John L. Kane jr

Righthaven LLC sued Leland Wolf for copyright infringement of a photograph originally published by the Denver Post, after the copyright was assigned to Righthaven solely for the purpose of enforcement. The court converted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction into a summary judgment motion due to the intertwined nature of jurisdiction and the merits under federal copyright law. It held that Righthaven lacked standing because a bare assignment of the right to sue, without transfer of copyright ownership or exclusive rights, does not confer authority to bring an infringement action under the 1976 Copyright Act and its constitutional foundations. Summary judgment was granted to the defendant, and Righthaven was ordered to pay costs and reasonable attorney fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.

propertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiff George Barrie, a former contract employee at a nuclear weapons facility, who sought wage-loss benefits under Part E of the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act after claiming that toxin exposure caused medical conditions preventing him from working. The Department of Labor denied the claim, and Barrie filed a federal lawsuit seeking review 61 days after the agency's final decision on reconsideration. The court granted the Department's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the 60-day statutory deadline for filing a petition for review was jurisdictional under Supreme Court precedent and could not be extended by equitable tolling or by Barrie's later request to reopen the claim, which did not affect the finality date established by regulation.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

This case concerned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2008 decision to delist the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse as threatened in the Wyoming portion of its range, while keeping it listed in Colorado, based solely on a 2007 Solicitor's opinion interpreting the Endangered Species Act phrase 'in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.' Petitioners challenged the delisting, the Colorado listing status, and the underlying statutory interpretation as inconsistent with the ESA. After other district courts rejected the Solicitor's interpretation and the Solicitor withdrew it, the agency moved for remand and vacatur of the 2008 decision to allow reconsideration. The court granted the motion, finding that vacatur was equitable because the decision rested entirely on the withdrawn interpretation, the agency sought voluntary reconsideration, and intervenors did not show sufficient hardship or procedural barriers to justify denial.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involved the Colorado Department of Human Services, as the state licensing agency under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, filing suit on behalf of a blind vendor to challenge the U.S. Air Force's award of a food services contract at the Air Force Academy to another bidder. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo of its expiring contract while exhausting the Act's required administrative arbitration remedies. The court denied the injunction and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that judicial review under the Act is unavailable until administrative remedies are exhausted and that the plaintiff had not shown irreparable harm sufficient to support injunctive relief via the All Writs Act.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case consists of consolidated putative class actions brought by wire transfer customers against Western Union, alleging that the company failed to notify them when transfers went unclaimed, held the funds in interest-bearing accounts for extended periods, and retained the accrued interest for itself after eventually returning the principal under state unclaimed property laws. Plaintiffs asserted claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud. The court denied Western Union's motion to dismiss the conversion and unjust enrichment claims, concluding that the complaints met the minimal notice pleading standards of Rule 8 and plausibly alleged that Western Union wrongfully exercised dominion over and benefited from interest that belonged to the customers. The fraud claims were held in abeyance pending oral argument, while choice-of-law and other issues were deemed inappropriate for resolution at the pleading stage.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a challenge by Common Cause of Colorado and other organizations to Colorado's '20-day Rule' under C.R.S. § 1-2-509(3), which cancels new voter registrations if the confirmation mail is returned undeliverable within 20 days. Plaintiffs argued this violated the National Voter Registration Act's provisions on removing registrants from voter lists. The court decided in favor of the Secretary of State, granting summary judgment, reasoning that the rule applies to confirming initial eligibility of applicants rather than removing already registered voters based on change of residence, thus not conflicting with NVRA § 8(d).

