Kretsch v. Barton

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:25-rj-00003-NYW-SBP
KARLA KRETSCH,
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,
v.
JOHN P. BARTON and SUSAN C. BARTON,
Defendants/Judgment Debtors.
ORDER
Susan Prose, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Karla Kretsch’s Motion to
Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 10) (“Motion to Enforce”) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited
Ruling (ECF No. 13) (“Motion for Expedited Ruling”). The motions were referred to the
undersigned by memorandum. ECF Nos. 11, 12, 15.
The court has reviewed the motions, the docket, the applicable law, and the supporting
materials. No responses have been filed, and the time to do so has passed. For the reasons set
forth below, the Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. The Motion for Expedited
Ruling (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED to the extent the court issues this Order promptly and is
otherwise DENIED AS MOOT. 	w
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona entered
judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants/Judgment Debtors John P. Barton and
Case No. 1:25-rj-00003-NYW-SBP Document 17 filed 12/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 8

2
Susan C. Barton (“Judgment Debtors”) in the amount of $204,940.80 for attorney’s fees, plus
post-judgment interest at the federal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) (the “Attorney Fees
Judgment”). See ECF No. 1 (Certification of Judgment). On April 1, 2025, the Arizona court
certified the Attorney Fees Judgment for registration in another district. Id. Plaintiff also
registered a second judgment from the Arizona court in the amount of $1,099,678.63 (the
“Principal Judgment”). See ECF No. 2 (Certification of Second Judgment). Together, these
judgments (collectively, the “Judgments”) arise from Plaintiff's successful fraud claims against
Judgment Debtors, who allegedly defrauded Plaintiff out of substantial retirement assets through
fraudulent securities transactions.
Plaintiff registered the Judgments in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, as
Judgment Debtors reside in Colorado. See ECF Nos. 1, 2. The case was initially terminated
administratively on April 21, 2025 (ECF No. 3), but reopened on Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 5)
to facilitate enforcement proceedings. No appeals have been taken from the Judgments, and they
are final.
In the Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 10), Plaintiff seeks an order: (1) requiring the
appearance of Judgment Debtors pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 69(e) for examination concerning
their assets; and (2) permitting post-judgment depositions of third parties pursuant to Colo. R.
Civ. P. 69(i) who may have information about Judgment Debtors’ assets. Plaintiff proposes that
counsel schedule convenient dates for a “Rule 69 Hearing,” commencing in the courtroom with
swearing and instructions, then adjourning to a conference room for examination, with the court
available to resolve disputes.
In the Motion for Expedited Ruling (ECF No. 13), submitted as restricted due to sensitive
Case No. 1:25-rj-00003-NYW-SBP Document 17 filed 12/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 8

3
medical information, Plaintiff requests expedited consideration of the Motion to Enforce.
Plaintiff, who suffers from immune thrombocytopenia (a chronic bleeding disorder diagnosed in
2016), attests that her condition is exacerbated by stress and financial strain from unenforced
Judgments. See ECF No. 13-1 (Affidavit of Karla Kretsch); ECF No. 13-2 (Physician’s
Statement from Anita Koszyk-Szewczyk, MD). Without enforcement, Plaintiff risks being unable
to afford life-sustaining medication. Judgment Debtors, both in their eighties, may face
diminishing capacity for deposition, adding urgency. Judgment Debtors have not appeared or
responded to either motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 governs the enforcement of money judgments in
federal court. Under Rule 69(a)(1), proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or
execution “must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located,” unless a
federal statute applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). Rule 69(a)(2) further provides that, “[i]n aid of
the judgment or execution,” a judgment creditor “may obtain discovery from any person—
including the judgment debtor—as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state where
the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2).
The rules governing post-judgment execution discovery are “quite permissive,” and the
scope of permissible discovery is broad. Republic of Argentina v. NML Cap., Ltd., 573 U.S. 134,
138–39 (2014). As this court has explained, Rule 69(a)(2) authorizes post-judgment discovery
from “any person,” including third parties, so long as the discovery is in aid of execution. City of
Fort Collins v. Open Int’l, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02063-CNS-SBP, 2025 WL 1207596, at *1–2 (D.
Colo. Apr. 25, 2025). At the same time, discovery must remain tethered to the judgment
Case No. 1:25-rj-00003-NYW-SBP Document 17 filed 12/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 8

