Ford v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02472-PAB-TPO
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
And
LA’TONYA FORD,
Intervenor Plaintiff,
v.
JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, and
JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on ten motions recently filed by pro se
intervenor plaintiff La’Tonya Ford. These motions are the Emergency Motion for
Immediate Injunctive Relief and Sanctions for Ongoing Retaliation and Obstruction of
Justice [Docket No. 361], the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Protective
Order [Docket No. 369], the Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motions and Request
for Urgent Relief [Docket No. 371], the Corrected Revision Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Protective Order [Docket No. 381], the Corrected Revision
Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motions and Request for Urgent Relief [Docket No.
385], and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 388], Plaintiff’s Motion
Case No. 1:16-cv-02472-PAB-TPO Document 408 filed 02/06/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 7

2
for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 389], the Emergency Motion for Immediate
Injunctive Relief and Sanctions for Ongoing Retaliation and Obstruction of Justice
[Docket No. 392], the Corrected Revision Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motions
and Request for Urgent Relief [Docket No. 394], and the Corrected Revision Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Protective Order [Docket No. 399]. 1 Ms. Ford filed
these ten motions, as well as seven similar motions that have been referred to the
assigned magistrate judge, in the last several weeks, the first one having been filed on
January 3, 2025, see Docket No. 343, and the last on February 3, 2025. See Docket
No. 399.
Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Untimely and
Noncompliant Motions for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 402]. Ms. Ford filed two
responses, which appear to be nearly identical, to defendants’ motion. Docket Nos.
404, 405.
I. BACKGROUND
The allegations in Ms. Ford’s underlying employment-discrimination complaint
against her former employer are discussed in detail in Ford v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins.
Co., 45 F.4th 1202, 1209-13 (10th Cir. 2022). The motions presently before the Court
do not involve those claims, but instead involve Ms. Ford’s allegations that various
parties, including Ms. Ford’s neighbors, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
numerous other government and private entities are engaged in a coordinated
1 Ms. Ford does not explain what the “corrected revision” language in the titles of
Docket Nos. 381, 385, 394, and 399 means. It appears to the Court that Docket Nos.
381 and 399 are identical and may be an expansion of Docket No. 369. Docket Nos.
385 and 394 also appear to be identical, though it is not clear whether they relate to
another motion.
Case No. 1:16-cv-02472-PAB-TPO Document 408 filed 02/06/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 7

3
campaign of harassment against Ms. Ford. See, e.g., Docket No. 361 at 2-3. The
events underlying Ms. Ford’s allegations appear to fall into at least three broad
categories. 2
The first category of events involves Ms. Ford’s interactions with her neighbors.
Ms. Ford alleges that her neighbors are “gangstalking” her. Id. at 4. As evidence of
this, she provides several photos of people walking on her street, id. at 9, as well as
links to YouTube videos of her neighbors engaged in activities such as walking a dog,
washing a car, or having their gutters cleaned. Id. at 12, 18. Ms. Ford also believes
that her neighbors are using “Directed Energy Weapons and the release of microscopic
pests through the vents to torment Plaintiff.” Id. at 4.
The second category of events involves Ms. Ford’s observations of vehicles and
associated vehicle noises. Ms. Ford complains of “the deliberate gunning of engines
outside Plaintiff’s residence all day long.” Id. at 10. She also complains of tractor-trailer
trucks and public-safety vehicles making noise near her home using their airbrakes, id.
at 20. Ms. Ford believes that helicopters and other aircraft are flying over her in order to
conduct aerial surveillance of her. Id. at 8, 12.
The third category of events involves Ms. Ford’s experiences with common-place
inconveniences and frustrations. An Amazon delivery truck once blocked her driveway.
2 The Court primarily references the allegations made in Docket No. 361, but
each of the seventeen motions that Ms. Ford has submitted to the Court since January
3, 2025 alleges substantially the same conduct. See Docket Nos. 343, 345, 348, 361,
369, 370, 371, 381, 384, 385, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 399. An eighteenth motion,
Docket No. 347, is not included in this count because the assigned magistrate judge
denied Docket No. 347 as moot after finding that it was essentially the same as Docket
No. 348.
Case No. 1:16-cv-02472-PAB-TPO Document 408 filed 02/06/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 7

