Trinidad Lizarraga Del Castillo et al v. Estate of Don Fehd et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02199-SKC-TPO
MARIA TRINIDAD LIZARRAGO DEL CASTILLO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ESTATE OF DON FEHD, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DKTS. 49, 74 & 83) AND
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (DKT. 63)
This matter arises from a tragic automobile accident. Diana Karina Robles
Lizarraga and Ofelia Perez were on a Jeep tour near Ouray, Colorado, being driven
by Don Fehd when the Jeep left the roadway and rolled multiple times until coming
to rest at the bottom of a canyon. No one in the Jeep survived. Ms. Robles’ parents,
Plaintiffs Maria Trinidad Lizarraga Del Castillo and Martin Roman Robles, and Ms.
Perez’s spouse, Plaintiff Juan Perez (together, “Plaintiffs”), sued the Jeep tour
company, 	Colorado 	West 	Jeep 	Rentals, 	Inc., 	its 	four 	alleged 	owners 	(“Owner
Defendants”), and the estate of the Jeep driver.
Judy Lindberg, one of the Owner Defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss (Judy
MTD) 	(Dkt. 49). 	Plaintiffs 	filed a 	Response 	(Dkt. 52), 	and Judy 	filed a 	Reply
Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-SKC-TPO Document 88 filed 04/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

2
(Dkt. 60).1 Kathy Lindberg, another of the Owner Defendants, also filed a Motion to
Dismiss 	(Kathy 	MTD) 	(Dkt. 74). 	And 	Gary 	Lindberg, 	another 	of 	the 	Owner
Defendants, also filed a Motion to Dismiss (Gary MTD) (Dkt. 83). The fourth Owner
Defendant, Jeff Lindberg, has apparently not yet been served.
In addition to the three Motions to Dismiss, Defendants Colorado West Jeep
Rentals, Inc., the Estate of Don Fehd, and Judy filed a Motion to Change Venue
(Dkt. 63) seeking to change where in Colorado the anticipated trial will be held—from
Denver to either Durango or Grand Junction.
The Court has reviewed the briefing, the docket, and the relevant law
pertaining to these motions. No hearing is necessary. The Court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
A. Judy MTD
1. 	Legal Principles of Rule 12(b)(6)
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a
motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must “accept as true all well-pleaded factual
allegations . . . and view these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1124-25 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal citations
omitted). But the Court is not “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as
1 Because multiple Defendants have the surname Lindberg, the Court sometimes
refers to them by their first names for brevity and clarity.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-SKC-TPO Document 88 filed 04/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

3
a factual allegation.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To
survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678
(cleaned up).
The Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard first requires the court to identify
which allegations “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” because, for example,
they state legal conclusions or merely recite the elements of a claim. Id. In this
analysis, courts “disregard conclusory statements and look only to whether the
remaining, factual allegations plausibly suggest the defendant is liable.” Khalik v.
United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2012).
2. 	Analysis
The Judy MTD argues the Court should dismiss her from this matter because
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to warrant piercing
the corporate veil of Colorado West Jeep Rentals to reach Judy. See generally Dkt. 49.
Plaintiffs say they are not seeking to hold Judy liable based on veil-piercing, but
instead, they seek to hold her personally liable for her own individual acts. Dkt. 52.
Judy argues in reply that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient and specific acts
committed by her to plausibly allege her personal liability. See generally Dkt. 60. The
Court agrees with Judy.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-SKC-TPO Document 88 filed 04/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

4
The problem for Plaintiffs on their claims for relief against Judy is they group
pleaded their allegations. See Carrado v. Daimler AG, No. 17-cv-3080-WJM-SKC,
2018 WL 4565562, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 24, 2018) (group pleading violates Rule 8).
Nowhere does the Complaint allege facts regarding Judy’s specific acts or omissions
that resulted in these deaths, which causes the allegations involving her to be merely
conclusory. Without more by way of factual allegations involving Judy specifically,
the Complaint fails to allege plausible claims against her. The Judy MTD is granted
on this basis, without prejudice.
B. Kathy and Gary MTDs
While Kathy and Gary each also filed motions to dismiss (Dkts. 74, 83), the
Court orders these motions stricken for failing to comply, inter alia, with SKC Civ.
Practice Standard § 10.1(c)(1) (page limit of a Rule 12(b) motion is 15 pages).
C. Venue Motion
Certain Defendants filed the Venue Motion asking the Court to change venue
from Denver to Durango or Grand Junction for purposes of the trial. Dkt. 63. The
motion is denied. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado is a
single judicial district. Its Local Rules of Practice do not contain rules allowing for a
“change of venue” within the district. If the trial were to be held in Grand Junction
or Durango, this matter would not be transferred to the district judge stationed in
that area. Rather, the undersigned would remain the presiding judge and he and his
staff would travel to conduct and preside over the trial in a different locale.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-SKC-TPO Document 88 filed 04/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

5
As a result, the request to hold the trial elsewhere is premature. Defendants
may raise the issue at the Final Pretrial Conference should they still desire the trial
to be held in Grand Junction or Durango.
* 	* 	*
For the reasons shared above, the Court ORDERS the following:
1. 	the Judy MTD (Dkt. 49) is GRANTED and the claims against Judy are
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
2. 	the Kathy MTD (Dkt. 74) is STRICKEN;
3. 	the Gary MTD (Dkt. 83) is STRICKEN;2 and
4. 	the Venue Motion (Dkt. 63) is DENIED, WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED: April 25, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
S. Kato Crews
United States District Judge
2 Should any motions to dismiss be re-filed, for efficiencies sake, those defendants
should consider filing 	a 	single motion rather than 	separate motions 	for each
defendant. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The parties are further reminded to familiarize
themselves with, inter alia, the Local Rules of Practice, SKC Civil Practice Standards,
and SKC Standing Order for Civil Trials so they can avoid, e.g., using an incorrect
font. See, e.g., Dkts. 49 & 52.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-SKC-TPO Document 88 filed 04/25/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5