Philip A. Brimmer

This case concerns competing claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy on Walter Kinard, who had been ordered in a 2002 divorce decree and incorporated separation agreement to maintain his ex-wife Lu Celia Kinard as beneficiary to secure ongoing maintenance and child-support obligations. After Kinard changed the beneficiary to his new wife Cynthia Rothrock Kinard in 2003 and died in 2009, the insurer filed an interpleader action; the court realigned the parties and addressed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court awarded Lu Celia Kinard only the amount of maintenance that would have accrued during the fourteen months remaining on Kinard’s obligation and awarded the balance to Cynthia, holding that the policy’s purpose was limited to securing those support payments and that no special circumstances justified a larger recovery.

family law

This case involves claims by the EEOC and intervening employees against JBS USA, LLC, a meatpacking plant operator, alleging Title VII violations including a pattern of religious, national origin, and race discrimination against black Somali Muslim workers, failure to accommodate prayer requirements, hostile work environment, retaliation, and discriminatory discipline and terminations stemming from a 2008 incident during Ramadan when employees sought an adjusted break to break their fast. The opinion addresses the defendant's motions to dismiss the complaints, which argued for dismissal due to failure to join the union as a required party under Rule 19, lack of good-faith conciliation by the EEOC, and failure by intervenors to exhaust administrative remedies. The court analyzed these issues under federal procedural standards, determining that the union was not a required party because its interests would not be impaired by the litigation and existing parties could adequately represent relevant concerns, that conciliation efforts were sufficient, and that exhaustion requirements were met or excused under the single-filing rule for similarly situated claimants. It therefore addressed the viability of the claims without dismissing them on these grounds, while noting that some § 1981 claims would proceed regardless.

labor & employmentcivil rightsreligious libertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Langston Hull, a Black microbiologist hired by Colorado State University in 2003 as part of an effort to increase minority participation in a federal research grant application, who alleged that university officials and committees failed to provide promised lab access, Select Agent Registration, independent research support, and contract renewal due to his race, while also providing negative references and assigning him to unrelated work. Hull brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination in contract rights, Title VII for discrimination and retaliation, and related due process and state law claims against the Board of Governors, various CSU officials, and others. On the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, the court dismissed some claims as time-barred, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Title VII, or for insufficient allegations of personal participation, while permitting others to proceed based on timely filing, exhaustion of hostile environment aspects, and plausible allegations of discriminatory conduct.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves plaintiff Vanessa Vigil's appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her claims for disability insurance benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, after an ALJ found at step four of the sequential evaluation that she was not disabled. The court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment lacked substantial evidence because it was not supported by any medical opinion in the record, the ALJ failed to recontact the consultative examiner or order an additional examination to resolve the deficiency despite the evidence suggesting a need for it, and the ALJ therefore did not properly develop the record before determining that Vigil could perform her past relevant work.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

The case Rodeman v. Foster concerns plaintiff Kathy Rodeman's federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment, along with related Colorado state-law claims, arising from a July 2008 encounter in which Oak Creek Police Sgt. Erik Foster observed her leaving a bar, followed her vehicle, entered her home without a warrant, and used a TASER during an arrest after she refused orders. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the claims. The District Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding genuine disputes of material fact on issues such as whether Foster had observed traffic violations or had consent to enter the home, while holding that the excessive-force claim could proceed independently of the lawfulness of the arrest and that certain other elements, including the TASER warning and qualified-immunity analysis, supported partial judgment for the defendants under the governing standards.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case is a class action lawsuit by investors against Crocs, Inc., its auditor Deloitte & Touche, and various executives and directors alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act based on claims that the company used inadequate data management systems, leading to unreported inventory buildup and misleading statements about its financial condition. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss the amended complaint. It dismissed the claims, holding that the allegations from confidential informants and other sources failed to plead facts creating a strong inference of scienter on the part of the defendants. The core reasoning focused on the lack of particularized facts showing individual defendants' knowledge or recklessness regarding the alleged misrepresentations, as well as the insufficiency of general assertions about inventory concealment or Sarbanes-Oxley certifications.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Allstate Insurance filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the von Metzgers under their personal umbrella insurance policy in a state court lawsuit brought by purchasers of lots in a subdivision the von Metzgers developed. The state court plaintiffs alleged fraud, negligence, and other claims arising from the von Metzgers' failure to disclose contamination by waste oil and unknown toxins on the property. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the policy's pollution exclusion applied because it unambiguously covered property damage from toxic chemicals, gases, liquids, solids, and oil. The court reasoned that the allegations of contamination fell squarely within the exclusion's terms, relieving Allstate of any coverage obligation.