4
creditor’s effort to identify assets or otherwise enforce the judgment and “not be allowed to
become a means of harassment of the debtor or third persons.” Compañía de Inversiones
Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 15-cv-02120-JLK, 2019
WL 8223561, at *2 (D. Colo. Dec. 31, 2019) (quoting Reg’l Dist. Council by & through Parker
v. Mile High Rodbusters, Inc., No. 13-cv-00214-REB-KLM, 2019 WL 1856743, at *3 (D. Colo.
Apr. 24, 2019)).
With respect to third parties, “ordinarily, third persons can be examined only about the
assets of the judgment debtor and cannot be required to disclose their own,” but “probing ques-
tioning is allowed with regard to third parties with close ties to the judgment debtor.” Compañía,
2019 WL 8223561, at *2 (quoting Reg’l Dist. Council, 2019 WL 8223561, at *2). In such cir-
cumstances, courts permit broader inquiry upon “a ‘somewhat heightened showing of necessity
and relevance,” which may be satisfied by evidence raising legitimate questions about concealed
assets, fraudulent transfers, or an alter-ego relationship. Reg’l Dist. Council, 2019 WL 1856743,
at *2–3 (quoting Mountain Dudes, LLC v. Split Rock, Inc., No 2:08-cv-00940, 2013 WL
5435707, at *2 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2013)). Consistent with Rule 69(a)(2), courts in this District
regularly apply Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 69 to facilitate post-judgment discovery in aid
of execution. See City of Fort Collins, 2025 WL 1207596, at *1–2.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 10)
The Motion to Enforce is well-founded. As a preliminary matter, the Judgments at issue
are final and have been properly registered in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
Specifically, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona entered a judgment on
Case No. 1:25-rj-00003-NYW-SBP Document 17 filed 12/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 8

5
attorney fees in the amount of $204,940.80, plus post-judgment interest at the applicable federal
rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), on February 27, 2025. ECF No. 1 (Certification of Judgment
from Case No. CV-23-00411-PHX-ROS). Additionally, a principal judgment was entered in the
amount of $1,099,678.63. ECF No. 2 (Certification of Second Judgment); see also ECF No. 13-1
¶ 3 (Affidavit of Karla Kretsch). No appeals have been filed, and the time for appeal has expired.
ECF No. 1. Registration under § 1963 effectively creates a new judgment in the court, entitling
Plaintiff to enforce it using Colorado’s post-judgment procedures as incorporated by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a).
Plaintiff has amply demonstrated a need for the Judgment Debtors’ appearance under
Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 69(e) to examine their assets, as no payments have been made
on the Judgments despite their finality. Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 69(e)(1) expressly
authorizes a judgment creditor to subpoena a debtor “to appear before the court . . . to answer
concerning property” at any time after entry of a final money judgment. Here, the Judgment
Debtors—John P. Barton and Susan C. Barton—have not appeared in this action, and the docket
reflects no indication of satisfaction or partial payment. ECF No. 16 (docket as of December 15,
2025). The proposed “Rule 69 Hearing” format—commencing in the courtroom with swearing
and instructions to the debtors, then adjourning to a nearby jury or conference room for
completion—is consistent with standard Colorado practice and promotes efficiency. See City of
Fort Collins, 2025 WL 1207596, at *5 (authorizing post-judgment depositions of key officials to
clarify the judgment debtor’s relationships with third-party entities). This court finds the format
appropriate and will permit Plaintiff to coordinate suitable dates with the undersigned’s
chambers.
Case No. 1:25-rj-00003-NYW-SBP Document 17 filed 12/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 8

