Marcia S. Krieger

This case involves a dispute between High Street Lofts Condominium Association and American Family Mutual Insurance Company over whether the insurance policy covers damage to the building allegedly caused by vibrations from nearby road construction work. The insurer denied the claim based on policy exclusions for earth movement, including soil settlement and shifting, and an anti-concurrent cause provision. High Street sued for declaratory judgment on coverage, breach of contract, and unreasonable denial of benefits. The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the cause of the damage and the applicability of exclusions, and rejecting arguments for judicial estoppel based on positions taken in a prior lawsuit against the contractor.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Olson v. City of Golden, Ms. Olson challenged the City of Golden’s campaign finance ordinance both facially and as applied, claiming it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and unduly burdened freedom of speech and the press by requiring disclosure of non-committee expenditures exceeding $50 within three business days. The court granted judgment to the defendant City. The court reasoned that the ordinance served the compelling governmental interest in combating actual or apparent undue influence in elections through disclosure requirements, was not vague or overbroad, and did not violate the First Amendment by applying to media entities without a press exemption.

electionsfree speech

This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which relator Bobby L. Maxwell, an MMS auditor, alleged that Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. submitted false royalty reports on federal oil and gas leases from 1999 to 2003. After a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff resulting in a trebled damages judgment of over $22 million plus penalties, the relator applied for attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(2). The court granted the full requested lodestar amount of $2,178,632.25 in attorneys' fees and $109,341.79 in expenses, including certain expert fees, while denying a contingency-based enhancement and any recovery for the relator's own work as an expert witness. The ruling rests on the FCA's mandatory fee-shifting provision for prevailing relators, the lodestar method as the presumptively reasonable fee, and precedent allowing expert expenses but not party witness fees.

business & regulatory

This case involves the SEC's allegations that several Qwest Communications executives engaged in securities fraud between 1999 and 2002 by failing to disclose that revenue from one-time IRU network sales was being aggregated into the "communications services" reporting category alongside recurring monthly service revenue, potentially misleading investors about the sources and sustainability of Qwest's growth. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims after prior rulings had narrowed the issues. The court granted the motions in part, dismissing certain fraud claims against defendants including Kozlowski and Noyes on the grounds that the SEC failed to produce evidence creating a triable issue of scienter, as the record showed the executives had relied on assurances from outside auditors regarding disclosure decisions and no contrary evidence existed. The court emphasized that undisputed facts must be accepted at summary judgment and that credibility disputes require competing evidence.

business & regulatory

In this case, prisoner Hazhar A. Sayed brought a single claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Darryl R. Profitt, alleging that the Colorado Department of Corrections violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by not allowing him to shower for full ablution before Friday Jum'ah services at Limón Correctional Facility. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It held that the claim for injunctive relief was moot because Sayed had been transferred to Fremont Correctional Facility, where he had access to showers before services. The court also concluded that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred the official-capacity claims and qualified immunity protected the defendant in his individual capacity.

religious libertycivil rights

The case involves plaintiffs, as representatives of a class holding a nearly $2 billion Hawaii judgment against Ferdinand Marcos' estate, seeking to quiet title to Colorado real property nominally held by Denman Investment Corporation in order to execute on that judgment. After the Hawaii judgment expired in 2005, the plaintiffs registered it in Illinois in 1997 and later revived the Illinois registration in 2008, then attempted to register the result in Colorado. The court granted Denman's motion to dismiss, holding that registration of a judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 does not create a new, independent judgment enforceable in other states and that the Illinois revival proceeding was merely a procedural continuation that did not produce a transferable new judgment.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

In White v. Schafer, a female Wildlife Biologist employed by the National Forest Service brought claims of sex discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, breach of a mediation agreement, and Privacy Act violations arising from disputes over a private office provided as a breastfeeding accommodation and subsequent changes to her job duties. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had not clearly identified any actionable adverse employment actions, that the incidents described were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile environment, and that the record lacked evidence establishing the remaining claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves two federal inmates suing Bureau of Prisons officials, including Director Lappin, over the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) requiring payment plans for court-ordered restitution and separate claims by one inmate regarding alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on all IFRP-related claims, finding that the plaintiffs had signed voluntary agreements to participate in the program and that temporary placement on "no obligation" status did not void those agreements or render subsequent deductions unauthorized. The court reasoned that the BOP's collection of funds was consistent with the signed plans and applicable regulations, with no evidence of coercion rising to a constitutional violation or of improper deductions after the agreements. As a result, the IFRP claims were dismissed, certain defendants were removed from the case, and one plaintiff was dismissed entirely, while the medical claims proceed.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a borrower that obtained a loan from Fannie Mae's predecessor to purchase an apartment complex, placed funds in escrow for required repairs, and later faced disputes when Fannie Mae refused to release the escrow, initiated foreclosure proceedings on grounds including unpaid liens and code violations, and allegedly interfered with the property's sale; the foreclosure was eventually dismissed but the borrower claimed resulting financial harm and stigma. The court granted in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The core reasoning was that claims such as fraud lacked particularized allegations of intent or timing, breach of fiduciary duty and certain tort claims were barred by the economic loss rule because duties arose from the parties' contracts, and RICO claims failed to allege a sufficient pattern of predicate criminal acts.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a former social caseworker suing her employer, the City and County of Denver, after filing internal discrimination complaints; she alleged retaliation, race and disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and violations of Title VII, the ADA, the 14th Amendment, and related statutes, stemming from negative performance reviews, warnings, denial of a requested supervisor transfer, and her eventual medical discharge. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that there were no genuine disputes of material fact, the requested change of supervisor was not a required reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and the plaintiff failed to show evidence supporting retaliation, discrimination, or constitutional violations.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves an investor, Cascade Fund, suing fund management companies and their directors for alleged securities fraud under Rule 10b-5, claiming misstatements and omissions in offering memoranda about investment strategies, net asset value calculations, and conflicts of interest involving penny stocks that led to significant fund losses. The court addressed motions to dismiss based on lack of standing, personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. It dismissed claims against some defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed the remaining claims against the main defendant ACM for failure to state a claim, without prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a construction project fire that caused significant damage, with Fairfield Development suing its subcontractor JDI for negligence, negligent supervision, and breach of contract after JDI allegedly left propane heaters too close to combustible materials. Axis Surplus Insurance, Fairfield's insurer, paid out claims and sought subrogation against JDI. Fairfield moved for partial summary judgment to defeat JDI's anti-subrogation defense, arguing JDI was not an insured under the policy, while JDI moved for partial summary judgment on its comparative negligence defense, asserting Fairfield was negligent per se due to fire code violations for which it was cited. The court reviewed the standards for summary judgment under Rule 56, examined the insurance policy language regarding additional insureds and the causation of the fire, and analyzed whether the code violations established negligence per se given that inspectors attributed the fire's cause to JDI's actions rather than the cited issues.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This case involved owners of Nintendo Wii video game systems who alleged that the wrist straps on the motion-sensitive controllers were defectively designed and failed to prevent damage to their television sets when the controllers slipped during energetic play. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act for deceptive practices, strict products liability, and common-law negligence, and sought to certify a nationwide class of Wii owners while requesting monetary and injunctive relief. Nintendo moved to dismiss, arguing that Colorado choice-of-law rules required application of the law of the states where the injuries occurred rather than Washington law, and that the claims were inadequately pleaded. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the Washington statutory claims inapplicable and the pleadings deficient, and denied the class certification motion as moot, while granting the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case arose after Liberty Mutual, the plaintiffs' auto insurer, lost or destroyed taillight assemblies it had received for testing following a 2000 rear-end collision; the loss impaired the plaintiffs' later Wyoming lawsuit against the other driver, leading them to settle for $350,000. The plaintiffs sued Liberty in federal court asserting claims for negligence as bailee, spoliation of evidence, and bad-faith breach of the insurance contract. The court granted Liberty's motion for summary judgment on the spoliation claim, holding that Colorado does not recognize an independent tort for spoliation, and granted the motion to dismiss the bad-faith claim because the allegations did not fit recognized first-party or third-party bad-faith theories under Colorado law. It denied summary judgment on the negligence-of-bailee claim, recognizing that a bailment existed and that Liberty could be liable for failing to preserve the property, but limited recoverable damages to the value of the taillights themselves rather than consequential losses from the Wyoming settlement. The court also addressed standing and statute-of-limitations issues but permitted the limited bailment claim to proceed.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This case involved two construction companies, Greystone and Branan, that faced lawsuits from home buyers alleging property damage from soil subsidence and poor workmanship; both sought defense and indemnification under commercial general liability policies issued by National Fire and American Family. American Family defended and settled the suits, while National Fire refused coverage, leading to claims for declaratory relief, contribution, and breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment to National Fire, holding that the underlying suits did not allege an "occurrence" because claims of faulty workmanship do not qualify as accidental events covered by the policies. It did not reach arguments about policy endorsements or other exclusions.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order declining to approve a stipulation to dismiss an adversary proceeding brought by the U.S. Trustee to deny the debtor's Chapter 7 discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and (a)(4)(A), and declining to enter a discharge order. The debtor had used an unauthorized social security number to incur debts before obtaining a valid one and had disclosed both numbers in his bankruptcy filings, though notice issues and his invocation of Fifth Amendment rights arose during proceedings. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's decision and remanded the matter, reasoning that the bankruptcy court lacked authority under § 105 or otherwise to compel the trustee to pursue the action, to withhold discharge based on the circumstances presented, or to interfere with the executive branch's prosecutorial discretion.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involves defendant Joseph Nacchio, who was convicted in 2007 on 19 counts of securities fraud for insider stock trades and sentenced to 72 months in prison. Following appeals in which a Tenth Circuit panel reversed the conviction on an expert testimony issue but the en banc court reinstated it, Nacchio sought bail pending a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b). The district court granted reconsideration of an earlier denial but ultimately denied bail, limiting its analysis to the narrow statutory criteria without evaluating the conviction's merits, the Tenth Circuit's decision, or the prospects for Supreme Court review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Glen Llewellyn, who borrowed funds secured by a deed of trust on real property and later attempted to refinance by tendering the principal balance, only for an agent to convert the funds instead of applying them to the loan. Ocwen and related defendants then pursued collection, reported negative credit information, and initiated foreclosure proceedings, prompting Llewellyn to assert claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Colorado outrageous conduct against Ocwen, Nomura, and CM&S. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in part, dismissing the FCRA claim for failure to allege notice from a credit reporting agency, the outrageous conduct claim as preempted by the FCRA and insufficiently pleaded, and certain FDCPA claims as time-barred or inadequately alleged, while allowing limited aspects to proceed subject to further review.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involves a lawsuit by Johnstown Feed & Seed, Inc. (JFS) and its individual owners against their insurer, Continental Western Insurance Company, after a fire damaged JFS's business in 2005. The plaintiffs brought ten claims, including breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, conversion, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, alleging improper claim handling and other misconduct by the insurer. The court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on multiple claims, dismissing those for conversion, abuse of process, emotional distress and outrageous conduct, CCPA violations, fraud, and civil conspiracy. The rulings rested on findings that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient evidence to meet key legal elements, such as public impact for the CCPA claim, standing for the individual owners, or proof of an agreement for conspiracy, under Colorado law and federal summary judgment standards.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a motion for attorney's fees filed by Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance after the court dismissed all claims against former Defendant Cynthia Davis. The plaintiff had added Davis to the suit and asserted claims against her for negligence and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, alleging she failed to advise him about enhanced insurance coverage when handling his claim. The court had previously granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss those claims. American Family sought fees under Colorado Revised Statute § 13-17-201, which requires an award of reasonable attorney's fees when a tort action is dismissed on a Rule 12(b) motion prior to trial. The court granted the motion, holding that the statute applies to dismissals in federal court, covers situations where all claims against one defendant are dismissed even if other defendants remain, and is not defeated by the presence of contract claims alongside tort claims in the action against that defendant.

proceduretorts & liability