Robert E. Blackburn

This case concerns Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings involving debtors who proposed plans with non-standard language purporting to fix the value of secured creditors' claims and liens through plan confirmation, with res judicata effect if no objection was filed. The bankruptcy court approved this language and confirmed the plans, holding that confirmation could bind creditors and override aspects of the claims process under the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. On appeal, the district court reversed those orders, concluding that the proper procedure for determining the value and treatment of secured claims is the claims process established in the Code rather than plan confirmation. The court reasoned that the claims procedure may not be supplanted by plan language and adopted the analysis from a conflicting bankruptcy court decision reaching the same result. The cases were remanded for entry of new confirmation orders consistent with this holding.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a defamation claim brought by Spacecon Specialty Contractors, LLC against Richard Bensinger over statements in his film 'Looking the Other Way: Benefitting from Misc.y,' which discussed alleged mistreatment, underpayment, misclassification, and trafficking of immigrant construction workers by labor broker Leno and its clients, including Spacecon. The court granted Bensinger's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Spacecon could not prevail on its claim. The core reasoning was that the film's statements addressed matters of public concern, requiring Spacecon to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Bensinger acted with actual malice—either knowing the statements were false or with reckless disregard for their truth—which Spacecon failed to demonstrate with sufficient evidence. The court applied Colorado substantive law and federal procedural standards in a diversity jurisdiction case.

torts & liabilitycivil rightsimmigrationlabor & employment

This case involves plaintiff Bouchard suing Denver police officers Whetstone and Jimenez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of constitutional rights, along with related claims, and suing the City of Denver under Monell for failure to train or supervise its officers. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity for the officers. The court denied summary judgment to the individual officers, finding that Bouchard had presented sufficient evidence to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thereby overcoming qualified immunity at this stage. The court granted summary judgment to the City of Denver on the Monell claim, as Bouchard failed to cite any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding inadequate training or supervision. The case proceeds against the officers only, with the city dismissed as a defendant.

civil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Strandlof, the defendant was charged under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 with falsely claiming to have received military decorations including the Purple Heart and Silver Star. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the information, holding that the statute is unconstitutional. The core reasoning was that the Act imposes a content-based restriction on speech by criminalizing false statements about military honors, and such speech is protected by the First Amendment unless it falls into narrow unprotected categories like fraud or defamation. The court rejected the government's argument that false statements lacking political or public concern value receive no protection, citing Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Stevens that speech cannot be excluded based on a balancing of its perceived value.

criminal lawfree speech

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which Arkansas Valley Drilling claimed that damage to its building's concrete slab from an underground water pipe rupture should be covered under a policy issued by Continental Western Insurance Company. The plaintiff theorized that the underground rupture resulted from saturation and freezing/thawing caused by an earlier covered loss from a frozen indoor pipe, but the insurer denied the second claim based on policy exclusions for earth movement and water damage. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy's concurrent or sequential cause provision and specific exclusions barred coverage for losses involving earth movement regardless of any contributing covered event. Under Colorado law, the court enforced the plain language of the policy and found no genuine issues of material fact that would allow the plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, or bad faith to proceed.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs Erica Hoffman and her parents suing Ford Motor Company after Erica suffered severe injuries, including tetraplegia, in a rollover car accident, with claims of strict liability and negligence against Ford as the vehicle manufacturer. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding substantial damages and apportioning 25% fault to Ford (with the rest to the driver and plaintiff). The court addressed the form of the judgment, specifically whether non-economic damages could exceed Colorado's statutory cap beyond Ford's pro rata share of liability. The court ruled that while clear and convincing evidence justified exceeding the cap due to the exceptional circumstances of Erica's injuries, the award for non-economic damages against Ford was limited to its 25% pro rata share, resulting in $375,000. This conclusion followed from the interplay between Colorado's pro rata liability statute and the non-economic damages cap, as interpreted in General Electric Co. v. Niemet, ensuring no defendant pays more than its apportioned fault even when the cap is lifted.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a race discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 brought by plaintiff Mark DuHall against defendant Lennar Family of Builders after DuHall purchased a home from Lennar and the parties disputed the completion of repairs. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that statements attributed to a Lennar employee lacked admissible evidence of racial animus and could not be imputed to the company because the employee lacked management or final decision-making authority. Additionally, DuHall failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework using indirect evidence.

