Christiansen v. Christiansen - Order Affirmed, Case Remanded

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Christiansen v. Christiansen

Colorado Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25CA0270

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (17)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (46.5K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

25CA0270 Christiansen v Christiansen 03-26-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0270
Routt County District Court No. 24CV9
Honorable Michael A. O’Hara III, Judge

Beau Christiansen,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Kassidy Christiansen,

Defendant-Appellee.

ORDER AFFIRMED AND CASE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division II
Opinion by JUDGE SULLIVAN
Fox and Kuhn, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced March 26, 2026

Beau Christiansen, Pro Se

Montgomery Little & Soran, PC, Jason C. Kennedy, Denver, Colorado, for
Defendant-Appellee
¶1 Plaintiff, Beau Christiansen, appeals the district court’s order

granting the special motion to dismiss filed by defendant, Kassidy

Christiansen, under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP1 statute, section 13-20-

1101, C.R.S. 2025. We affirm the court’s order and remand the

case with directions.

I. Background

¶2 Beau and Kassidy were married for seventeen years and had

two children together.2 Kassidy petitioned to dissolve their

marriage in 2022. After she filed the dissolution petition, Beau

sued her for defamation. The district court dismissed the complaint

with prejudice after Beau failed to (1) prosecute the case; (2) comply

with mandatory disclosure requirements; and (3) appear at two

hearings without explanation. Beau appealed, and a division of this

court dismissed the appeal because he failed to file an opening

brief. Christiansen v. Christiansen, (Colo. App. No. 24CA0573, Aug.

14, 2024) (unpublished order) (Christiansen I).

1 “SLAPP” stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”

Coomer v. Salem Media of Colo., Inc., 2025 COA 2, ¶ 3 n.1 (quoting
Salazar v. Pub. Tr. Inst., 2022 COA 109M, ¶ 1 n.1).
2 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by

their first names to avoid confusion. We mean no disrespect by
doing so.

1
¶3 Beau then filed a separate complaint for defamation against

Kassidy’s mother, which the district court also dismissed. Beau

separately appealed that dismissal order and we affirmed.

Christiansen v. Caplan, (Colo. App. No. 25CA0269, Feb. 19, 2026)

(not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)) (Christiansen II).

¶4 The same day that Beau filed his complaint against Kassidy’s

mother, he brought yet another defamation action against

Kassidy — in this case — asserting additional defamatory acts

beyond those alleged in his earlier complaint against Kassidy.

Kassidy filed a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP

statute, which the district court initially granted. The next day,

however, the court set aside its order granting Kassidy’s motion

after it realized Beau had filed his response in the “virtually

identical” case against Kassidy’s mother. The court later granted

Beau leave to amend his complaint, which he did. In granting

leave, the court informed Beau that he was now “on notice

regarding the defects in his [c]omplaint” and that he risked “having

th[e] case dismissed” if he failed to address those defects.

¶5 Beau’s amended complaint alleged that Kassidy defamed him

when she made statements to

2
• the Kaysville Police Department in Utah and the Routt

County Sheriff’s Office in Colorado, accusing Beau of

threatening and stalking her, trespassing, child abuse,

assault, and kidnapping;

• the Routt County Department of Human Services,

accusing Beau of abusing drugs and alcohol, attempting

to break into their marital property, and fleeing to Costa

Rica; and

• two parental responsibility evaluators (PREs) in the

parties’ divorce case, accusing Beau of domestic violence,

stalking and threatening her, abusing drugs, and

infidelity.

¶6 Kassidy again filed a special motion to dismiss, asserting the

amended complaint continued to suffer the same defects as the

original complaint. This time, the court granted Kassidy’s motion

and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice “for the

reasons stated” in the motion. The court explained that Beau

“failed to allege an adequate factual basis for his claims” and

“fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”

3
II. Discussion

¶7 Beau raises several contentions on appeal seeking reversal of

the district court’s dismissal order. Most of Beau’s arguments are

identical to the arguments that we considered and rejected in

Christiansen II. As we did in that appeal, we reject each of Beau’s

contentions and affirm the dismissal order.

A. Motion to Dismiss

¶8 Beau contends that the district court erred by granting

Kassidy’s special motion to dismiss because (1) his amended

complaint met both C.R.C.P. 8(a)’s requirement of a “short and

plain statement” of the claim and the elements for a defamation

claim, and (2) the court should have ordered him to provide a more

definite statement rather than dismissing his amended complaint.

For her part, Kassidy asserts that Beau doesn’t attempt to rebut the

district court’s reasons for dismissal. We agree with Kassidy.3

3 We don’t consider Kassidy’s citations in her answer brief to

unpublished decisions by divisions of this court. This court’s policy
prohibits citations to our opinions that aren’t selected for official
publication, with exceptions not applicable here. See Colo. Jud.
Branch, Court of Appeals Policies, Policy Concerning Citation of
Opinions Not Selected for Official Publication (2026),
https://perma.cc/5AZZ-KSWL.

