Raymond Paul Moore

This case involves an application by defense counsel for attorney fees and reimbursement of costs under the Criminal Justice Act following a federal drug conspiracy prosecution. The court determined that the matter qualified as both extended and complex under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, permitting compensation beyond the ordinary statutory maximum, but required that all time be reasonably expended and expenses reasonably incurred. After reviewing the submission, the court disallowed substantial portions of the claimed hours because they reflected the attorney's self-education in criminal practice rather than necessary work, and rejected most costs for failing to show actual out-of-pocket expenditures or adequate justification. The court ultimately awarded $6,675 in fees and $199.43 in expenses.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Jackson County Federal Savings and Loan Association (JCF) and Colorado National Bank (CNB) over their respective priorities in a promissory note and deed of trust securing a construction loan for a residential project in Colorado, after the borrower and lead lender defaulted. JCF sought a declaratory judgment that it owned half the note and was entitled to payment priority based on its participation agreement, along with other claims, while CNB claimed a first security interest under its loan agreement with the lead lender. The court denied JCF's motion for partial summary judgment and granted CNB's motion in part and denied it in part. The core reasoning focused on the nature of the parties' interests and the applicable law, concluding that UCC Article 9 governs perfection and priority of security interests in the note through possession.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a 1981 methane and coal dust explosion in a Colorado mine that killed fifteen miners, leading to wrongful death claims against equipment manufacturers on products liability theories and against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged negligence by an MSHA electrical inspector in directing wiring installation. The court addressed the government's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which asserted that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity barred the claims. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against the United States, reasoning that the inspector's conduct involved discretionary regulatory and enforcement activities whose nature, not the specific acts or any distinction between active and passive negligence, placed them within the exception as clarified by the Supreme Court's Varig Airlines decision.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

This case was an antitrust action under the Sherman Act brought by Western Systems, Inc. and Thomas McCasland against Dynatech Corp. and others, alleging injury from the enforcement of a non-compete covenant in the helium sampling services market and related state court litigation. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the alleged injury (attorneys' fees from the state action) was not cognizable under antitrust law, McCasland was a former employee without a qualifying interest, and Western was a dissolved corporation. The pendent state tort claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

business & regulatory

This case is a toxic shock wrongful death lawsuit in which Stephen Reighley sued individually and on behalf of his minor children against International Playtex, Inc. for the death of his wife Sally. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the children's claims, arguing lack of standing under Colorado's wrongful death statute, that only the personal representative may bring survival claims, and that children have no independent loss-of-consortium action. The court granted the motion in part, holding that only the surviving spouse as personal representative may pursue survival claims for outrageous conduct and negligent infliction of emotional distress, but denied it as to the wrongful death action because the children have a statutory interest in any recovery and precedent permits their inclusion. The court also denied the motion on the children's independent claim for loss of parental society and companionship, recognizing such a cause of action for minors while imposing joinder and dependency requirements.

torts & liabilityfamily law

The case involved a Michigan attorney who passed the Colorado bar examination but was denied admission solely because he did not meet the state's residency requirement under Colo.R.Civ.P. 201.14(1). The plaintiff brought a federal lawsuit challenging the rule as a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, while the defendants argued lack of jurisdiction and that the requirement was justified by the state's interest in regulating the legal profession. The court first determined it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because the suit challenged a generally applicable rule rather than an individual admission decision. On the merits, the court concluded that the residency rule impermissibly discriminated against nonresidents by limiting their ability to practice law without a substantial reason, and that less restrictive alternatives existed to ensure professional standards. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, declared the residency requirement unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

This case involved former employees of a union-negotiated pension plan who sued the plan, its administrator, and trustees under ERISA, alleging they were wrongfully discharged in retaliation for discovering and reporting fiduciary violations. The plaintiffs sought lost wages, benefits, reinstatement, punitive damages, and other relief, along with several related state-law claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful discharge. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim, holding that ERISA's civil enforcement provisions and legislative history permit such relief for breaches of fiduciary duty. It granted partial summary judgment dismissing the state-law claims, reasoning that they were preempted by ERISA because the federal statute comprehensively addresses the alleged retaliatory conduct and provides adequate remedies.

