Mullally v. Hardman et al
Plaintiff: Christopher Andrew Mullally
Defendant: John R. Hardman, Ashlee E. Dunham and Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C.
Case Number: 1:2026cv01071
Filed: March 16, 2026
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Presiding Judge: S Kato Crews
Referring Judge: Scott T Varholak
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(3)(c) - Fair Housing Amendments Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 3, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 44 MINUTE ORDER Upon review of Plaintiff's #43 Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, the Court finds that the response is sufficient. Accordingly, the #41 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to promptly notify the Court of any change in address going forward. The Court sets a Status Conference for 9/16/2026 at 10:15 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 8/3/2026. 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 (stvlc6, )
August 3, 2026 Filing 43 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE [ECF NO. #41 ] by Plaintiff Christopher Andrew Mullally. (Attachments: #1 Continuation of Main Document, #2 Proposed Order (PDF Only), #3 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(jrobe, )
August 3, 2026 Filing 42 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Plaintiff Christopher Andrew Mullally. (Attachments: #1 Continuation of Main Document)(jrobe, )
July 21, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 7/21/2026. ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, if any there be, in writing on or before August 11, 2026 why his claims should not be dismissed pursuant to Local Rules of Civil Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado Rule 41.1 as well as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 16(f) for failure to participate in the litigation and failure to appear at a hearing before the Court. 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. (sphil, )
July 21, 2026 Filing 40 MINUTE ENTRY for Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 7/21/2026. FTR: A402. (schap, )
July 14, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 39 MINUTE ORDER This matter is before the Court #37 Motion to Continue. The Scheduling Conference set for 7/21/2026 at 11:15 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak is CONVERTED to a Status Conference at the same date and time, and the deadline to submit a joint proposed scheduling order is VACATED. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 7/14/2026. 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(stvlc6, )
July 14, 2026 Filing 38 MEMORANDUM regarding #37 Partial MOTION to Continue and Reset Scheduling Conference filed by John R. Hardman, Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 7/14/2026. 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, )
July 14, 2026 Filing 37 Partial MOTION to Continue and Reset Scheduling Conference by Defendants Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C., John R. Hardman. (Cooper, Jason)
June 29, 2026 Filing 36 REPLY to Response to #30 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant John R. Hardman. (Parker, Cash)
June 15, 2026 Filing 35 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant John Hardman's #30 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Verified Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by Plaintiff Christopher Andrew Mullally. (agarc, )
June 12, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER granting #31 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond. Finding that the delay was the result of an inadvertent mistake and that no prejudice occurred, Defendant's #30 Motion to Dismiss is deemed timely filed. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 6/12/2026. 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(stvlc6, )
June 11, 2026 Filing 33 NOTICE re #31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re #30 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) nun Supplement to Conferral by Defendant John R. Hardman (Parker, Cash)
June 11, 2026 Filing 32 MEMORANDUM regarding #30 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by John R. Hardman and #31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re #30 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) nun filed by John R. Hardman. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 6/11/2026. 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, )
June 10, 2026 Filing 31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re #30 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) nunc pro tunc to June 10, 2026 and to deem Motion to Dismiss timely filed by Defendant John R. Hardman. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Parker, Cash)
June 10, 2026 Filing 30 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) by Defendant John R. Hardman. (Parker, Cash)
June 2, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER granting #27 Unopposed Motion to Reset. The Court VACATES the Scheduling Conference set for 6/9/2026 and RESETS for 7/21/2026 at 11:15 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. Proposed Scheduling Order due 7/14/2026. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 6/2/2026. 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(stvlc6, )
June 1, 2026 Filing 28 MEMORANDUM regarding #27 Unopposed MOTION to Reset and Continue Scheduling Conference filed by Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C., Ashlee E. Dunham. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 6/1/2026. 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, )
June 1, 2026 Filing 27 Unopposed MOTION to Reset and Continue Scheduling Conference by Defendants Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C., Ashlee E. Dunham. (Getsie, Lauren)
May 28, 2026 Filing 26 SUMMONS Returned Executed John R. Hardman served on 5/18/2026, answer due 6/8/2026. (ggill, )
May 26, 2026 Filing 25 REPLY to Response to #22 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Defendants Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C., Ashlee E. Dunham. (Cooper, Jason)
May 18, 2026 Filing 24 RESPONSE in Opposition to #22 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Plaintiff Christopher Andrew Mullally. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1A, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit)(ggill, )
May 12, 2026 Filing 23 MEMORANDUM regarding #22 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C., Ashlee E. Dunham. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 5/12/2026. 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, )
May 11, 2026 Filing 22 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint by Defendants Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C., Ashlee E. Dunham. (Cooper, Jason)
May 6, 2026 Filing 21 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: #18 Summons Returned Executed Addressed to Christopher Andrew Mullally. (jrobe, )