electionscivil rightsfederal power

This case concerned a challenge by environmental groups to decisions by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement approving five-year permit renewals and expansions for the Navajo Mine on tribal lands in New Mexico, which supplies coal to a power plant. The plaintiffs argued that OSM failed to comply with NEPA by relying on categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and findings of no significant impact without adequate analysis of cultural, historic, and ethnographic resources. The court reviewed the administrative record and determined that OSM's approvals were deficient because required studies were completed after the decisions, mitigation measures lacked sufficient detail for public or judicial evaluation, and the agency did not fully address impacts on protected sites under statutes like the National Historic Preservation Act. Core reasoning focused on NEPA's procedural mandates for major federal actions, including the need for timely and thorough environmental review when expanding mining operations beyond existing permit boundaries.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In this case, Defendant Rausch was convicted in 2008 of possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) after a government seizure of images and videos; due to his health issues, he received a sentence of one day in prison followed by lifetime supervised release with conditions including home confinement and sex-offender treatment. After violating those conditions multiple times, including by viewing adult pornography and failing to comply with treatment and monitoring, the court revoked his supervised release in 2010 and sentenced him to two years in prison. Rausch appealed the revocation and moved for bond pending appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b). The court denied the motion, holding that the offense qualifies as a crime of violence triggering mandatory detention and that § 3145(c) does not authorize district courts to grant release even if exceptional reasons exist, while also finding Rausch failed to meet any applicable standards for release.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved DISH Network seeking declaratory judgments that its insurers were required to defend and indemnify it against patent infringement claims in the underlying Katz lawsuit, which alleged infringement of interactive call-processing patents through DISH's customer service telephone systems. The insurers moved for summary judgment, contending that the policies' coverage for advertising injury did not apply. The court granted the motions, ruling that the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify because the patents at issue involved automated telephone systems and methods of conveying information, not advertising ideas, and the alleged infringement did not occur in the course of advertising. In the absence of a duty to defend, there was also no duty to indemnify or potential for breach of contract.

business & regulatory

This case involves a products liability dispute over a defective airplane engine, where an insurer sought recovery after an aircraft incident. Following a Tenth Circuit remand requiring application of Idaho's comparative fault statute instead of Colorado's, the defendants renewed motions for summary judgment arguing that Idaho's economic loss rule barred the tort claims. The court denied the motions, determining that the defendants had waived any choice-of-law argument for Idaho's economic loss rule by failing to raise it during six years of pretrial proceedings, multiple motions, and the original trial while instead pursuing admiralty law defenses exclusively. In the alternative, the court rejected the motions on the merits under Idaho law.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerns a challenge by environmental groups to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decisions on the listing status of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse under the Endangered Species Act, including a proposed partial delisting in Wyoming based on a new Solicitor’s opinion interpreting the statutory phrase “significant portion of its range.” The opinion addresses procedural disputes in the APA judicial review, specifically whether the administrative record should be supplemented with additional documents and how to handle claims of privilege. The court orders the respondents to prepare a detailed privilege log for withheld materials and clarifies standards and exceptions for completing or supplementing the record in cases involving informal agency action.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involves WildEarth Guardians challenging federal agency approvals that allowed Mountain Coal Company to expand operations at the West Elk Coal Mine into the E seam, including plans to vent methane gas directly into the atmosphere. These approvals came from the Forest Service (consent), the Assistant Secretary of the Interior (mine plan modifications for Phases I and II), and the BLM (amendments to coal leases), all based on environmental reviews under NEPA and related statutes. The plaintiffs argued that the environmental impact statements were inadequate for failing to consider alternatives, mitigation, and impacts of methane venting, and that the administrative records were incomplete due to missing documents and improper privilege claims. The court ruled on the plaintiffs' motion to compel completion of the two administrative records (Mine Plan Modification and Lease Amendment), granting it in part and denying it in part after applying APA standards to determine which materials the agencies directly or indirectly relied upon in their decisions.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This ERISA case involves Julie Meek's challenge to Zurich North America Insurance Company's denial of accidental death benefits under two policies covering her late husband, an Anadarko Petroleum employee, who died in a 2007 motorcycle crash with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. Zurich denied the claim, concluding the death was not an "accident" because it was a reasonably foreseeable result of drunk driving and was excluded as a "purposely self-inflicted injury." Following the reasoning in a similar District of Colorado case (LaAsmar), the court applied de novo review, rejected Zurich's foreseeability-based definition of "accident" (which the policies did not define), and held that the death fell within the policy's coverage for accidental bodily injury. The court granted judgment for Meek on the administrative record, ordering benefits and related relief while dismissing Zurich's counterclaim.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves environmental organizations challenging the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSM) 2004 renewal and 2005 revision of permits for a coal mine on Navajo tribal lands in New Mexico, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) due to inadequate environmental reviews, public participation, and failure to consider certain studies or impacts. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief regarding OSM's decisions on mining operations, including coal combustion waste disposal and area expansions. On motions to dismiss or transfer venue filed by federal defendants and intervenors, the court denied the motions in part and granted them in part, finding that some claims could proceed after analyzing issues like exhaustion of administrative remedies under SMCRA, the necessity of joining the Navajo Nation as a party under Rule 19, and venue considerations. The core reasoning focused on statutory interpretation of NEPA requirements, precedents on tribal interests and exhaustion, and the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' allegations without reaching the merits of the environmental claims.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns a quiet title action brought by the Pine River Irrigation District against the United States under the Quiet Title Act to establish an easement or right of way for a dam and reservoir at Emerald Lake on federal land in Colorado, which the government contested via counterclaims. The court addressed threshold legal issues based on a stipulated historical record, including whether the claim was timely, whether a valid right of way had been created under the Act of March 3, 1891, and whether any such right had been forfeited or abandoned. The court concluded that no vested right of way was established because the 1895 application map for unsurveyed land was only filed for general information and never approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by the statute and regulations, the proposed use was not exclusively for irrigation, and any potential right had been abandoned by the 1940s. It further held that even if a right had vested, it would be subject to forfeiture for non-use consistent with the Act's purposes.