4
1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

¶9 One of the anti-SLAPP statute’s purposes is to “encourage

continued participation in matters of public significance” and avoid

chilling such participation through “abuse of the judicial process.”

§ 13-20-1101(1)(a). To advance this goal, the statute authorizes a

party to file a “special motion to dismiss” a cause of action “arising

from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of

petition or free speech under the United States constitution or the

state constitution in connection with a public issue.”

§ 13-20-1101(3)(a).

¶ 10 As relevant here, the statute defines such an act as “[a]ny

written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative,

executive, or judicial proceeding or any other official proceeding

authorized by law.” § 13-20-1101(2)(a)(I). This provision

encompasses communications that are preparatory to or in

anticipation of commencing official proceedings, including

statements meant to prompt action by law enforcement or child

welfare agencies. See L.S.S. v. S.A.P., 2022 COA 123, ¶¶ 20, 28

(summarizing identical provision in California’s anti-SLAPP law and

explaining that Colorado courts draw on California case law for

5
guidance because Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute closely resembles

California’s).

¶ 11 Courts evaluate a special motion to dismiss under a two-step

framework. First, the movant shoulders “the burden to show that

the conduct underlying the plaintiff’s claim falls within the statute.”

Lind-Barnett v. Tender Care Veterinary Ctr., Inc., 2025 CO 62, ¶ 2.

Second, if the movant makes this showing, the burden shifts “to the

plaintiff to demonstrate a ‘reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff

will prevail on the claim.’” Id. (quoting Rosenblum v. Budd, 2023

COA 72, ¶ 24).

¶ 12 A private individual’s report of possible criminal conduct to

law enforcement authorities is protected from a later defamation

claim by a qualified privilege. Lawson v. Stow, 2014 COA 26, ¶ 21;

L.S.S., ¶ 38. Statements alleging child abuse are similarly subject

to a qualified privilege. See Lawson, ¶¶ 23-24; L.S.S., ¶¶ 38, 51.

¶ 13 Under the qualified privilege, the defamed party is subject to

certain heightened requirements: (1) the defamed party must prove

that the statement was false by clear and convincing evidence,

rather than a mere preponderance; (2) the defamed party must

prove that the speaker published the statements with actual

6
malice — that is, with actual knowledge that the statement was

false or with reckless disregard for whether the statement was

true — by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the defamed party

must establish actual damages, even if the statement is defamatory

per se. Lawson, ¶ 18; L.S.S., ¶ 36.

¶ 14 Similarly, a person’s statements that are “intimately related

and essential to the judicial decision-making process” enjoy

absolute privilege from a later tort claim. Merrick v. Burns, Wall,

Smith & Mueller, P.C., 43 P.3d 712, 714 (Colo. App. 2001); see also

Hushen v. Gonzales, 2025 CO 37, ¶ 20 n.7 (distinguishing between

absolute immunity and absolute privilege and explaining that the

latter “protects statements made by participants in a quasi-judicial

proceeding — decisionmakers, witnesses, and the like — from use

in a subsequent tort suit”). This is true even if the statements “are

false or defamatory and made with knowledge of their falsity.” Dep’t

of Admin. v. State Pers. Bd., 703 P.2d 595, 597-98 (Colo. App. 1985)

(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 587-88 (A.L.I. 1977)).

¶ 15 We review a district court’s ruling on a special motion to

dismiss de novo. Coomer v. Salem Media of Colo., Inc., 2025 COA 2,

¶ 16.

7
2. Analysis

¶ 16 Given the significant overlap between Beau’s contentions in

this appeal and Christiansen II, our analysis follows the same path

set forth in that opinion. See Christiansen II, ¶¶ 13-30.

¶ 17 The district court dismissed Beau’s amended complaint “for

the reasons stated” in Kassidy’s special motion to dismiss. On

appeal, however, Beau doesn’t challenge any of the reasons for

dismissal advanced in Kassidy’s motion. Those reasons included

absolute privilege, qualified privilege, and failure to state a claim for

defamation. Instead, Beau argues only that he complied with

C.R.C.P. 8(a) and asserts that the district court should have

instructed him to amend his complaint a second time. We could

affirm based solely on Beau’s failure to challenge the district court’s

reasons for dismissal. See IBC Denv. II, LLC v. City of Wheat Ridge,

183 P.3d 714, 717-18 (Colo. App. 2008) (when a lower tribunal

gives more than one reason for a decision, an appellant must

challenge each of those reasons on appeal).

¶ 18 But even if we looked to the merits of Kassidy’s arguments

supporting dismissal, we would find no error because Beau didn’t

carry his burden under the anti-SLAPP statute.