propertytorts & liabilityenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by local residents to the U.S. Forest Service's approval of the Upper Eagle River Beetle Salvage Project, a timber removal effort covering about 1,763 acres in Colorado's White River National Forest to address mountain pine beetle damage, reduce wildfire risks, and promote forest regeneration through methods like clearcutting. The plaintiffs argued under the Administrative Procedure Act, Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that the project was not a qualifying "authorized hazardous fuel reduction project," that the Forest Service failed to conduct a full environmental impact statement, and that certain logging decisions were predetermined or outside approved boundaries. The court upheld the Forest Service's June 2010 Decision Notice and finding of no significant impact, ruling that the project properly qualified under HFRA's definitions and expedited review process, that an environmental assessment sufficed under NEPA, and that some claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies during the objection period. It therefore affirmed the approval and dismissed the complaint.

environmentfederal power

This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Bristol Company Limited Partnership against Bosch Rexroth Inc. and related entities over U.S. Patent Nos. 5,096,125 and 5,186,396, which cover vehicle-mounted devices for spreading ice- and snow-melting materials. The defendants asserted a laches defense based on Bristol's multi-year delay in filing suit after earlier communications with the defendants' predecessor-in-interest. On cross-motions for summary judgment limited to the laches issue, the court granted Bristol's motion and denied the defendants' motion in relevant part. The court held that a six-and-one-half-year delay as to one accused device (CS-230) created a presumption of laches that Bristol rebutted by showing an absence of economic or evidentiary prejudice, while the shorter delay as to the second device (CS-440) did not trigger the presumption and likewise lacked evidence of prejudice.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Matthews v. Wiley, an inmate at the federal ADX prison in Colorado brought Bivens claims against several current and former prison officials alleging violations of his Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights arising from his 1995 transfer to ADX and continued confinement there without notice or a hearing, his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights based on alleged discriminatory denial of transfer to less restrictive facilities, and his Eighth Amendment rights based on harsh conditions of confinement. The defendants moved to dismiss the action. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, primarily on statute of limitations grounds for the transfer claim and for failure to state viable claims on the others. With no objections filed, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, accepted it, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Peter Bradley, a Clinical Social Worker at Denver Health, who sued his employer after being passed over for several Clinical Social Work Supervisor promotions in 2007, alleging violations of Title VII for sex discrimination and the ADEA for age discrimination. The court addressed Denver Health's motion for summary judgment, first noting unresolved questions about Eleventh Amendment immunity but proceeding to the merits since the defense was not formally raised and would not dispose of the entire case. On the ADEA claim, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that Bradley failed to show the employer's stated reasons for not promoting him were pretext for age discrimination and that no reasonable jury could infer age-based animus, citing evidence of similar-aged hires in prior years and lack of affirmative proof of age playing a role. On the Title VII claim, the court denied summary judgment, determining there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the employer's reasons masked sex-based discrimination. The Title VII claim therefore remains pending for trial.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a dispute between Big O Tires, a tire franchisor, and its former franchisees (Felix Bros., Inc. and related individuals) over in-term covenants not to compete in three California franchise agreements. After the defendants terminated the Quartz Hill franchise and began operating a competing tire store under a different name, Big O sought a preliminary injunction to enforce the non-compete clauses in the remaining Palmdale and Lancaster agreements and to prevent competition at the Quartz Hill location. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, reasoning that California law generally voids broad covenants not to compete unless tied to the sale of business goodwill, that the plaintiff failed to show the covenants would not foreclose competition in a substantial market share, and that Big O did not demonstrate irreparable harm from the defendants' continued operations.

business & regulatory

This case involves a patent dispute between the City of Aurora, which was developing a water supply project including an aquifer recharge facility, and the holders of patents on underground water storage structures and methods. Aurora and its contractor moved to dismiss the patentees' counterclaims for infringement, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because construction on the disputed facility had not begun and Aurora retained the contractual right to eliminate it entirely if patent issues could not be resolved favorably. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the claims for direct and indirect infringement by using or making for lack of an actual controversy or imminent injury, granting summary judgment on claims related to selling, and dismissing an offering-for-sale claim as a sanction for untimely disclosure, while denying the motion in other respects.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a challenge by plaintiffs involved in Colorado's ballot initiative process to state laws regulating petition circulation, particularly a statute making it unlawful to pay circulators more than 20% of their compensation on a per-signature basis. The court addressed claims under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, focusing on the payment restriction and related enforcement provisions. The court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the per-signature payment limit, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because the restriction imposed a severe burden on core political speech rights and the state's evidence did not demonstrate that it was narrowly tailored to address fraud or invalid signatures in a way that could not be achieved by less restrictive means. The decision was based on legislative findings, hearing testimony, and precedent regarding the rights of petition circulators and initiative proponents.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