propertyfederal power

Plaintiff Jon Maxey, a restaurant general manager in his early 50s, sued his employer after termination, claiming federal age discrimination and retaliation as well as a state public policy tort. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the federal claims, finding no evidence that the termination or disciplinary actions were based on age or retaliation for protected activity. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim and remanded it to state court, as it involved novel issues of Colorado law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Health Grades, a company that rates healthcare providers, suing Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and breach of contract after the hospital accessed and used the company's ratings, awards, and name in press releases and on its website without authorization or a paid license, despite agreeing to a limited noncommercial license on the website. The court considered the hospital's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It denied the motion in part, allowing the copyright and trademark claims to proceed as the complaint sufficiently alleged protected materials and unauthorized use, and granted it in part regarding aspects of the breach of contract claim after analyzing potential preemption by federal copyright law, finding that some contract claims were not qualitatively different from copyright claims and thus preempted while others were not. The decision rested on accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true, examining the scope of the website's click-through license agreement, and applying precedents on copyright preemption of state contract claims.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproperty

This case involves a FOIA request by Information Network for Responsible Mining to the Bureau of Land Management seeking agency records on the Uranium Leasing Program's draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment prepared under NEPA. The BLM missed the statutory response deadline, later produced some documents with extensive redactions justified under FOIA Exemption 5's deliberative process privilege, and argued its actions cured any violation. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied the BLM's motion, granted INFORM's motion in part, and denied it in part, ruling that the agency's search was inadequate and that it lacked sufficient information to assess the redactions without a proper Vaughn index. The court ordered the BLM to conduct a new search consistent with FOIA standards, review the documents, release non-exempt materials, and submit a revised index within 30 days.

environmentprocedurefederal power

This case involves a products liability lawsuit regarding a defective elevator, originally filed in state court and removed to federal court by the defendant based on diversity jurisdiction. The court ordered the case remanded to state court, finding that the defendant had not sufficiently established that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. The reasoning centered on the strict interpretation of removal statutes, a presumption against federal jurisdiction in such cases, and the determination that a state court Civil Cover Sheet does not constitute adequate evidence of the damages amount.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerns contractual disputes between plaintiffs (including MPC and related entities) and defendants arising from a 1997 transaction involving funding for oil and gas properties in Michigan, including volumetric production payment agreements, an escrow agreement for pipeline construction, and a performance guaranty. Plaintiffs and defendants each moved for partial summary judgment on key claims and counterclaims. The court granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiffs', holding that the agreements did not terminate as plaintiffs claimed, that plaintiffs failed to meet production and construction obligations, and that defendants were entitled to judgment on claims such as tortious interference because no material facts were in dispute and the contract terms controlled.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability