Zunker v. Jantz et al
| Sabrina Zunker |
| Jennifer Jantz and Nikolaus Zender |
| 1:2026cv00573 |
| February 12, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| S Kato Crews |
| Timothy P O'Hara |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 2, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 20
ORDER Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint #19 on March 30, 2026. Accordingly, Defendants' #16 Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's #15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction are DENIED as moot. Both parties shall be permitted to refile their respective motions based on the factual and legal assertions made in the Amended Complaint.SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 4/02/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (skclc4)
|
| Filing 19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND PROSPECTIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Jennifer Jantz, Nikolaus Zender, filed by Sabrina Zunker. (Attachments: #1 Notice)(jrobe, ) |
| Filing 18 RESPONSE to #15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION to Expedite filed by Defendants Jennifer Jantz, Nikolaus Zender. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, Recording Order, #2 Exhibit B, Order, #3 Exhibit C, Motion for Contempt Citation, #4 Exhibit D, Order, #5 Exhibit E, Stipulation, #6 Exhibit F, 2018 Colo. App. Opinion, #7 Exhibit G, 2024 Colo. App. Opinion, #8 Exhibit H, Order)(Towery, Lane) |
| Filing 17 MEMORANDUM regarding #16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Jennifer Jantz, Nikolaus Zender. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy P O'Hara. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 3/12/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (skcja, ) |
| Filing 16 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Jennifer Jantz, Nikolaus Zender. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, Recording Order, #2 Exhibit B, Order, #3 Exhibit C, Motion for Contempt Citation, #4 Exhibit D, Order, #5 Exhibit E, Stipulation, #6 Exhibit F, 2018 Colo. App. Opinion, #7 Exhibit G, 2024 Colo. App. Opinion, #8 Exhibit H, Order, #9 Exhibit I, Filing Order, #10 Exhibit J, Order, #11 Exhibit K, 2025 Colo. App. Opinion, #12 Exhibit L, Order Denying Petition for Certiorari, #13 Exhibit M, CAR 21 Petition, #14 Exhibit N, Order Denying CAR 21 Petition)(Towery, Lane) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Lane Towery on behalf of All Defendants Attorney Lane Towery added to party Jennifer Jantz(pty:dft), Attorney Lane Towery added to party Nikolaus Zender(pty:dft) (Towery, Lane) |
| Filing 15 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Expedited Consideration by Plaintiff Sabrina Zunker. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Cover Letter, #3 Proposed Order (PDF Only)) (ggill, ) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE ENCOURAGING CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION: This district's magistrate judges play a crucial role in the work and structure of the district court and the administration of justice. Under Local Rule 72.2, the parties have the option to consent to their case being presided over by a magistrate judge instead of a district judge. This court encourages parties to meaningfully confer and consider consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction. There are many benefits to consenting. One such benefit is having a single judicial officer preside over every aspect of your case rather than two. A second benefit is the certainty of not having your trial date vacated when set before a magistrate judge. District judges preside over felony criminal cases and those cases receive priority over civil cases because of a criminal defendant's speedy trial rights. Magistrate judges do not preside over felony criminal cases, and therefore, they do not have to vacate civil trials because of criminal cases. If the parties do not choose to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, they should keep in mind Local Rule 72.3. Under this rule, the parties may consent to the final determination of a dispositive motion (motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss) by the assigned magistrate judge by filing a notice of consent for that motion. Please refer to Local Rule 72.3 for more information on that option. Consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction is voluntary, and no adverse consequence will result if one or more parties decline to consent. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 2/25/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (skcja, ) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Timothy P O'Hara for all motions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, and (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other dispositive motions. Court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the request of the parties by motion, this Court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge, at their discretion, may convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. Counsel for the Parties and all counsel who may later enter an appearance shall review and familiarize themselves with the undersigned's Standing Order and Practice Standards, as well as the Practice Standards of the assigned Magistrate Judge. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 2/25/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. Text Only Entry (skcja, )
|
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the Election Concerning Consent/Non-Consent form [ECF #7 ] filed by the Parties expressing non-consent under D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(c)(8), the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case under D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(a) to a District Judge. This Court may continue on the case to hear matters referred by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 636(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1(c). (Case randomly reassigned to Judge S. Kato Crews and drawn to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara for all further proceedings. All future pleadings shall be designated to 26-cv-00573- SKC). By Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara on 2/23/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. (ggill, )
|
| Filing 10 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Summons Returned Executed by Sabrina Zunker as to Office of the Attorney General (amona,) |
| Filing 9 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Summons Returned Executed by Sabrina Zunker. Jennifer Jantz served on 2/18/2026, answer due 3/11/2026. (amona,) |
| Filing 8 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Summons Returned Executed by Sabrina Zunker. Nikolaus Zender served on 2/18/2026, answer due 3/11/2026. (amona,) |
| Filing 7 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Plaintiff Sabrina Zunker, party does not consent. (amona,) |
| Filing 6 Letter from Clerk of Court re: Service of Process of #1 Complaint. [Summons issued over the counter per ECF #3 ]. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Judge Consent Form, #2 Rule 4) (ggill, ) |
| Filing 5 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (ggill, ) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER DRAWING CASE. After review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(a), the court has determined that this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the case will be drawn to a presiding judge and, if applicable, to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(c). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a presiding judge and, if applicable, to a magistrate judge. (Case randomly reassigned to Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara for all further proceedings. All future pleadings shall be designated to 26-cv-00573-TPO). By Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 2/13/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. (ggill, )
|
| Filing 3 SUMMONS issued over the counter by Clerk. (eguth, ) |
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley for Initial Review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1 (a). Text Only Entry. (eguth, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory Relief against Jennifer Jantz, Nikolaus Zender Filing Fee: $405.00Receipt Number:117021, filed by Sabrina Zunker. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Cover Sheet)(eguth, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