6
Plaintiff also seeks to depose specific third parties under Colorado Rule of Civil
Procedure 69(i), which provides that “[a]fter entry of a final money judgment, the judgment
creditor, upon order of court which may be obtained ex parte, may take the deposition of any
person including the judgment debtor, in the manner provided in these Rules.” Colo. R. Civ. P.
69(i). While third-party discovery in post-judgment proceedings requires a “somewhat
heightened showing of necessity and relevance,” such as evidence raising “legitimate questions
about the relationship between the judgment debtor and the [third party],” this threshold is
readily met here. City of Fort Collins, 2025 WL 1207596, at *4 (quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright
et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3014 (3d ed. 2019)). Plaintiff identifies six third parties
located in Colorado, each believed to possess relevant information on the Judgment Debtors’
assets, particularly securities and financial holdings:
1. 	Corporate Stock Transfer, Inc. (3200 E. Cherry Creek South Dr., Ste. 430,
Denver, CO 80209), which allegedly handled stock and securities transfers
involving the Judgment Debtors and family members;
2. 	Wilson-Davis & Co., Inc. (c/o C.T. Corporation System, 7700 E. Arapahoe Rd.,
Ste. 220, Centennial, CO 80112), a securities brokerage potentially holding
information on securities beneficially owned by the Judgment Debtors;
3. 	Benjamin J. Barton (1550 Wewatta St., Ste. 200, Denver, CO 80202), the
Judgment Debtors' son, who reportedly manages their finances;
4. 	Bank of America, which may have records of recent financial activity or
relationships with the Judgment Debtors;
5. 	Stephen M. Bathgate (6376 Tufts Ave., Englewood, CO 80111), who may have
knowledge of securities held for the Judgment Debtors’ benefit; and
6. 	GVC Capital, LLC (5350 S. Roslyn St., Ste. 300, Greenwood Village, CO
80111), another entity potentially involved in securities matters related to the
Judgment Debtors.
ECF No. 10 at 3-4. These identifications are based on Plaintiff’s information and belief, tied
directly to the fraud underlying the Judgments, which involved fraudulent securities transactions.
Case No. 1:25-rj-00003-NYW-SBP Document 17 filed 12/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 8

7
ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 2. The request is narrowly tailored to asset discovery, and no opposition has
been filed despite service on the Judgment Debtors. The court finds good cause for an ex parte
order, as the procedure under Rule 69(i) expressly permits it, and similar relief has been granted
in analogous cases. See KB Oreo, LLC v. Winnerman, No. 20-MC-00073-WJM-MEH, 2020 WL
13412948, at *8 (D. Colo. July 14, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-MC-
0073-WJM-MEH, 2020 WL 13412947 (D. Colo. Nov. 5, 2020) (granting in part a motion to
compel post-judgment discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 and Colo. R. Civ. P. 69).
Accordingly, the Motion to Enforce is granted in full. Plaintiff may subpoena the
Judgment Debtors for a Rule 69 Hearing and depose the identified third parties upon proper
notice, all in aid of executing the Judgments.
B. Motion for Expedited Ruling (ECF No. 13)
Because the court resolves the Motion to Enforce by this Order, the Motion for Expedited
Ruling (ECF No. 13) is granted to the extent the court issues this Order promptly and is
otherwise denied as moot.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court respectfully ORDERS1 as follows:
1 Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that within fourteen (14) days after
service of a Magistrate Judge’s order or recommendation, any party may serve and file written
objections with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), (b). Failure to make any such objection will result in
a waiver of the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s order or recommendation. See Sinclair Wyo.
Refining Co. v. A & B Builders, Ltd., 989 F.3d 747, 783 (10th Cir. 2021) (firm waiver rule applies
to non-dispositive orders); but see Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119, 1122
(10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not apply when the interests of justice require review,
Case No. 1:25-rj-00003-NYW-SBP Document 17 filed 12/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 8

8
1. 	Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Karla Kretsch’s Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 10) is
GRANTED.
2. 	Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) and Colo. R. Civ. P. 69(e), Plaintiff is authorized to issue
subpoenas requiring Judgment Debtors John P. Barton and Susan C. Barton to appear and
answer under oath concerning their property, assets, and financial affairs at a date and
time to be set in coordination with the undersigned’s chambers.2
3. 	Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) and Colo. R. Civ. P. 69(i), Plaintiff is granted leave to
take post-judgment depositions in aid of execution, including depositions of the Judgment
Debtors and the third parties identified in the Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 10), in the
manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure, and to issue subpoenas as authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
4. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Ruling (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED to the extent the
court issues this Order promptly and is otherwise DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED: December 16, 2025 	BY THE COURT:
______________________________
Susan Prose
United States Magistrate Judge
including when a “pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting and the
consequences of failing to object”).
2 Plaintiff is directed to contact chambers at Prose_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to schedule the
Rule 69 Hearing.
Case No. 1:25-rj-00003-NYW-SBP Document 17 filed 12/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 8