A Denver man may not hold a pair of Arapahoe County judges liable for perceived irregularities in his small claims case, a federal judge ruled last week.

Danny Zipris alleged former County Court Judge Anne M. Ollada, who presided over a 2021 trial in which Zipris was the plaintiff, engaged in “ex parte” communication with the opposing party’s lawyer – meaning communication outside the presence of Zipris. To support his claim, Zipris alleged that he saw Ollada “turn her face” and “whisper” something to defense counsel during trial.

However, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez, in reviewing Zipris’ federal lawsuit, pointed out the flaw in Zipris’ claim of an ex parte communication: Zipris was there at the time of the alleged whisper.

“It necessarily follows from this that Judge Ollada did not issue an ex parte order,” Martínez wrote on July 28.

Martínez also agreed there was no liability for the judge who reviewed Zipris’ appeal of his small claims court loss – then-District Court Judge Frederick T. Martinez (who is not related to Judge William Martínez).

Zipris was the victim of a scam in which the perpetrator stole $1,152 and allegedly deposited it into her bank account with BBVA USA Inc. Zipris sued BBVA in small claims court to recover his money. After a trial in which Zipris represented himself, Ollada found Zipris did not meet his burden of proving his funds were in the BBVA account. Judge Frederick Martinez dismissed Zipris’ appeal and the Colorado Supreme Court elected not to hear the case.

Zipris filed suit in federal court against the state judges. He claimed that “at least three individuals” witnessed Ollada turning to BBVA’s lawyer during trial, whispering the word “redact” and “moving her hand as if she was erasing information.” The result was “heavily redacted” bank documents.

“There is no record of the Ex Parte conversation between (Ollada) and the counsel in the transcript,” Zipris acknowledged. He did not provide corroboration from the three other people who allegedly witnessed Ollada’s behavior.

He also claimed Judge Frederick Martinez failed to properly serve him with the order dismissing Zipris’ appeal. Zipris sought $14,000 from both judges.

In March, U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews recommended tossing Zipris’ complaint. Both state judges were entitled to immunity for their official acts, Crews reasoned.

Further, even if Ollada improperly communicated with defense counsel, “Plaintiff apparently heard Judge Ollada make the statement, and yet, he neither objected nor sought clarification regarding her instruction to redact the documents. This simply is not an ex parte communication,” he wrote.

Zipris objected to Crews’ recommendation, arguing Ollada’s whisper “did not mean anything” to him in the moment. Judge William Martínez was unconvinced.

“While presiding over a trial in her courtroom, Judge Ollada gave instructions to a party regarding documents being produced in the course of the litigation currently before her,” he wrote. “Plaintiff’s argument is without merit.”

Judge William Martínez also terminated the case because Zipris sued both state judges in their official capacities – a move that is equivalent to suing the state itself and for which the state has immunity.

The case is Zipris v. Ollada et al.