In this case, plaintiff Candelaria Moreno-Gutierrez, a Mexican native who entered the U.S. without inspection and was married to a lawful permanent resident, filed an I-360 self-petition as a battered spouse after her husband lost his status due to domestic violence convictions. She missed the two-year statutory filing deadline under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)(aa)(CC)(aaa) due to her attorney's administrative error, leading USCIS and the AAO to deny the petition on the grounds that the deadline was a statute of repose not subject to equitable tolling. The defendants moved to dismiss her complaint seeking a declaration that the deadline is a statute of limitations subject to tolling. The court denied the motion, holding that under Tenth Circuit principles of statutory interpretation the deadline is a statute of limitations because the right to petition accrues upon the spouse's loss of status tied to domestic violence, making it potentially subject to equitable tolling.
In this case, plaintiff Michael McCammond sued his former employer Schwan’s Home Services for breach of employment contract. The court addressed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of unemployment benefits received by the plaintiff and whether those benefits could offset any damages award. Applying Colorado law, the court granted the motion, holding that unemployment benefits come from a collateral governmental source and are not deductible by the employer in mitigation of damages under the collateral source rule. The decision relied on Colorado precedents establishing that such benefits do not reduce the employer's liability in contract actions.
This case involved a borrower who refinanced his mortgage but the servicing company Ocwen did not receive the payoff funds sent via intermediaries, leading Ocwen to report the loan as in default to credit agencies and to initiate foreclosure through its counsel CMS. The plaintiff sued Ocwen, its parent NCCI, and CMS alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, plus state-law claims such as outrageous conduct. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants. It reasoned that the record contained no evidence the defendants had received the refinancing proceeds or acted unreasonably, that the plaintiff could not establish the statutory or common-law elements of his claims, and that discovery disputes did not alter the absence of proof on key facts.
This case involved plaintiffs Agile Safety Variable Fund and Sky Bell Select LP suing defendants RBS Citizens (Charter One) and Swiss Financial Services for allegedly inducing continued investments in Lancelot funds through material misrepresentations, despite Lancelot being a Ponzi scheme that caused over $65 million in losses. The plaintiffs claimed violations including under the Colorado Securities Act, based on the defendants' roles as bank and administrator failing to verify assets. The court denied the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, determining that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the claims and the statute of limitations that required jury resolution.
In Strich v. United States, the plaintiff challenged actions by the U.S. Forest Service under the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming the agency improperly designated a road crossing his property as Forest Development Road 152, later as Forest System Road 110-A, established a trailhead, and published maps showing it as a public road, allegedly without following regulations or obtaining a right-of-way. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity and the statute of limitations. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the claims because they were not brought within the six-year limit under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), as the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest was aware of the relevant facts by the early 1980s when the designations occurred. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply as moot and found that exceptions like those in Wind River Mining Corp. v. United States did not apply to extend the accrual date.