4
Id. at 3. 3 The power went out when she was shopping at an Aldi grocery store. Id. at 4.
The property tax assessment of Ms. Ford’s residence is higher than she believes it
should be. Id. at 25-27.
Ms. Ford perceives a recurring theme in all of these events – that defendants and
their attorneys are orchestrating a massive effort to harass her. Id. at 1, 4, 24. She
believes that defendants have employed the individuals and entities discussed above –
the neighbors, the local fire and police department, the grocery store, the delivery
trucks, the FBI – to further this campaign of harassment. See generally Docket No.
361. Ms. Ford attempts to identify connections between the various parties to prove her
point. For example, Ms. Ford alleges that the lights went out in the Aldi grocery store
because the defendants’ former law firm in this case, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, represents
Aldi in other legal matters and therefore must have directed Aldi to turn off the lights in
order to intimidate Ms. Ford. Id. at 4. Ms. Ford also seems to believe the surname
“Harris” may connect some of these entities and the campaign of harassment against
her. Docket No. 369 at 2-4; Docket No. 381 at 7. Ms. Ford alleges that at least some of
these incidents of harassment and surveillance occurred while she was working on the
present case and that these incidents were meant to deter her from pursuing her case.
Docket No. 361 at 16.
II. ANALYSIS
Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders provide “intermediate
relief of the same character as that which may be finally granted.” Adams v. Ade, 2019
3 Delivery vehicles appear to be a recurring concern for Ms. Ford, as she also
alleges that the United States Postal Service and delivery companies UPS and FedEx
are involved in the harassment campaign. Id. at 21.
Case No. 1:16-cv-02472-PAB-TPO Document 408 filed 02/06/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 7

5
WL 3456814, at *2 (E.D. Okla. July 31, 2019) (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United
States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)); see also Harvey v. Martinez, No. 22-cv-00369-NYW-
TPO, 2024 WL 5086080, at *8 (D. Colo. Dec. 12, 2024). Thus, a party seeking such
equitable relief must show “a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's
motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Harvey, 2024 WL 5086080, at *8
(quoting Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010)). The Court will not grant
intermediate relief that exceeds or does not relate to the underlying claims in the
plaintiff’s complaint. Id.
Ms. Ford’s underlying claims in this case relate to workplace harassment that
occurred when Ms. Ford worked at Jackson National Life Insurance Company until
October 2010. Ford, 45 F.4th at 1209-13. The motions before the Court have nothing
to do with these allegations. Rather, they involve claims that defendants are
“harassing” her for reasons that she does not explain. Moreover, the allegations do not
identify any colorable link to the defendants or to the underlying case. Since the
allegations in Ms. Ford’s motions do not bear any relationship to the conduct asserted in
the complaint and do not show any plausible connection to the defendants, the Court
will deny each of the motions. See Harvey, 2024 WL 5086080, at *8.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Emergency Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief and
Sanctions for Ongoing Retaliation and Obstruction of Justice [Docket No. 361] is
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Protective
Order [Docket No. 369] is DENIED. It is further
Case No. 1:16-cv-02472-PAB-TPO Document 408 filed 02/06/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 7

6
ORDERED that the Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motions and Request for
Urgent Relief [Docket No. 371] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Corrected Revision Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Protective Order [Docket No. 381] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Corrected Revision Motion to Expedite Consideration of
Motions and Request for Urgent Relief [Docket No. 385] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 388] is
DENIED. 4
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 389] is
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Emergency Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief and
Sanctions for Ongoing Retaliation and Obstruction of Justice [Docket No. 392] is
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Corrected Revision Motion to Expedite Consideration of
Motions and Request for Urgent Relief [Docket No. 394] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Corrected Revision Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Protective Order [Docket No. 399] is DENIED. It is further
4 The Court finds that Docket Nos. 388 and 389, while nominally styled as
motions for summary judgment, are essentially the same as all of Ms. Ford’s other
recent motions. Even if the Court were to treat Docket Nos. 388 and 389 as motions for
summary judgment, the deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case was April 29,
2020. Docket No. 197. Therefore, these motions are denied as untimely.
Case No. 1:16-cv-02472-PAB-TPO Document 408 filed 02/06/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 7

7
ORDERED that is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Untimely and
Noncompliant Motions for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 402] is DENIED as moot.
DATED February 6, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
__________________	__ ________
Case No. 1:16-cv-02472-PAB-TPO Document 408 filed 02/06/25 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 7