Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal D. Colorado Opinion on Dismissal of Claims
Routine Enforcement Amended Final

D. Colorado Opinion on Dismissal of Claims

Favicon for www.courtlistener.com D. Colorado Opinions
Filed March 12th, 2026
Detected March 17th, 2026
Email

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

  1. Review court's reasoning for dismissal of claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
  2. 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.

Join Free.law Now

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

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

Source

Analysis generated by AI. Source diff and links are from the original.

Classification

Agency
D. Colorado
Filed
March 12th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Legal weight
Non-binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive

Who this affects

Applies to
Legal professionals
Geographic scope
National (US)

Taxonomy

Primary area
Judicial Administration
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Civil Procedure Litigation

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.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.