This civil rights case centers on plaintiff John Davis, a Black real estate broker, who was surrounded by Aurora police officers with guns drawn, ordered to the ground, handcuffed, and detained in his front yard after a neighbor reported a burglary while Davis was lawfully previewing a vacant house listed for sale. Davis sued the City of Aurora and various police officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, alleging an unreasonable seizure and related constitutional violations. On the defendants' motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the first and third claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but denied dismissal of the second and fourth claims, allowing them to proceed. The core reasoning was that the officers' actions in detaining Davis without first verifying his identity or purpose could constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, that qualified immunity did not apply because the right was clearly established, and that municipal liability claims could advance once an underlying constitutional violation was adequately alleged; derivative claims against the city and officials in their official capacities survived for the same reason.

civil rightsprocedure

Thomas Silverstein, a federal inmate convicted of multiple murders while incarcerated, sued the Bureau of Prisons and several officials challenging the constitutionality of his prolonged solitary confinement in facilities including USP Atlanta and USP Leavenworth, which he alleged involved extreme isolation, sensory deprivation, and physical and psychological harm. On motions to dismiss, the court permitted his first claim for relief regarding the conditions of confinement to proceed against the BOP in its official capacity and certain individual defendants in their personal capacities, as well as his fourth claim against the BOP. The court dismissed claims against other defendants for insufficient allegations of personal involvement, qualified immunity where no clearly established liberty interest was shown, and statute of limitations bars on earlier events, while finding that the complaint adequately stated ongoing constitutional violations for the surviving claims.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing a Chevrolet dealership for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing vehicle sale documents and charging a delivery and handling fee that included document preparation costs. The court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice. The core reasoning was that under Colorado Supreme Court precedents, the dealership's actions did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law because they involved completing forms for their own transactions without providing legal advice, and the fee was not illegal or contrary to public policy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns claims by the EEOC and intervenor Latasha Putney that her employer, Professional Bureau of Collections, terminated her employment as a dialer because she was pregnant, in violation of federal antidiscrimination law. Putney and the EEOC moved for partial summary judgment on two of the employer's affirmative defenses, while the employer moved for summary judgment dismissing the entire case. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part as to one defense that had become moot but denied summary judgment on the discrimination claim and the remaining defense. It held that genuine disputes of material fact existed on nearly every key issue, including whether and when the employer learned of the pregnancy and the reason for termination, so those matters must be resolved at trial rather than on the papers.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns a dispute over benefits under an automobile insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual following a 2002 rollover accident that left plaintiff Kirk Warren permanently disabled. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on whether the policy contained a $200,000 aggregate cap on Added Personal Injury Protection (APIP) benefits and the proper date for reforming the policy to comply with Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act requirements. The court held that the policy must be reformed to include APIP coverage subject to the $200,000 per-person-per-accident aggregate limit, with reformation effective as of the policy renewal date immediately preceding the accident. The reasoning relied on the insurer's standard practices and disclosures at policy issuance, the statutory mandates for offering enhanced PIP coverage, and Tenth Circuit guidance on reformation dates in similar cases. Remaining claims for breach of contract and bad faith were allowed to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Bristol Company Limited Partnership against Bosch Rexroth and related entities, alleging that Bosch's vehicle-mounted devices for spreading granular and liquid ice- and snow-melting materials infringe two Bristol patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,096,125 and 5,186,396). Before addressing infringement, the court conducted claim construction as a matter of law to interpret disputed terms in the patents, which describe systems for synchronized delivery of granular and liquid materials with automatic reduction and variable ratio control functions. The patents include both original and means-plus-function claims rewritten under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and the court analyzed the specifications, prosecution history, figures, and prior art to determine the corresponding structures for the claimed functions, such as control valves and hydraulic systems. The core reasoning relies on Federal Circuit precedents requiring claims to be construed based on the intrinsic evidence in the patent documents to define the scope of the invention.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure