Lewis Thornton Babcock

This case involved contamination of a property in Durango, Colorado, formerly used as a rifle lens manufacturing plant by Brown Group and its corporate predecessors, and later by Plummer Defendants as tenants, with solvents including TCE that entered the soil and groundwater through plant operations and wastewater disposal. La Plata County, which acquired the site and built a detention center there, sued Brown Group under CERCLA sections 107(a) and 113(f)(1) and RCRA section 6972(a)(1)(B) to recover investigation and remediation costs. The court found Brown Group not liable under RCRA, but liable under CERCLA for a proportional share of past response costs totaling $694,787 (awarding the county $521,090) and future costs of $593,700 (awarding $445,275), while allocating 75% liability to Brown Group and 25% to the county on contribution claims. The allocation rested on evidence that Brown Group's operations from 1975 to 1979 were the primary source of the contamination, with the county bearing some responsibility due to its excavation and remediation decisions. Default judgments were entered against the Plummer Defendants, who had no assets to satisfy any award.

environment

This case arose from a failed business relationship in which plaintiffs provided consulting services, funds characterized as either loans or investments, and leased commercial space to defendants, followed by an alleged but disputed settlement agreement after the relationship ended. Plaintiffs sued to enforce the settlement, for breach of the loan and lease agreements, unjust enrichment, and an accounting. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the settlement enforcement claim because the alleged agreement violated Colorado's statute of frauds as it could not be performed within one year, and dismissed the contract claims against individual defendants Charnoff and Onit Solutions because they were not parties to the agreements. The court denied summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim, reasoning that it is an equitable remedy independent of any contract and could proceed based on allegations that those defendants received the benefits, and also denied summary judgment on the accounting claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from an off-duty confrontation in which Arapahoe County detention officer Daniel Montana shot and killed David Rossiter after a brief fight that began when a cigarette was flicked from a passing truck onto Montana's car. The estate and survivors sued Montana for excessive force and wrongful death, and sued Sheriff Grayson Robinson for failure to train and supervise Montana, along with a familial-association claim against both. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the familial-association claim and to Robinson on the individual-capacity and failure-to-supervise claims, but denied summary judgment on the excessive-force claim against Montana and the failure-to-train claim against Robinson in his official capacity. It found genuine disputes of material fact about whether Montana reasonably used deadly force and whether the sheriff's lack of off-duty encounter training for detention officers amounted to deliberate indifference under clearly established law.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

In this automobile insurance dispute, plaintiff Ariella Werden sued Allstate after it denied payment for medical treatment from non-authorized providers following a 2008 car accident in Colorado, where she was covered by a New York policy that included no-fault medical benefits and uninsured motorist coverage; her workers' compensation insurer had paid for some treatment but denied requests for alternative providers. The court granted in part and denied in part Allstate's motion for summary judgment on the breach-of-contract and statutory claims. It dismissed the Colorado statutory claims under choice-of-law rules because New York law governs the insurance contract and related performance claims. Summary judgment was denied on the breach-of-contract claim and the New York statutory claim because a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether the expenses were 'recovered or recoverable' under workers' compensation and thus offset by the policy terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Masters v. Gilmore, Timothy Masters sued prosecutors and the district attorney's office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his 1999 murder conviction was vacated in 2008, alleging misconduct including failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and destruction of evidence during the investigation and prosecution of Peggy Hettrick's 1987 murder. The court addressed multiple Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, analyzing claims of unreasonable seizure, false imprisonment, and other civil rights violations in light of absolute prosecutorial immunity under federal law. It granted the motions in part, dismissing the unreasonable seizure and false imprisonment claims against several defendants with prejudice and limiting remaining claims to pre-arrest conduct or evidence destruction, while denying them in part to allow certain allegations to proceed. The core reasoning centered on longstanding due process principles requiring prosecutors to seek justice rather than merely convict, as established in Supreme Court precedents like Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A. and Colorado case law, which shield discretionary prosecutorial functions from liability.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves Nicholas E. Duran's appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying his applications for Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits after multiple administrative hearings. The district court reversed the ALJ's April 2008 unfavorable decision and remanded with instructions to award benefits from the plaintiff's June 18, 2001 onset date. The court reasoned that the Commissioner failed to meet its burden of showing a significant number of jobs existed that the plaintiff could perform consistent with his mental residual functional capacity limiting him to simple instructions and no production quotas, as the identified jobs required level-three reasoning per the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the ALJ disregarded prior remand instructions on this discrepancy. After seven years of proceedings, the court concluded that additional fact-finding would serve no useful purpose.