April 27, 2026 Filing 20 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: #16 Certificate of Service Addressed to Christopher Andrew Mullally. (ggill, )
April 23, 2026 Filing 19 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: #15 Notice (Other) Addressed to Christopher Andrew Mullally. (agryan)
April 22, 2026 Filing 18 SUMMONS Returned Executed Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C. served on 4/20/2026, answer due 5/11/2026; Ashlee E. Dunham served on 4/20/2026, answer due 5/11/2026. (Attachments: #1 Process return receipt)(jrobe, )
April 17, 2026 Filing 17 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: #14 Order, Addressed to Christopher Andrew Mullally. (echa, )
April 15, 2026 Filing 16 CERTIFICATE of Service by Clerk of Court re #1 Verified Complaint and Jury Demand for Service of Process. (Attachments: #1 U.S. Marshal Service Form, #2 U.S. Marshal Service Form, #3 U.S. Marshal Service Form) (jrobe, )
April 8, 2026 Filing 15 NOTICE of Compliance with Court Order by Plaintiff Christopher Andrew Mullally. (jrobe, )
April 6, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 4/6/2026. Proposed Scheduling Order due 6/2/2026. Scheduling Conference set for 6/9/2026 11:00 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. 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. (sphil, )
April 2, 2026 Filing 13 ADVISEMENT TO PRO SE LITIGANTS OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES: Since at least one party is not represented by counsel the Court would like to apprise any and all pro se parties of a couple of resources available to people representing themselves in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The first is the Federal Pro Se Clinic which provides free legal assistance to people representing themselves in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Clinic helps to prepare responsive pleadings, assist with other common pleadings, answers procedural questions, and explains legal concepts such as jurisdiction, venue, and service of process. Pro se parties may contact the Clinic by phone (303-824-5395) or online at www.cobar.org/cofederalproseclinic.The second is the Federal Limited Appearance Program (FLAP). FLAP aims to address the difficulty pro se parties in civil litigation sometimes face when appearing in court for certain non-dispositive hearings or conferences--such as scheduling conferences, status conferences, discovery hearings, and settlement conferences--by providing those litigants with a volunteer attorney who appears with them in court. Information about FLAP may be found online at www.cobar.org/For-Members/Young-Lawyers-Division/YLD-Application. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 4/2/2026. 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, )
April 2, 2026 Filing 12 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 4/2/2026. 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, )
April 2, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak 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 4/2/2026. 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, )
April 2, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER On or before April 30, 2026, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with the addresses of John R. Hardman and Ashlee E. Dunham. While the Court will cover service of process via the US Marshal, it is not the Court's responsibility to locate the appropriate addresses for Defendants. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 4/2/2026. 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, )
April 1, 2026 Filing 9 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (ggill, )
April 1, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER ASSIGNING CASE. After initial review under 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 assigned to District Judge S. Kato Crews and Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(c) and 40.1(d)(1); see also Mullally v. Westlake Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 25-cv-01729-SKC-STV (pending). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case be ASSIGNED to District Judge s. Kato Crews and Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak under D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(d)(1). (Case directly reassigned to Judge S. Kato Crews and drawn to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak for all further proceedings. All future pleadings shall be designated to 26-cv-01071-SKC). By Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 4/1/2026. 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, )
March 31, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER Granting Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. ORDERED that the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (ECF No. #6 ) is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the unsigned Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (ECF No. #3 ) and the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 4 ) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. By Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 3/31/2026. 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, )
March 27, 2026 Filing 6 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. by Plaintiff Christopher Andrew Mullally. (ggill, )
March 17, 2026 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiency. ORDERED that Plaintiff cure the deficiency designated above within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. By Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 3/17/2026. 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, )
March 16, 2026 Filing 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Plaintiff Christopher Andrew Mullally. (agarc, )
March 16, 2026 Filing 3 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs by Plaintiff Christopher Andrew Mullally. (agarc, )
March 16, 2026 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. (agarc, )
March 16, 2026 Filing 1 Verified COMPLAINT and Jury Demand against Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C., Ashlee E. Dunham, and John R. Hardman, filed by Christopher Andrew Mullally. (Attachments: #1 Continuation of Main Document, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Summons, #4 Summons, #5 Summons)(agarc, )

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 this case: Mullally v. Hardman et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Christopher Andrew Mullally
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John R. Hardman
Represented By: Jason David Cooper
Represented By: Cash K. Parker
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ashlee E. Dunham
Represented By: Jason David Cooper
Represented By: Lauren Michelle Getsie
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Danborn, Thiessen & Dunham P.C.
Represented By: Jason David Cooper
Represented By: Lauren Michelle Getsie
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?