S AND JW INNOVATION’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 51)
The above-referenced Motion is now before the Court. Defendants Sitler and
JW Innovation (JWI) (together, Defendants) seek summary judgment on Plaintiff’s
following claims: (1) civil conspiracy; (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty;
(3) intentional interference with contractual and prospective economic relations; (4)
portions of the conversion claim; and (5) portions of the claim for trespass to chattel.1
Summary judgment is warranted when the movant shows there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
1 Plaintiff asserts the conversion claim against Sitler only and the claim for aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against JWI only.
Case No. 1:23-cv-00926-SKC-SBP Document 59 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 7

2
law. Turnkey Sols. Corp. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., No. 15-cv-01541-CMA-CBS,
2017 WL 3425140, at *2 (D. Colo. Aug. 9, 2017). Conclusory statements based merely
on conjecture, speculation, or subjective belief do not constitute competent summary
judgment evidence. Id. When reviewing motions for summary judgment, a court must
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
Because the Motion fails to sufficiently demonstrate a lack of disputed issues
of material fact warranting summary judgment on any of the claims raised in the
Motion, the Motion is DENIED.
ANALYSIS
Because the Court finds material factual disputes it does not recite the facts at
length here. But to give some context, Plaintiff sold CBD-related products at store
locations and online. It previously employed Sitler and Defendant Mackey. Sitler
eventually formed JWI, a similar or competing CBD business. Plaintiff brings this
action raising various claims arising from allegations that Defendants stole Plaintiff’s
confidential information or products and used that information to take Plaintiff’s
customers and further JWI’s business. See generally Dkt. 1.
1. 	Civil Conspiracy Claim
Defendants do not accurately argue the law of civil conspiracy because they
ignore both that conspiracy includes a lawful object accomplished by unlawful means
and that a corporation and its employee can constitute the two or more persons
required for a civil conspiracy if the employee acted for his personal advantage. See
Case No. 1:23-cv-00926-SKC-SBP Document 59 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 7

3
Contract Maint. Co. v. Bldg. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 415 P.2d 855, 856 (Colo. 1966)
(action for conspiracy cannot be maintained “unless the purpose to be effected is
unlawful or a lawful purpose is accomplished by an unlawful means”) (emphasis
added); Pittman v Larson Distributing Co., 724 P.2d 1379, 1390 (Colo. App. 1986)
(corporation and its employees do not constitute the two or more persons required for
a civil conspiracy if the employees act on behalf of the corporation and not for their
individual advantage) (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim is based on
these theories, which the Motion fails to address. Dkt. 55, pp.4-7; see also Dkt. 1,
¶¶69, 71.
As a result, and based on the record evidence, disputed issues of material fact
remain the least of which include, for example: whether the lawful object of the
alleged civil conspiracy was accomplished by unlawful means and whether Sitler
acted for his own benefit or for the benefit of JWI.
2. 	Tortious Interference Claims
Again here, Defendants pay the law short shrift. They argue, in part, that
because two of Plaintiff’s customer-entities (Sheetz and Hugs) already had existing
business relationships with Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot establish tortious interference
with prospective business relations. But they argue this citing no authority for the
proposition, and the Court is unaware of any that supports the notion. To be sure, the
elements of a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations
include interference which induces a third party either not to enter or continue a
Case No. 1:23-cv-00926-SKC-SBP Document 59 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 7

4
contractual relationship. L-3 Commc’ns Corp. v. Jaxon Eng’g & Maint., Inc., 863 F.
Supp. 2d 1066, 1085-86 (D. Colo. 2012) (discussing the elements of the claim under
Colorado law and noting that “expectations of receiving future contracts are protected
against tortious interference”).
In addition, based on the record evidence, disputed issues of material fact
remain on both tortious interference claims. These include, for example: whether
Defendants improperly interfered with Plaintiff’s existing or prospective business
relations, and if so, did they have the requisite intent. There is also a material factual
dispute for the jury to hash out regarding when these claims accrued for purposes of
the applicable statute of limitations—that is, when did Plaintiff know of both the
claimed injury and its cause, or when should it have known by the exercise of
reasonable diligence. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(1) (limitations period accrues “on
the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the
exercise of reasonable diligence”).
3. 	Conversion and Trespass to Chatels Claims
These claims appear to center on Plaintiff’s allegations that Sitler took
Plaintiff’s CBD oil, van, and other property stored in the van, and converted the same
for his own use. Sitler avers in his declaration that he did nothing of the sort, at a
minimum, as concerns Plaintiff’s CBD oil. And Defendants argue JWI has no
connection to the trespass claim. Dkt. 51, pp.11-12. The parties present conflicting
accounts 	and 	evidence 	of 	these 	alleged 	conversion 	and 	trespass 	events 	with
Case No. 1:23-cv-00926-SKC-SBP Document 59 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 7

