Brian Watson is the owner of Denver-based real estate development firm Northstar Commercial Partners. (Photo courtesy of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck)
On the day after the Fourth of July, a fancy dude ranch in Grand County hosted a dance for its guests and homeowners.
An embattled Denver developer says what was said that night by a drinkware company CEO’s wife amounts to defamation — and that he deserves $100 million.
Brian Watson, the CEO and owner of Northstar Commercial Partners, who has been fighting Amazon in court for more than four years, filed a lawsuit in late August over comments he says were made that night by Illinois resident Laura Elsaden.
Elsaden’s husband, Sami Elsaden, is the CEO of Ignite USA, which produces travel mugs and other drinkware.
Watson claims in the lawsuit that Laura Elsaden, in comments to other guests that night — he was not present — called Watson a “criminal” and said Watson has had numerous “relations” with “prostitutes.”
“Mr. Watson is not a criminal and has no criminal record, nor has he even been convicted of a crime by any government agency or judicial court,” Watson’s lawsuit states.
“Mr. Watson has never had relations with a prostitute,” it adds.
The dance took place at C Lazy U Ranch, an 8,500-acre “all-inclusive luxury dude ranch” in Grand County. During the summer, stays in the ranch’s various cabins can run from about $800 to $1,200 per person per night, per the ranch’s website.
The ranch also includes 40 homesites, all 35 acres. Buyers get access to the entire ranch for horseback riding, fly fishing and snowmobiling.
Watson says in the lawsuit that he first visited the ranch 17 years ago as a guest. He bought an undeveloped site for $1.25 million in 2014 and spent another $6 million building a home, he says. HOA dues and member assessments run him $31,000 annually.
The Elsadens also own a home at the ranch.
Watson says Elsaden’s comments have damaged his reputation and that he’s “afraid to invite friends and business associates” to the ranch because they might hear similar comments from Laura Elsaden. He is represented by attorney Nicole Westbook of Jones & Keller.
Elsaden, meanwhile, asked in October for the case to be dismissed. In her motion, authored by attorneys T. Markus Funk and Daniel Graham of Perkins Coie, she calls Watson a “notorious figure throughout Colorado and even the country” who is “known in equal parts for his self-promotion, widely reported involvement in various criminal schemes, and other attention-grabbing activities.”
Elsaden also notes that Watson has blamed a number of people and companies for negatively impacting his life. The lawsuit against Elsaden is one of three Watson has filed in recent months.
In September, Watson sued former employee Danny Mulcahy, who emailed Jeff Bezos and indicated Watson’s firm Northstar Commercial Partners was engaged in wrongdoing in connection with deals to develop data centers for Amazon in northern Virginia. And earlier this month, Watson sued IPI Partners, which partnered with Northstar on the projects.
“How often can a man who unremittingly holds himself out to the public as virtuous and morally unimpeachable have his life and reputation ‘ruined’ by imagined armies of others purportedly bent on unfairly harming him? In the case of Plaintiff Brian Watson, at least a dozen times and counting,” Elsaden’s motion to dismiss begins.
Amazon’s lawsuit against Watson, which revolves around whether he paid kickbacks to Amazon employees, is ongoing.
In her motion to dismiss, Elsaden does not admit to making the statements Watson claims. But the document is largely devoted to her argument that Watson is clearly a public figure.
She cites, among other things, news coverage and press releases about Watson’s legal battles, the two self-published books Watson wrote about himself and his unsuccessful runs for state legislature and Colorado state treasurer. Watson was the Republican nominee for the latter in 2018.
Whether Watson is considered a public figure is critical, because it comes with a higher burden to prove defamation. Public figures must show that the defamation involved “actual malice” — that the person who made the statement either knew they were false when they made them or that they acted with reckless disregard as to whether they were false.
Watson’s lawsuit against Elsaden argues her statements constituted actual malice. But Elsaden argues in her motion that Watson failed to show evidence of that.
“There is no allegation whatsoever as to how or why Plaintiff claims Ms. Elsaden knew her alleged statements were false or that she acted with reckless disregard of their truth,” Elsaden’s motion reads.
Elsaden also questions how much the alleged statements could damage Watson’s reputation, given the allegations made against him by Amazon and others.
Elsaden also indicated in an Oct. 15 filing that she plans to counter sue Watson for assault in connection with a July 19 incident near the ranch’s horse barn. She says Watson startled her and made comments that put her “in fear of imminent physical harm,” in part because of his past behavior. That counterclaim had not been filed as of press time.
Brian Watson is the owner of Denver-based real estate development firm Northstar Commercial Partners. (Photo courtesy of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck)
On the day after the Fourth of July, a fancy dude ranch in Grand County hosted a dance for its guests and homeowners.
An embattled Denver developer says what was said that night by a drinkware company CEO’s wife amounts to defamation — and that he deserves $100 million.
Brian Watson, the CEO and owner of Northstar Commercial Partners, who has been fighting Amazon in court for more than four years, filed a lawsuit in late August over comments he says were made that night by Illinois resident Laura Elsaden.
Elsaden’s husband, Sami Elsaden, is the CEO of Ignite USA, which produces travel mugs and other drinkware.
Watson claims in the lawsuit that Laura Elsaden, in comments to other guests that night — he was not present — called Watson a “criminal” and said Watson has had numerous “relations” with “prostitutes.”
“Mr. Watson is not a criminal and has no criminal record, nor has he even been convicted of a crime by any government agency or judicial court,” Watson’s lawsuit states.
“Mr. Watson has never had relations with a prostitute,” it adds.
The dance took place at C Lazy U Ranch, an 8,500-acre “all-inclusive luxury dude ranch” in Grand County. During the summer, stays in the ranch’s various cabins can run from about $800 to $1,200 per person per night, per the ranch’s website.
The ranch also includes 40 homesites, all 35 acres. Buyers get access to the entire ranch for horseback riding, fly fishing and snowmobiling.
Watson says in the lawsuit that he first visited the ranch 17 years ago as a guest. He bought an undeveloped site for $1.25 million in 2014 and spent another $6 million building a home, he says. HOA dues and member assessments run him $31,000 annually.
The Elsadens also own a home at the ranch.
Watson says Elsaden’s comments have damaged his reputation and that he’s “afraid to invite friends and business associates” to the ranch because they might hear similar comments from Laura Elsaden. He is represented by attorney Nicole Westbook of Jones & Keller.
Elsaden, meanwhile, asked in October for the case to be dismissed. In her motion, authored by attorneys T. Markus Funk and Daniel Graham of Perkins Coie, she calls Watson a “notorious figure throughout Colorado and even the country” who is “known in equal parts for his self-promotion, widely reported involvement in various criminal schemes, and other attention-grabbing activities.”
Elsaden also notes that Watson has blamed a number of people and companies for negatively impacting his life. The lawsuit against Elsaden is one of three Watson has filed in recent months.
In September, Watson sued former employee Danny Mulcahy, who emailed Jeff Bezos and indicated Watson’s firm Northstar Commercial Partners was engaged in wrongdoing in connection with deals to develop data centers for Amazon in northern Virginia. And earlier this month, Watson sued IPI Partners, which partnered with Northstar on the projects.
“How often can a man who unremittingly holds himself out to the public as virtuous and morally unimpeachable have his life and reputation ‘ruined’ by imagined armies of others purportedly bent on unfairly harming him? In the case of Plaintiff Brian Watson, at least a dozen times and counting,” Elsaden’s motion to dismiss begins.
Amazon’s lawsuit against Watson, which revolves around whether he paid kickbacks to Amazon employees, is ongoing.
In her motion to dismiss, Elsaden does not admit to making the statements Watson claims. But the document is largely devoted to her argument that Watson is clearly a public figure.
She cites, among other things, news coverage and press releases about Watson’s legal battles, the two self-published books Watson wrote about himself and his unsuccessful runs for state legislature and Colorado state treasurer. Watson was the Republican nominee for the latter in 2018.
Whether Watson is considered a public figure is critical, because it comes with a higher burden to prove defamation. Public figures must show that the defamation involved “actual malice” — that the person who made the statement either knew they were false when they made them or that they acted with reckless disregard as to whether they were false.
Watson’s lawsuit against Elsaden argues her statements constituted actual malice. But Elsaden argues in her motion that Watson failed to show evidence of that.
“There is no allegation whatsoever as to how or why Plaintiff claims Ms. Elsaden knew her alleged statements were false or that she acted with reckless disregard of their truth,” Elsaden’s motion reads.
Elsaden also questions how much the alleged statements could damage Watson’s reputation, given the allegations made against him by Amazon and others.
Elsaden also indicated in an Oct. 15 filing that she plans to counter sue Watson for assault in connection with a July 19 incident near the ranch’s horse barn. She says Watson startled her and made comments that put her “in fear of imminent physical harm,” in part because of his past behavior. That counterclaim had not been filed as of press time.
