The Town of Calhan and various members of a politically-involved family are not liable for violations of federal antitrust law or the U.S. Constitution, but a federal judge nonetheless believed that “some misconduct” occurred during the passage of local recreational vehicle park regulations.

The lawsuit brought by Van Sant & Co. against Calhan and members of the Chaussee family alleged a conspiracy to restrict competition in the RV park market with a pair of town policies that dealt a major blow to Van Sant’s plan to operate an RV facility. Two members of the Chaussee family were in elected office and voted to approve new RV park regulations at the same time the family operated the largest RV facility in town.

Although U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson sided with the defendants based on various theories of antitrust immunity, he cautioned that Cameron and Tyler Chaussee seemingly violated the state law that requires local officials to recuse themselves from matters in which they have a personal interest.

“Were this a suit for breach of fiduciary duty there would be a genuine dispute,” Jackson wrote in a May 18 order. He added that “in fact, it appears on the record before me that at least some of the town defendants did engage in some misconduct. But the claims at issue are antitrust claims.”

In the lawsuit, Van Sant and its owners, Tom and Julie Brierton, described operating a mobile home park on 8th Street when, in the fall of 2015, they decided to rent spaces to RVs to boost profits. At the time, there was no prohibition on the practice, and the RV parking allegedly put Van Sant in competition with Cadillac Jack’s, a 37-space RV park with ownership ties to the Chaussees.

In 2016, the town’s planning and development committee recommended a policy prohibiting RVs in mobile home parks. Brent Chaussee was a member of the committee at the time. The town’s board of trustees adopted the amendment and Van Sant soon received citations for allowing RVs at its mobile home park.

Van Sant then began to convert entirely to an RV park, and the Briertons informed the town board of their intentions in March 2018. However, later that year the board enacted an ordinance imposing several new regulations on RV parks, including for water and sewer lines and the requirement of an on-site caretaker.

The ordinance applied to all RV parks created after Nov. 30, 2018. As such, it would apply to Van Sant’s intended facility, but would not apply to Cadillac Jack’s or another existing, smaller, facility. Cameron Chaussee, then the mayor, and Tyler Chaussee, then a trustee, voted in favor.

The Van Sant site now sits empty, reportedly because of the expense the Briertons had to incur in their ultimately-failed conversion to an RV park and the costly new regulations.

“Upon information and belief, the Chaussee defendants violated several rules of conduct of Colorado’s Code of Ethics when they voted on the 2016 RV Amendment and 2018 RV Ordinance,” Van Sant wrote in its lawsuit. “When the Chaussee defendants voted as Town Trustees to enact the 2016 Amendment and 2018 RV Ordinance, they were directly and substantially benefitting Cadillac Jack’s RV Park by creating RV regulations that would not burden their family’s RV park – because it was grandfathered in – while making it prohibitively expensive for Van Sant, or anyone else to enter the RV lot rental market in Calhan.”

Van Sant alleged a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, a century-old federal law that prohibits unreasonable market restrictions on trade, and the “conspiracy” to suppress RV park competition served as the basis for the claim. The company also argued that the town violated its due process and equal protection rights under the law.

Lawyers for the town and the Chaussees moved for judgment in their favor, arguing there was no indication of an unlawful conspiracy between the Chaussees who held office and other Chaussees who had a financial interest in Cadillac Jack’s.

“While one can argue that familial obligations may be strong, it is a bridge too far to claim that mere genetic relation is sufficient to establish that a group of individuals engaged in a conspiracy in violation of federal law,” wrote attorney Marni Nathan Kloster.

Jackson sided with the defendants on various grounds. For the Chaussees who were not local officeholders, Jackson decided they were shielded from antitrust liability due to the “Noerr-Pennington doctrine,” which enables private entities to retain the First Amendment right to petition the government for action. The doctrine applies even if the action sought is anti-competitive in nature.

If they had lobbied for passage of the RV policies, their actions amounted to “political activity with a commercial impact, not commercial activity with a political impact,” Jackson wrote.

For the town itself and the officeholder Chaussees, the judge agreed they had immunity under the Local Government Antitrust Act, which shields people who are acting as local officials. There is no dispute, Jackson said, that the officeholders had the legal authority to enact the RV ordinance. Cameron and Tyler Chaussee also enjoyed immunity for acting in their capacity as legislators, Jackson added.

As for Van Sant’s constitutional claim that the 2018 ordinance infringed on its property rights, Jackson explained that Van Sant could prevail by showing the enacted policy was unrelated to a legitimate government interest. The judge acknowledged the 2018 ordinance, by grandfathering in both existing RV parks, meant 100% of the RV spaces in the town went uncovered by the regulations allegedly intended to protect health and safety.

“Though the ordinance is highly underinclusive – it fails to regulate both existing RV parks in Calhan – it would promote health and safety by requiring any new RV parks in Calhan to adopt measures to that end. There is a rational relationship between the ordinance and the legitimate government interest,” Jackson wrote, “albeit a tenuous one.”

The judge concluded by observing that Cameron and Tyler Chaussee, by voting on the new RV park regulations, likely “breached their ethical duties to the people of Calhan by enacting the ordinance without disclosing their interests.” However, any recourse would need to come under state law through a case brought by the district attorney.

A spokesperson for the Fourth Judicial District Attorney’s Office, which covers El Paso and Teller counties, said the office is reviewing Jackson’s decision. Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and defendants did not respond to emails seeking comment.

The case is Van Sant & Co. v. Town of Calhan et al.