8
¶ 19 Under the first step of anti-SLAPP analysis, Kassidy’s

statements were made either (1) to prompt action by law

enforcement or a child welfare agency (the statements to the police

department, sheriff’s office, and human services department) or

(2) as part of a judicial proceeding (the statements to the PREs). So

they fall within the anti-SLAPP statute. See § 13-20-1101(2)(a)(I);

Lind-Barnett, ¶ 2.

¶ 20 Under the second step, Beau bore the burden of establishing a

reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. See L.S.S., ¶¶ 22-

1. But Beau didn’t satisfy this burden.

¶ 21 As to Kassidy’s statements to the police department and

sheriff’s office, those statements comprised a private individual’s

report to law enforcement of suspected criminal activity. As a

result, those statements were protected by the qualified privilege.

See Lawson, ¶ 21. Similarly, Kassidy’s statements to the human

services department were made to raise concerns about Beau’s

alleged drug and alcohol use, which could endanger their children

when in Beau’s care.4 Because a county department of human

4 Beau initially alleged that Kassidy made these statements to

“Child Protective Services.”

9
services is authorized to investigate reports of potential child abuse

or neglect, see Ansel v. State Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 COA 172M,

¶ 14, those statements were also protected by the qualified

privilege. See Lawson, ¶¶ 23-24.

¶ 22 “A qualified privilege creates a presumption that the alleged

defamatory communication was made in good faith and without

malice.” Williams v. Boyle, 72 P.3d 392, 401 (Colo. App. 2003); see

also § 19-3-309, C.R.S. 2025 (good faith by any person reporting

child abuse “shall be presumed”). To rebut that presumption, Beau

had to “establish a probability that [he] w[ould] be able to produce

clear and convincing evidence of actual malice at trial.” L.S.S.,

¶ 41.

¶ 23 But Beau submitted no evidence with his response to

Kassidy’s special motion to dismiss, let alone evidence that might

have overcome the presumption that Kassidy made her reports in

good faith. Instead, Beau stood on the unsworn allegations in his

10
amended complaint.5 Under these circumstances, we conclude

Beau failed to carry his burden. See Coomer v. Donald J. Trump for

President, Inc., 2024 COA 35, ¶ 68 (to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion,

the plaintiff must generally present evidence establishing a

reasonable likelihood of success, not mere allegations); cf. L.S.S.,

¶ 47 (concluding father met his burden when he submitted

affidavits stating he never abused his child, along with other

evidence of actual malice by mother).

¶ 24 As to Kassidy’s statements to the PREs, Beau’s own amended

complaint acknowledged that Kassidy made those statements

within the context of their ongoing divorce proceeding. See

§ 14-10-127(1)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S. 2025 (explaining that the purpose of a

parental responsibilities evaluation is “to assist [the court] in

5 We recognize that Beau attempted to verify his amended

complaint “[u]pon oath and affirmation.” See People v. Anderson,
828 P.2d 228, 231 (Colo. 1992) (explaining that a court may treat a
verified pleading as an affidavit “if the document otherwise meets
the legal requirements of an affidavit”). But the verification wasn’t
witnessed by a notary public or other authorized officer, so the
district court couldn’t treat the amended complaint as the
equivalent of an affidavit. See C.R.C.P. 108. Nor did Beau sign the
verification “under penalty of perjury” as required for unsworn
declarations. §§ 13-27-102(7), 13-27-106, C.R.S. 2025. As a
result, Beau’s allegations in the amended complaint remained just
that — allegations.

11
determining the best interests of the child”). Thus, Kassidy’s

statements to the PREs were absolutely privileged, even if false. See

Hushen, ¶ 20 n.7; Merrick, 43 P.3d at 714; Dep’t of Admin., 703

P.2d at 597-98.

¶ 25 For three reasons, we aren’t convinced otherwise by Beau’s

argument that Kassidy should have filed, and the district court

should have granted, a motion for a more definite statement before

dismissing his claims. See C.R.C.P. 12(e). First, Beau didn’t make

this argument in the district court. See Melat, Pressman & Higbie,

L.L.P. v. Hannon Law Firm, L.L.C., 2012 CO 61, ¶ 18 (“[I]ssues not

raised in or decided by a lower court will not be addressed for the

first time on appeal.”).

¶ 26 Second, the district court enjoys considerable discretion in

deciding whether to require a more definite statement. Sheldon v.

Schmidt, 351 P.2d 288, 289-90 (Colo. 1960). Here, the court had

already afforded Beau an opportunity to cure his complaint’s

defects through an amended pleading. See C.R.C.P. 15(a). Given

this, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision

declining to give Beau yet another opportunity to remedy his

complaint.

12
¶ 27 Third, the legal standard that Beau leans on — that a

complaint shouldn’t be dismissed unless the plaintiff can prove “no

set of facts” in support of his claims — has since been displaced by

a plausibility standard. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555-63 (2007) (abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957));

see also Warne v. Hall, 2016 CO 50, ¶ 24 (adopting in Colorado the

federal pleading standard announced in Twombly and Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)).

¶ 28 Accordingly, the district court didn’t err by dismissing the

amended complaint.

B. Dismissal with Prejudice

¶ 29 Beau contends that the district court erred by dismissing his

amended complaint with prejudice. But as a division of this court

has recognized, dismissal with prejudice is the exact relief

contemplated by the anti-SLAPP statute. See Salazar v. Pub. Tr.

Inst., 2022 COA 109M, ¶ 18 (in assessing a special motion to

dismiss, the question is “whether the case should be dismissed with

prejudice”). Accordingly, we discern no error in the district court’s

decision dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.

13
C. Explanation of Dismissal

¶ 30 Beau’s opening brief contains a header stating that the district

court erred by “failing to adequately explain its decision” in granting

the special motion to dismiss. That section of his brief, however,

contains only short statements regarding preservation and the

standard of review. The discussion section is left blank.

¶ 31 In a separate section, Beau argues that the district court’s

order dismissing his case “simply referred back to [Kassidy’s]

pleadings” and gave him “no clarity whatsoever.” But he doesn’t

cite any authority to support his argument that the court should

have given him more clarity or direction.6 Because we don’t address

undeveloped arguments, we don’t address this contention. See

Fisher v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015 COA 57, ¶ 18 (“We

generally decline to address arguments presented to us in a

6 To the extent Beau argues that the district court should have

given him more instruction regarding his amended complaint’s
deficiencies, we agree with Kassidy that such guidance would have
constituted improper advocacy by the court. See S. Cross Ranches,
LLC v. JBC Agric. Mgmt., LLC, 2019 COA 58, ¶ 31 (“It is
‘inappropriate for the court to abandon its position of neutrality in
favor of a role equivalent to champion for the non-moving party:
seeking out facts, developing legal theories, and finding ways to
defeat the motion.’” (quoting Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trs., 980
F.2d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 1992))).

14
conclusory manner that are lacking citations to any supporting

authority.”), aff’d, 2018 CO 39; see also C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B) (requiring

the opening brief to set forth “a clear and concise discussion of the

grounds upon which the [appellant] relies in seeking a reversal . . .

with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which

the appellant relies”).

D. Bias

¶ 32 Beau contends that the district court judge exhibited bias

against him. But he doesn’t identify any record support showing

that he sought the judge’s recusal due to this alleged bias. See In re

Marriage of Zebedee, 778 P.2d 694, 699 (Colo. App. 1988) (declining

to address allegations of judicial bias not raised in a C.R.C.P. 97

motion for change of judge). Because we don’t address issues

raised for the first time on appeal, we decline to address this

contention. See Melat, ¶ 18.

¶ 33 We also decline Beau’s invitation to exercise our discretion to

review this unpreserved claim. See Robinson v. Colo. State Lottery

Div., 179 P.3d 998, 1008 (Colo. 2008) (appellate courts have

discretion to notice any error appearing of record). Other than

citing Robinson’s discretionary rule, Beau offers no justification for

15
deviating from the normal rule that appellate courts don’t address

issues raised for the first time on appeal.

E. The District Court’s Attorney Fees Award

¶ 34 Beau also contends that the district court committed multiple

errors by awarding Kassidy attorney fees after he had already filed

his notice of appeal. But Beau didn’t separately appeal the court’s

fees award, and a division of this court has already dismissed the

portion of his appeal that attempted to belatedly challenge the

award. Christiansen v. Christiansen, (Colo. App. No. 25CA0270,

Oct. 1, 2025) (unpublished order). Accordingly, we don’t address

Beau’s arguments challenging the district court’s fees award.

III. Appellate Attorney Fees and Costs

¶ 35 Kassidy requests her reasonable attorney fees and costs

incurred on appeal. “[A] prevailing defendant on a special motion to

dismiss is entitled to recover the defendant’s attorney fees and

costs.” § 13-20-1101(4)(a). Because Kassidy has prevailed on

appeal, we grant her request. See Creekside Endodontics, LLC v.

Sullivan, 2022 COA 145, ¶ 54.

16
¶ 36 Exercising our discretion under C.A.R. 39.1, we remand the

case to the district court to determine the amount of her reasonable

appellate attorney fees and costs.

IV. Disposition

¶ 37 We affirm the district court’s order granting Kassidy’s special

motion to dismiss and remand the case to the district court to

determine the amount of Kassidy’s reasonable appellate attorney

fees and costs.

JUDGE FOX and JUDGE KUHN concur.

17