federal powerprocedurelabor & employment

This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which restored U.S. copyright protection to certain foreign-authored works that had entered the public domain due to formalities or other reasons. Plaintiffs, who relied on those works for their creative and business activities, challenged the provision under the First Amendment after the Tenth Circuit remanded for further review. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that Section 514 violated their First Amendment rights by removing works from the public domain and suppressing their reliance interests in using those works. The core reasoning was that while compliance with the Berne Convention is a legitimate government interest, the statute was not narrowly tailored to that interest and lacked sufficient justification for the other asserted rationales, such as protecting U.S. authors abroad or correcting historic inequities, especially given the discretion allowed by the treaty.

free speechproperty

This case involves a Colorado county suing the prior owner of land it purchased in 1983, alleging that toxic solvents leaked from a rifle scope manufacturing facility operated by the defendant, contaminating soil, groundwater, and reaching the Animas River, with fumes affecting a detention center now on the site. The defendant moved to dismiss several claims in the second amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part by dismissing the negligence per se claim, the abnormally dangerous activity strict liability claim, and the RCRA Section 6972(a)(1)(A) claim for ongoing contamination, while denying dismissal of the remaining claims including CERCLA cost recovery, unjust enrichment, negligence, declaratory relief, and RCRA Section 6972(a)(1)(B). The court reasoned that certain claims failed to state a cognizable theory or lacked available remedies such as civil penalties under RCRA, but other claims sufficiently alleged facts supporting relief under federal environmental statutes and common law.

environmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves plaintiff George Barrie, a former DOE contractor employee at the Rocky Flats Plant, who sought compensation under Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act for multiple illnesses allegedly caused by workplace exposure to toxic substances and radiation. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs awarded benefits only for chronic atrophic gastritis, denied wage-loss benefits and medical benefits for other claimed conditions such as nephritis, and deducted prior Colorado workers’ compensation payments. On appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act, the district court affirmed the denial of most claims but reversed and remanded on three issues: the OWCP’s failure to distinguish the portion of the prior settlement attributable to medical benefits, its inconsistent application of the “at least as likely as not” causation standard to the nephritis claim, and its inadequate consideration of wage-loss evidence related to gastritis. The court held that these aspects of the agency decision were arbitrary and capricious because they relied on contradictory physician-panel findings or failed to address relevant evidence.

labor & employment

This case involves a taxpayer seeking a refund of penalties and interest assessed by the IRS for failing to timely file tax returns and pay taxes for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint and denying the refund claim. The core reasoning is that under 26 U.S.C. § 6651, a taxpayer must demonstrate both reasonable cause and lack of willful neglect for late filings and payments, which requires showing ordinary business care and prudence; the undisputed facts showed the Schroers did not meet this standard, as there was no evidence of reasonable cause for the delays.

taxesfederal power

The case involved a dispute over allegedly defective phosphorus filters supplied for a wastewater treatment plant, with claims including breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The defendant removed the state court action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiff sought remand based on a forum selection clause. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the clause in the prime contract, which mandated filing in Douglas County District Court, was binding on the defendant through flow-down provisions in the subcontract and purchase order.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this federal criminal case, defendant Kenneth Dean Sturm faced charges of possessing and receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. The government sought to introduce evidence of his prior Ohio conviction for pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor under Federal Rule of Evidence 414, which permits propensity evidence in child molestation cases. Sturm moved in limine to exclude the evidence, arguing that the prior conviction did not qualify as an offense of child molestation due to lacking an interstate commerce element, was irrelevant, and was unduly prejudicial, while also challenging Rule 414 on constitutional grounds. The court denied the motion, holding that both the current charges and the prior conviction involved conduct proscribed under Chapter 110 of Title 18, that the evidence met the relevance and balancing tests under Rules 401 and 403, and that Tenth Circuit precedent foreclosed the constitutional claims; the court offered Sturm the option to stipulate to the conviction and receive a limiting instruction to mitigate prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the City of Colorado Springs challenging the Department of Labor's May 2007 decision to certify a federal transit grant for purchasing buses under a preexisting 1981 Section 13(c) labor protection agreement with a union local, despite objections that some terms exceeded federal and state law requirements. The court affirmed the DOL certification and denied the city's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. The core reasoning was that the DOL properly applied its guidelines by deeming the objections insufficient, as they did not raise material issues requiring new negotiations, the process treated the city consistently with other grantees, and the existing agreement imposed no new obligations while allowing future renegotiation at the bargaining table.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The EEOC sued Albertson's LLC under Title VII alleging a pattern of retaliation against a class of employees at its Aurora, Colorado distribution center who opposed discriminatory practices based on race, national origin, and color, including less desirable assignments, denied transfers, discipline, and termination. Several employees (Brooks, Dennis, González, Valentine, and Baxter) moved to intervene as plaintiffs, asserting similar retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, even though some had not fully exhausted administrative remedies by filing their own EEOC charges and obtaining right-to-sue letters. Albertson's opposed the interventions on jurisdictional and other grounds, but the court granted both motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1). The court reasoned that the single-filing rule, recognized in the Tenth Circuit, permits similarly situated individuals to join an EEOC enforcement action without separate charges when the filed charge provided notice of the class-wide claims, and that the intervenors' allegations arose from the same time period and discriminatory treatment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves air ambulance providers Eagle Air Med Corp. and Scenic Aviation challenging Colorado state licensure requirements under C.R.S. § 25-3.5-307 and related regulations, which mandate accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems (CAMTS), on grounds that the requirements are preempted by the Federal Aviation Act and the Airline Deregulation Act. Following an air ambulance incident and CAMTS accreditation review, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment initiated proceedings, prompting the plaintiffs to seek declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court to halt the state process. The court granted the state's motion to stay the federal action under the Younger abstention doctrine, finding that the ongoing state proceedings implicate important state interests in public health, afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal preemption claims, and that preemption was not facially conclusive enough to override abstention.