labor & employmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves the modification of restitution orders for defendants convicted of stealing and transporting silver-bearing sludge from an Eastman Kodak plant. The court reconsidered prior orders under 18 U.S.C. § 3579 and limited the recoverable losses to direct damage to or loss of property, such as repairs to windows, carts, and replacement of padlocks and a bolt cutter, totaling specific amounts, while excluding claims for attorney fees, investigation costs, interest, and recovery expenses. The court apportioned the total loss of $74,163 among the defendants individually based on their financial abilities rather than imposing joint and several liability, resulting in varying payment amounts for Trettenaro, Syslo, Handy, and none for Escove. The reasoning centered on the plain language of the statute restricting compensation to physical injury or loss of property and the discretionary nature of restitution considering individual circumstances.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Borumka alleged that defendants violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act by denying her opportunities due to age and retaliating against her for opposing unlawful practices, while also bringing related state claims for outrageous conduct and violation of a Colorado age discrimination statute. The court denied motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on the ADEA claims against an individual defendant and the retaliation claim, finding that the EEOC charge provided adequate notice through identity of interest and reasonable relation of the allegations. However, the court dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice, citing concerns of federalism, the lack of Colorado precedent on private actions under the state statute, and the risk of jury confusion from differing remedies, and it struck the request for compensatory and punitive damages because such relief is unavailable under the ADEA.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case arose when the bankruptcy trustee for the Center of Hope Church and its affiliated organizations sued the Christian Reformed Church, its Board of Publications, and two editors, alleging breach of contract and antitrust violations from the Board's refusal to publish further advertisements for unsecured promissory notes in The Banner magazine, plus defamation from a 1982 article titled 'Former C.R.C. Complex in Trouble.' The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the Board and church entities constituted a single enterprise that could not conspire with itself under the Sherman Act or parallel state antitrust law; that no enforceable contract existed for future ad placements; and that the defamation claim failed because the plaintiff could not show actual malice under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard applicable to media reports on matters of public concern.

business & regulatoryfree speechreligious libertytorts & liability

This case is a bankruptcy appeal concerning a Colorado debtor's claim to a $20,000 homestead exemption on a residence he owns in joint tenancy with his non-debtor spouse. The debtor argued he could claim the full exemption amount on his half-interest under federal bankruptcy rules, but the trustee objected that only half applied. The court decided that the Colorado homestead exemption is a property right attached to the real estate itself, not a personal right of each owner, and that the case was not a joint proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 522(m). It further held that limiting the exemption to the debtor's proportionate share did not violate the Supremacy Clause because Colorado had opted out of the federal exemption scheme and its law was consistent with federal authority. The bankruptcy court's ruling allowing only a $10,000 exemption was affirmed.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case involves a motion by defendant Shambaugh to dismiss the plaintiff's third claim for relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which alleged a pattern of racketeering based on fraud in the sale of securities by the defendants, including Sierra Federal Savings and Loan Association as the enterprise. The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint failed to state a valid RICO claim. The reasoning was that, although the statute's language does not explicitly require a connection to organized crime, legislative intent limits RICO to addressing unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime, and thus some allegation linking the defendants' activities to organized criminal activity is necessary. The court followed the reasoning in Noland v. Gurley from the same district, noting a split in authority but lacking guidance from the Tenth Circuit.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether a judgment debt for property damage caused by the debtor driving under the influence of alcohol could be discharged in bankruptcy. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's determination that the debt was dischargeable, holding instead that it constituted a non-dischargeable claim for willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court reasoned that the statutory standard for willful and malicious injury includes conduct where intent to injure may be implied from actions that are highly likely to cause harm, such as drunk driving, consistent with pre-Code interpretations like Tinker v. Colwell.

criminal lawtorts & liability

This case involved 20 property owners in Fort Collins, Colorado, who sued the city, its council members, a nonprofit railway society, and its board members over an agreement to build and operate an electrical streetcar on West Mountain Avenue abutting their properties. The plaintiffs claimed violations of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, actionable via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state-law claims for nuisance, trespass, code violations, and inverse condemnation based on alleged interference with property rights like light, air, view, and privacy. The court dismissed the federal claims, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show a deprivation of due process because adequate state remedies existed, such as mandamus under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106 and inverse condemnation proceedings under the state constitution, and that the equal protection claim lacked allegations of differential treatment or a suspect classification. With no viable federal claims remaining, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed the entire complaint.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

In USA Network v. Gannett Co., Inc., the plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendant from changing its Denver television station's call letters from KBTV to KUSA-TV, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and related state law claims. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The reasoning centered on the distinct business models—cable network versus over-the-air broadcast station—and the low risk of consumer confusion among viewers or advertisers due to differences in programming delivery and advertising practices. The court also noted that audience rating systems would not be impacted by the call letter change.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a South Dakota family that lived in a home built on or near uranium mill tailings from a facility once operated by a subsidiary of defendant Susquehanna Corporation, leading to alleged radiation exposure and resulting claims for property loss, physical injury, increased cancer risk, medical costs, and emotional distress. The plaintiffs asserted theories including negligence, failure to warn, and strict liability, and also sought punitive damages and treble damages under the state's forcible eviction statute. The district court denied the defendant's three motions for partial summary judgment, holding that factual questions remained on whether the defendant's conduct constituted forcible exclusion from the property, that federal nuclear regulations did not preempt punitive damages, and that expert evidence raised triable issues regarding present chromosome damage and future cancer risk.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

This case arose from a 1981 methane and coal explosion in a Colorado mine that killed 15 miners, leading to wrongful death actions against manufacturers of mining equipment on products liability grounds including strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty, and against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligent mine inspections. The court denied motions to dismiss the breach of warranty claims, holding that Colorado's Wrongful Death Statute encompasses such claims as "wrongful acts" or "defaults" without distinguishing between tort and contract duties. However, it granted partial summary judgment dismissing those warranty claims as time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations for sales of goods, which accrues at delivery. Finally, the court granted the United States' motion to dismiss, concluding that the federal mine inspection laws create no tort duty owed to the miners by the government.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a lawsuit by First Western Government Securities, Inc. and related plaintiffs against the United States and several IRS employees, alleging unauthorized disclosure of confidential return information in a Revenue Agent’s Report sent to investors. The plaintiffs claimed the disclosures violated tax laws and were made negligently or maliciously to harm their business. The court dismissed the claims against some defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), finding the statute inapplicable to suits for damages against individuals. For the remaining defendants, the court granted summary judgment, ruling that the disclosures were authorized under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(4)(C) as they occurred in an administrative tax proceeding and related to the investors' transactions with the plaintiffs.

taxesprocedure

This case is a products liability action brought under diversity jurisdiction, in which plaintiffs alleged that defects in a Jeep manufactured and sold by defendants caused the death of Charles Doty in a 1983 single-car accident and asserted claims including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and a fifth claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Defendants moved to dismiss only the Magnuson-Moss claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the Act does not create a federal cause of action for personal-injury claims that are otherwise governed by state warranty law and that plaintiffs had not alleged any specific violation of the Act's standards. The court further reasoned that the 12-month/12,000-mile limitation in the express limited warranty was reasonable and conscionable as a matter of law, so the implied warranties were validly limited to that period, and plaintiffs could still pursue their state-law claims.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Iranian natives facing final deportation orders from 1980 sought to reopen proceedings, apply for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act and related treaties, and raised due process challenges to INS procedures for stays and hearings, filing habeas petitions in district court after arrests. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the constitutional claims while defendants contested jurisdiction. It held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under section 106(a) of the Act, which grants exclusive authority to the courts of appeals over final deportation orders and all matters on which their validity depends, including constitutional challenges, to ensure single, expeditious review. The cases were dismissed and preliminary injunctions vacated.

immigrationprocedure