Case No. 16CV30362
Case summary: The Plaintiff, a developer by the name of Loveland Eisenhower Investments, LLC (LEI) sued the City and the Greeley & Loveland Irrigation Company (GLIC) on April 11, 2016. The developer owns approximately 58 acres of land, at the northeast corner of Eisenhower Boulevard and Denver Avenue. The city approved the annexation and development of this Mixed Use Activity Center zoning project in an agreement executed in April of 2010. The City filed two applications in water court for a change to municipal use of some water rights, known as Chubbuck Contract Inches. After several years of litigation, the City and the GLIC entered into a stipulation in two water court cases that included a requirement the City will no longer accept or use new water from the Chubbuck Ditch. The stipulation was finalized January 25, 2010. The Plaintiff alleges that the stipulation is a breach of contract, seeks declaratory relief that the stipulation was an unlawful delegation of the City's legislative authority, and that the City breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the Annexation and Development Agreement. The parties have completed discovery and participated in a full day of mediation. The parties were not able to resolve the matter and have filed motions for summary judgment. The Court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment. The City sought interlocutory appellate review, and the Court of Appeals denied the petition. The City has an automatic right to appeal the district court’s ruling on governmental immunity and has appealed that issue. The record for the appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals March 26, 2018. The parties briefed the issue of governmental immunity and the Court of Appeals dismissed two claims against the City. The Court found that both claims could have been brought as tort claims making them barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. The case returned to the trial court for further proceedings. After reviewing the file and motions filed by the City, the trial court dismissed the remaining two claims against the City. The Court found that the Water Court has exclusive jurisdiction over water matters. All claims against the City have now been dismissed.
Last updated: December 30, 2019