A federal judge has ordered new monetary sanctions against a lawyer with a history of professional disciplinary infractions, finding she pursued a meritless lawsuit against Commerce City for over two years in an alleged police misconduct case.

Jean Pirzadeh, a lawyer at the Colorado Christian Defense Counsel, first filed suit in Adams County in August 2020, alleging two Colorado State Patrol troopers physically beat her client, Vincent Damon Ditirro, during a drunk driving stop at an unnamed location. In addition to suing the two troopers and the CSP, Pirzadeh also named Commerce City, the Adams County Sheriff’s Office and the city of Brighton as defendants.

For two years, the bare-bones allegations in the lawsuit bounced between federal and state court without success. Finally, in August of this year, Commerce City asked a judge to financially sanction Pirzadeh for pursuing a lawsuit against the municipality despite no evidence Commerce City had anything to do with the alleged excessive force from two state employees.

“Plaintiff’s counsel not only continues to deprive the city of a rightful conclusion to this meritless lawsuit, but also continues to extort the citizens of the city as to attorneys’ fees and costs paid to defend this matter,” attorney Jonathan M. Abramson wrote on Aug. 25.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney sided with the city.

“Requiring Mr. Ditirro’s counsel to pay Commerce City’s attorneys’ fees is sufficient to deter Mr. Ditirro and his counsel from repeatedly filing frivolous claims,” she wrote on Nov. 1, “especially since Commerce City has expended significant time and resources litigating this action.”

Pirzadeh declined to comment over the phone. She has also been subjected to discipline from Colorado’s attorney regulation system on multiple occasions while Ditirro’s case was pending. In November 2020, the presiding disciplinary judge signed off on two years of probation for Pirzadeh after she allowed a paralegal in her office to assume legal responsibilities and failed to properly handle fees.

In May of this year, the presiding disciplinary judge imposed another 18-month probation on Pirzadeh for again mishandling client funds. Pirzadeh will avoid suspension of her law license in both cases if she successfully completes her probation.

For Ditirro’s lawsuit, Pirzadeh filed multiple versions of the complaint in federal and state court alleging excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, and failure to protect. She repeatedly named Commerce City as a defendant, without explaining how the city was connected to the alleged actions of two state troopers.

“Defendants knowingly inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain upon Plaintiff by causing injuries to his person,” Pirzadeh wrote in an amended version of the lawsuit filed in May.

Pirzadeh initially filed the lawsuit in state court, which Commerce City transferred to the federal trial court based on the allegations of constitutional violations. Pirzadeh then moved to eliminate the federal claims from the litigation, which returned the case to Adams County.

District Court Judge Jeffrey A. Smith dismissed the claims against Commerce City and the Adams County sheriff in early 2021, finding no link between either agency and the underlying excessive force allegations. Pirzadeh then requested to amend the lawsuit – adding back the federal claims she previously had dropped.

Calling it a delay tactic at best and “possible bad faith at worst,” Smith denied the motion.

Nevertheless, Pirzadeh filed another version of the lawsuit in federal court in July.

Noting the city was already owed $30,374.50 in attorney fees from the state court case, Commerce City’s lawyers asked to once again dismiss the litigation and impose monetary sanctions on Pirzadeh.

“The conduct of Plaintiff’s counsel in this case is not just imprecise,” wrote Abramson, “it is deliberate, calculated, meritless and frivolous. This court has an obligation to deter others from repeating such conduct.”

In early October, U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak weighed the city’s request. Pirzadeh had not responded to the allegations in the sanctions motion, which Varholak called “shocking.”

The magistrate judge painted a bumbling picture of the way Pirzadeh had handled the case. Specifically, she had not served Commerce City or the Adams County sheriff with a timely notice of the lawsuit. Even the notice dropped off at the CSP office was ineffective because the two trooper defendants had left to work elsewhere.

“Plaintiff’s ineffective service on the CSP Defendants appears to be based entirely upon counsel’s ignorance of the rules,” Varholak wrote. He added that, ordinarily, failing to serve a defendant with timely notice of a lawsuit is not the sole reason to dismiss legal claims.

“This case is unique,” he argued. “Plaintiff has been engaged in procedural gamesmanship. Plaintiff initially brought this matter in state court, dismissed his federal claims when the matter was removed to federal court, lost on those state claims in state court, and has now attempted to revive all claims (including the state claims dismissed in state court).”

As for the request for sanctions, Varholak agreed they were appropriate, given the “patently frivolous” allegations against Commerce City.

“The court simply has no idea why Commerce City was named as a defendant,” he concluded.

No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Sweeney, the district judge, adopted Varholak’s analysis and gave Commerce City 21 days to request attorney fees. She indicated she will then “impose the monetary sanctions (she) deems appropriate.”

The case is Ditirro v. Sando et al.