5
arguments the Court finds are underdeveloped. In any event, the conflicting accounts
present material factual issues for the jury’s resolution.
4. 	Aiding and Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim
Defendants’ entire argument in support of summary judgment on this claim is
a whole three sentences long with citation to no legal authority. Dkt. 51, p.12. And
the argument in their Reply brief concerning this claim is nonexistent. See generally
Dkt. 58. The argument, therefore, is woefully underdeveloped and Defendants have
failed to meet their burden under Rule 56 as a result. See, e.g., A Brighter Day, Inc.
v. Barnes, 860 F. App’x 569, 575 (10th Cir. 2021) (declining to address argument that
was underdeveloped and contained “mostly general legal statements and empty
platitudes”); Tillmon v. Douglas Cty., 817 F. App’x 586, 589-90 (10th Cir. 2020)
(declining to address argument where party’s analysis was “cursory at best”).
5. 	A Comment About the Sufficiency of the Parties’ Proofs
In their papers, the parties take each other to task over the sufficiency of their
respective evidence. Plaintiff accuses Sitler of making representations under oath
that are “demonstrably false.” Dkt. 55, p.17. Defendants’ Reply focuses largely on
arguments over “THE CONCLUSORY, HEARSAY FILLED DECLARATION OF
FLOYD LANDIS” (Dkt. 58, p.3) and arguments of counsel not being a substitute for
evidence (id. at p.6).
But the Court finds that both Plaintiff and Defendants’ respective proofs have
issues. Both sides have engaged in ad hominem attacks and include abundant
Case No. 1:23-cv-00926-SKC-SBP Document 59 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 7

6
arguments of counsel with citations to Declarations that teeter on self-serving or
often without citation to legal authority or anything in the record. Defendants failed
to follow this Court’s Civil Standing Order with the required three-column chart of
undisputed facts.2 Plaintiff included as an exhibit a voluminous 399-page deposition
transcript without highlights or bookmarks to relevant sections.3 So, both sides have
unclean hands when it comes to their respective approaches and proofs on summary
judgment.
The Court raises this issue now to tell the parties to tone down the rhetoric
because neither side has demonstrated A+ work. This case may be hotly contested,
but the parties and their counsel are expected to remain professional and courteous
in the contest. And the Court expects better focus and organization of the parties’
papers and arguments going forward as this case now moves to trial.
* 	* 	*
For the reasons shared above, the Court respectfully DENIES the Motion.
A Final Pretrial Conference is set for February 19, 2026, at 10:00 A.M. in
Courtroom A601 before District Judge S. Kato Crews. No later than February 12,
2026, the Parties shall file the proposed final pretrial order. An editable WORD
2 Plaintiff graciously did Defendants’ work for them and provided the chart inserting
Defendants’ undisputed material facts as best could be gleaned from the Motion with
nary a word about their omission from Defendants in their Reply.
3 Indeed, the more sound and useful approach is to attach only the relevant sections
together with cited references highlighted.
Case No. 1:23-cv-00926-SKC-SBP Document 59 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 7

7
version 	of 	the 	proposed 	final 	pretrial 	order 	should 	also 	be 	emailed 	to
crews_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov.
It is ORDERED that the Parties refer to and follow this Court’s Standing Order
for Civil Cases when preparing the proposed final pretrial order. The Parties should
be prepared to set a trial date within one to two months out from the conference. Lead
counsel who will try the case must be in attendance.
DATED: January 12, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
S. Kato Crews
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:23-cv-00926-SKC-SBP Document 59 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 7