federal powerhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involves Ronald J. Kirby appealing the denial of his Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security after an ALJ found him not disabled due to back and leg pain from herniated discs. The district court reversed and remanded the ALJ's decision. The core reasoning was that the ALJ improperly evaluated the treating physician Dr. Miller's opinion by substituting his own lay judgment rather than applying the required standards under SSR 96-2p, such as inquiring into clinical findings or contacting physicians for clarification if the record was ambiguous, and without expert medical evidence contradicting the opinion.

federal powerhealthcare

This civil rights case arose after plaintiff Thomas Mink, a university student, published an online journal parodying a professor under a pseudonym, prompting a criminal libel investigation under Colorado law; defendant Susan Knox, a deputy district attorney, reviewed and approved the affidavit for a search warrant that led police to seize Mink's computer and materials. Mink sued Knox, alleging that her actions violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. The court granted Knox's renewed motion to dismiss the remaining claim, holding that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The core reasoning was that Mink failed to allege a constitutional violation by Knox herself, as the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement applies to the warrant rather than the supporting affidavit, and Knox had no involvement in issuing or executing the warrant.

criminal lawfree speechcivil rights

This case involved a defendant's motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his 200-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, based on a retroactive amendment lowering guideline ranges for such offenses. The defendant had entered a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C) (now 11(c)(1)(C)) with a stipulated sentence of 235 months that was later adjusted downward. The court denied the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the sentence was based on the parties' plea agreement rather than on a sentencing guideline range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Precedents such as United States v. Trujeque established that Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences are ineligible for reduction under the statute, regardless of whether the stipulated term aligned with then-applicable guidelines, and the defendant did not claim the agreement was invalid.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Pitkin Iron Corporation's challenge to a 2006 Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) decision finding that limestone on two placer mining claims (Chemin 5 and Chemin 6) in Colorado was a common variety under the Common Varieties Act, making the claims invalid for location under the General Mining Law. The district court reviewed the administrative record and held that the government had failed to establish a prima facie case that the limestone lacked unique properties or special value, as the mineral examiner's analysis did not follow the correct legal standards for comparison and use. The IBLA's reversal of the 2004 ALJ decision was deemed arbitrary and capricious because it did not properly apply the burden-shifting framework or consider relevant factors like chemical applications for acid neutralization. The court vacated the IBLA ruling and remanded with instructions to reinstate the ALJ's decision upholding the claims.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a taxpayer's claim for a refund of over $26 million in federal income taxes paid for the year 2000 after initially reporting a large loss from participation in a foreign currency options investment program known as Deerhurst. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding them entitled to the refund and that no accuracy-related penalty applied. The decision rested on determinations that the Deerhurst transaction had a legitimate business purpose and profit potential beyond tax benefits, that the taxpayer's basis calculations complied with applicable tax rules at the time, that certain Treasury regulations were invalid or improperly retroactive, and that the amended return qualified to avoid penalties.

taxesbusiness & regulatory