Arapahoe Court Dismisses M.A.K.’s Rule 106 Claim
by Charles C. Bonniwell
Seldom does a judge make a ruling in an adversarial case which makes both sides happy, but that apparently is exactly what has happened regarding Arapahoe County District Judge Charles M. Pratt’s “Order Re: Issuance of Petitioner’s Standing.” M.A.K. Investment Group, LLC (MAK) had filed a Rule 106 action against The Glendale Urban Renewal Authority (GURA) regarding the appointment of a developer for the proposed entertainment district titled Glendale 180. MAK also filed another action in Arapahoe County District that has been dismissed and yet a third in Federal Court trying to stop the project.
In the litigation in question MAK claimed first that the selection of Wulfe & Co., Inc. (Wulfe) as the developer for the project violated state law.
The original project (which was provided for in Resolution 7 of GURA) included MAK’s property, but given MAK’s objections it was subsequently taken out of Glendale 180 (Resolution 3). As part of the discovery process GURA indicated that itself and Wulfe had parted ways. The Court in its order declared that “owing to GURA’s admissions [MAK] no longer has standing to contest the alleged pre-selection of Wulfe for the Resolution 7 renewal project because [MAK] is not one of the affected property owners . . .” The Court then denied both of the competing Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs by GURA and MAK.
Immediately following the issuance of the Order, Cody Wertz with MAK’s public relations firm Stratton and Associates sent out a press release to virtually all local media outlets declaring “Kholghy Family Freed from Condemnation with District Court Win.” Quoting Nasrin Kholghy the press release declared: “This decision was a major victory for our family business and we are excited to pursue options to develop our property. Eminent domain is for roads and schools and not for private developers.”
The press release went on to state: Glendale did not disclose the loss of the developer until recently, thereby dragging out court proceedings, wasting taxpayer funds.”
A few hours later the City of Glendale sent out a response email declaring the “Kholghy family’s attempt to garner unwarranted sympathy from the unknowing public hit a new low today. A press release distributed to news outlets is riddled with errors and outright lies.”
In its press release Glendale went on to note that Judge Pratt ruled that MAK had no standing to contest the developer for the Glendale 180 project because they are not part of the affected property and “that the court did not rule on either condemnation or eminent domain.”
Glendale Deputy City Manager Chuck Line stated, “If MAK thinks having claims dismissed and motions denied are victories, I hate to see what a loss looks like to them.” Moreover he noted that in rejecting the request for attorney fees and costs for MAK the Court found that MAK declared that it “would have done nothing differently even if it had been informed earlier about Wulfe leaving” the project. He pointed out that Wulfe and Glendale continued to negotiate up until the beginning of 2016 and that MAK continued to litigate even after it was informed that negotiations were ceased and Wulfe would not be the developer.
Nasrin Kholghy on behalf of MAK in an email to the Chronicle appears to dispute the Court’s Order insisting: “Both our family and the taxpayers of Glendale spent funds unnecessarily because Glendale hid the developer’s departure for almost a year and publicly stating the project was ‘coming to fruition.’”
Glendale Mayor Dunafon in the city’s press release said “despite the latest attempt by the Kholghys to deny reality, Glendale 180 will be brought to life. We have tremendous momentum behind the project and we won’t let these petty PR and litigation tactics stop us.
The litigation experts consulted by the Chronicle appeared lost at what MAK’s litigation strategy is and what their goals are going forward. The remaining state court claim would appear moot as it claims simply that the appointment of Wulfe violated the open meeting laws. The federal lawsuit which seeks to have the state’s urban renewal statutes declared unconstitutional would not benefit MAK except perhaps to remove a blight designation that does not affect any development on the property. By developing the property MAK would, in fact, cause the blight designation to be removed.
Some lawyers believe that it is an attempt to recoup at least some of the staggering costs and attorney fees incurred by MAK in bringing numerous lawsuits against Glendale. Others have suggested the goal would appear to pressure Glendale to waive its zoning laws and Master Plan restrictions when and if MAK files development plans for the property. MAK’s consultants have indicated that MAK wishes to build a high-rise apartment building on the Colorado Boulevard property.
The Chronicle inquired in an email to MAK’s spokesperson Nasrin Kholghy as to what were MAK’s litigation goals going forward, but that email was not responded to by the print deadline. She was made aware of that deadline in writing.