D. Colorado Opinion on Dismissal of Claims
Summary
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an opinion adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss certain claims in the case of Miller et al. v. Asset Living, LLC et al. Claims One and Five were dismissed with prejudice, while Claims Three and Eight were dismissed without prejudice. The case will proceed on Claims Two, Four, Six, and Seven.
What changed
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, in the case of Daniel K. Miller, et al. v. Asset Living, LLC, et al. (Docket No. 1:24-cv-02687), has issued an order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation regarding motions to dismiss. Specifically, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss Claims One and Five with prejudice, and Claims Three and Eight without prejudice. The litigation will continue concerning the remaining claims (Two, Four, Six, and Seven).
This judicial opinion represents a significant development in the ongoing litigation, impacting the scope of the case. While this is a specific court ruling and not a regulatory change impacting a broad industry, legal professionals involved in similar cases should note the court's reasoning for dismissal, particularly concerning the standards applied under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). No immediate compliance actions are required for entities not party to this specific case, but the outcome may inform legal strategy in future litigation.
What to do next
- Review court's reasoning for dismissal of claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
- Assess potential impact on ongoing or future litigation involving similar claims or defendants
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
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.
March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Daniel K. Miller, Elizabeth D. Wilhour, and Sean M. Wilhour v. Asset Living, LLC, AMFP V Central Park LLC, and Shanna Martinez
District Court, D. Colorado
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 1:24-cv-02687
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Nina Y. Wang
Civil Action No. 24-cv-02687-NYW-TPO
DANIEL K. MILLER,
ELIZABETH D. WILHOUR, and
SEAN M. WILHOUR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASSET LIVING, LLC,
AMFP V CENTRAL PARK LLC, and
SHANNA MARTINEZ,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation issued by the Honorable
Timothy P. O’Hara on February 17, 2026. [Doc. 164]. The Recommendation concerns
two pending Motions: (1) Defendants Asset Living and Shanna Martinez’s Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Fifth, and Eighth Claims for Relief,
[Doc. 118], and Defendant AMFP V Central Park, LLC Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Fifth and Eighth Claims For Relief, [Doc. 128]. Judge
O’Hara recommends that both Motions to Dismiss be granted, that Claims One and Five
be dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants, and that Claims Three and Eight be
dismissed without prejudice as to all Defendants. [Doc. 164 at 16]. He recommends that
this action proceed with respect to Claims Two, Four, Six, and Seven, which are not
challenged in the Motions to Dismiss. [Id.].
The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. [Id. at 16 n.6]; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 17, 2026. See [Doc. 164
at 17]. No Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a [magistrate
judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither
party objects to those findings.”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Based on this
review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned,
and a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The Recommendation [Doc. 164] is ADOPTED;
(2) Defendants Asset Living and Shanna Martinez’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Fifth, and Eighth Claims for Relief
[Doc. 118] is GRANTED;
(3) Defendant AMFP V Central Park, LLC Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Fifth and Eighth Claims For Relief [Doc. 128]
1 This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to
law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
is GRANTED;
(4) Claims One and Five are DISMISSED with prejudice as to all Defendants;
(5) Claims Three and Eight are DISMISSED without prejudice as to all
Defendants; and
(6) |The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to:
Daniel K. Miller
1950 Trenton Street
#114
Denver, CO 80220
Elizabeth Wilhour
1950 Trenton Street
#114
Denver, CO 80220
and
Sean Wilhour
1950 Trenton Street
#114
Denver, CO 80220
DATED: March 12, 2026 BY THE COURT: yh
ry Y. Wang )
United States District Judge
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when D. Colorado Opinions publishes new changes.