This diversity case involved James Burrill suing his former employer, GTE Government Systems Corporation, for breach of an implied employment agreement and breach of an express covenant of good faith and fair dealing after his termination as Program Manager. Burrill alleged that GTE's employee handbook and oral representations created enforceable obligations that were violated when he was laid off without following certain procedures, despite the absence of an express written contract for a definite term. GTE moved for summary judgment, contending that Burrill was an at-will employee under Colorado law whose termination did not give rise to a claim. The court denied summary judgment on both claims, holding that factual questions existed as to whether the handbook's policies rebutted the at-will presumption by forming an implied contract or an express covenant of good faith, and that promissory estoppel issues also warranted trial. The court granted the plaintiff's separate motion to dismiss his outrageous conduct claim.
This diversity case involved Telectronics, a pacemaker manufacturer, suing its insurer United National Insurance for breach of contract and bad faith after United declined to share in defense costs for a products liability suit brought by a patient whose device allegedly malfunctioned. The underlying injury spanned multiple policy periods, with United's policy covering only three of the twenty-three months at issue. The court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that United must pay a pro-rata share (approximately 13%) of defense expenses under a time-on-the-risk allocation, even though notice was late, while denying sanctions against the plaintiff. The decision rested on Pennsylvania precedent applying a continuous-trigger approach to occurrence-based liability policies and rejecting strict forfeiture for delayed notice absent prejudice.
This case is an employment discrimination action brought by a federal employee under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The plaintiff requested a jury trial on her ADEA claims, prompting the defendant to move to strike the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The court granted the motion, ruling that no jury trial right existed for federal employees under the ADEA prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and that the 1991 Act did not alter this by providing for jury trials in ADEA cases or applying retroactively, since it contains no reference to age discrimination and lacks the affirmative statutory language required by Supreme Court precedent. The court therefore denied the jury trial request on the age discrimination claims while treating related filings as a motion to amend.
This case involved a Title VII sex discrimination claim by Mary Wilson Murphy against the Veterans Administration, alleging that its requirement for VA hospital chaplains to be ordained clergymen unlawfully barred women from Catholic chaplain positions because the Roman Catholic Church does not ordain women as priests. The facts showed Murphy met all other criteria but was rejected due to lack of ordination and ecclesiastical endorsement. The court held that the ordination requirement violated Title VII as it had a discriminatory impact on women and was not justified, since requiring only ecclesiastical endorsement would adequately serve the VA's needs for qualified chaplains. It therefore ordered the VA to remove the ordination requirement from its regulations, permitted Murphy to reapply for endorsement and the position, denied back pay, and awarded attorney fees.
The case involves a third-party complaint filed by Resurgens against the law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart alleging legal malpractice, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation arising from the firm's representation of Central Corporation (now Resurgens) in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in Florida. K&L moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing insufficient minimum contacts with Colorado under the state's long-arm statute. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Rule 7004(d) permits nationwide service of process in this non-core but related proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), following precedent that such jurisdiction exists where the malpractice claims may impact the bankruptcy estate. It also examined K&L's contacts with Colorado, including directing bankruptcy notices and communications to Colorado creditors and shareholders, concluding that jurisdiction was proper on both grounds.
The case involved a breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claim by D.D.J. Development against N & N International and Sheriff Ali regarding a financing agreement for a real estate project in Colorado, which was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, finding proper diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss for insufficiency of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. It reasoned that service of process was adequate based on affidavits showing a summons was served, and that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Colorado because they negotiated and entered into a loan agreement specifically for developing a hotel in the state, satisfying the Colorado long-arm statute and due process requirements.