civil rightsprocedure

In Robinson v. Dean Foods Co., plaintiff Mary Robinson alleged that her employer, Meadow Gold Dairy, discriminated against her on the basis of race and retaliated against her for opposing perceived unlawful practices, leading to the termination of her employment as a machine operator in 2006. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the claims. The court granted the motion after reviewing the evidence on job duties, medical restrictions, and internal complaints, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a triable issue under the applicable legal standards for discrimination and retaliation. The decision rested on the absence of competent evidence showing that the employer's actions were pretextual or motivated by prohibited factors.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved an ERISA dispute in which plaintiff Mary McClenahan, a former Kroger employee, challenged Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's termination of her long-term disability benefits under the company health and welfare plan after she had received 24 months of benefits for a chronic neck and back condition. The court treated the parties' cross-motions as summary judgment filings and granted the defendants' motion while denying the plaintiff's. Applying an abuse-of-discretion standard because the plan granted the administrator discretionary authority to interpret terms and determine eligibility, the court upheld the termination after reviewing the administrative record and concluding that MetLife had reasonably interpreted the plan provisions and found substantial evidence that the plaintiff's condition did not meet the criteria for continued benefits, such as arising from radiculopathies.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case concerned the Rocky Mountain Christian Church's lawsuit against the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County after the board partially denied the church's 2004 special use application to expand its facilities from about 116,000 to 240,800 square feet. A jury found for the church on three claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), specifically violations of the equal terms, substantial burden, and unreasonable limitations provisions, but found for the board on the church's other RLUIPA, constitutional, and state claims, awarding no damages. The court granted a permanent injunction ordering the board to approve the modified application within 45 days, based on the church's success on the merits, the irreparable harm from interference with religious exercise, and the balance of equities and public interest favoring relief, while denying broader injunctive requests and entering judgment consistent with the verdicts on all claims.

religious libertycivil rights

This case involved a church suing a county board after the board partially denied the church's application to expand its facilities, with the church alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). A jury found for the church on claims under RLUIPA's equal terms, substantial burden, and unreasonable limitations provisions. The court denied the board's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdicts and that the RLUIPA provisions at issue were constitutional as applied under Congress's Section 5 enforcement powers.

religious libertyfederal powerproperty

In Jackson v. Potter, the plaintiff, a postal service employee, sued his employer alleging a hostile work environment created by his supervisor's repeated harassment, surveillance, schedule changes, and disrespectful treatment, which led to emotional distress and new health issues; a jury awarded him $200,000 in compensatory damages with minimal economic loss proven. The defendant moved for remittitur, arguing the award was excessive and unsupported by substantial evidence. The court denied the motion, holding that the jury's verdict was supported by the totality of the circumstances, including coworker testimony about the supervisor singling out the plaintiff, the plaintiff's unblemished prior work history, and evidence of his resulting frustration and health impacts. Remittitur is warranted only when an award shocks the judicial conscience due to passion or prejudice, a high bar not met here given the competent evidence of dignitary and psychological harm.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case concerns Defendant's motion for remittitur seeking to reduce a $200,000 compensatory damages award in an employment dispute involving claims of hostile work environment and harassment by a supervisor at a postal facility. The court denied the motion, finding that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence of a volatile and intimidating atmosphere in which the supervisor singled out the plaintiff, including constant surveillance, schedule changes, disrespectful interactions, and actions that prevented the plaintiff from performing his duties. The core reasoning was that damage awards are generally inviolate unless they shock the judicial conscience or indicate improper influence, and here the plaintiff's testimony about resulting emotional distress, high blood pressure, and impact on his sense of self-worth—substantiated by coworker accounts and his employment history—provided adequate support for the amount awarded.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a defendant's motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on a hostile work environment claim against a supervisor. The court denied the motion, finding that the defendant failed to meet the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 for granting a new trial based on evidentiary rulings, the weight of the evidence, or alleged juror misconduct. The court held that evidence of other discrimination complaints was properly admitted for purposes such as motive and intent under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) strictly limited any inquiry into jury deliberations absent clear evidence of extraneous influences. The decision emphasized that errors must affect substantial rights to warrant a new trial and that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Parker v. Stryker Corp., the plaintiff sued the manufacturers of her Trident Ceramic Acetabular System artificial hip implant under Colorado state law for failure to warn, manufacturing and design defects, breach of warranties, and negligence after experiencing audible sounds, irritation, bone loss, and risk of revision surgery following her 2004 implantation. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that all claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA under the Supreme Court's holding in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., because the device had received premarket approval imposing specific federal requirements. The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the state claims sought to impose different or additional requirements and that the plaintiff had not adequately pled any parallel claims based on violations of FDA regulations, while overruling related discovery objections as moot.

torts & liabilityfederal powerhealthcare

The case involved the United States bringing an in rem claim against the Grand River Ditch under the Park System Resource Protection Act for damage to Rocky Mountain National Park caused by a 2003 breach, which resulted from delayed maintenance by the ditch's operator. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending that neither the ditch nor its easement qualified as an instrumentality subject to in rem liability under the statute. The court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the statutory term instrumentality has a plain and unambiguous broad meaning that encompasses the ditch, as indicated by the inclusive language including but not limited to examples such as vessels and vehicles.

environmentpropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a pro se plaintiff who worked as a bus driver for the Boulder Valley School District and sued under Title VII, alleging a hostile work environment and discriminatory discharge based on his Polish national origin. The district court, after reviewing the magistrate judge's detailed recommendation and the plaintiff's objections, overruled the objections as meritless and adopted the recommendation in full. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, awarded costs to the defendant, and dismissed the case. The ruling rested on the conclusion that the magistrate judge's analysis of the factual record and applicable law was sound and that the plaintiff had not shown any basis to deny summary judgment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Perkins v. Johnson, plaintiffs brought claims against defendants Leonid Shifrin and Matthew Green arising from two home refinance loans, including an alleged violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) against Shifrin. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in full, dismissing the RESPA claim against Shifrin with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds and dismissing all claims against Green with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court reasoned that Green's answer did not cure the plaintiffs' failure to respond to an order to show cause, that the five-factor test for dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) was satisfied, and that the RESPA claim was time-barred without equitable tolling or relation back. Other claims against Shifrin were allowed to proceed.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved plaintiff David Allison, operator of the website cheatcc.com, suing defendant Jeremy Wise for copyright infringement and unfair competition, alleging that Wise copied content from Allison's website onto his own competing websites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted Wise's motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Wise. The court reasoned that Wise, a non-resident, did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Colorado under due process standards, as his websites were passive and there was no evidence of purposeful direction toward the forum state, nor continuous and systematic contacts for general jurisdiction.

procedureproperty

This case involved a dispute between an insured plaintiff and his auto insurer over the scope of work loss benefits payable after a covered car accident under an enhanced PIP policy governed by the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act. The key question was whether the value of employer-funded health, dental, and vision insurance should be included when calculating the plaintiff's gross income for purposes of determining work loss benefits, an issue of first impression under Colorado law. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motions, holding that such benefits are included in gross income because the term is undefined in the policy or statute and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the Act's compensatory purpose. The court also addressed a secondary claim regarding reimbursement for vocational testing, finding that a statutory timely-notice provision for medical procedures did not apply.

business & regulatoryprocedure