Richard Paul Matsch

The case involved Grace Church of the Roaring Fork Valley challenging the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners' denial of a special use permit for church facilities on its property, alleging violations of RLUIPA provisions against substantial burdens on religious exercise, unequal treatment, religious discrimination, and unreasonable limitations, as well as related constitutional claims under §1983. After the Board reversed its denial through a 2008 resolution and the parties settled the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, the court addressed the remaining damages claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed all claims, holding that the Board's corrective actions under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(e) eliminated any RLUIPA violations, that facial and as-applied challenges to the land use code lacked support, that equal protection and hybrid rights claims failed for insufficient evidence, and that individual commissioners were entitled to quasi-judicial and legislative immunity.

religious libertycivil rights

The case was a patent infringement suit brought by CCC Group, Inc. (formerly Air Control Science) against Martin Engineering Company concerning three patents on dust control systems for bulk material handling in mining and industrial settings. Following a jury trial that found one patent valid and infringed, the court later granted judgment as a matter of law on infringement and then conducted a bench trial on Martin's counterclaim of inequitable conduct. The court determined that the plaintiffs committed inequitable conduct during patent prosecution by withholding prior art references and misrepresenting the novelty and inventorship of the claimed inventions to the PTO. Based on clear and convincing evidence of this misconduct, the court declared all three patents unenforceable and awarded Martin attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a wrongful death action under the Federal Tort Claims Act brought by the heirs of five passengers killed when their Cessna aircraft crashed into a hillside near Sitka, Alaska, in 2003, alleging negligence by an FAA air traffic controller in providing guidance during an instrument flight. The court found the controller negligent for failing to recognize the aircraft's distress, confirm the pilots' understanding of the correct GPS approach procedure after changing from an LDA DME approach, and ensure the plane was established on a safe course before handing off to local services, while also attributing fault to the pilots for navigation errors including misidentifying waypoints. Under Alaska comparative fault principles, the court apportioned 40% liability to the government controller and 60% to the pilots based on the controller initiating the chain of errors but the pilots having the final opportunity to correct course using available instruments.

torts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved photographer Neal Beidleman suing Random House for copyright infringement and fraudulent concealment after the publisher printed 85,642 copies of an illustrated edition of Into Thin Air using his Everest photos, exceeding the licensed 25,000-copy limit specified in a 1998 agreement. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the copyright claim was not barred by the three-year statute of limitations because Beidleman did not discover the excess printing until 2006 through investigation, applying the discovery rule rather than the injury rule. It also held that the fraudulent concealment claim was not preempted by federal copyright law, as it included an extra element of misrepresentation regarding print run intentions that allowed for distinct damages under state common law.

propertyprocedure

This case involved Tu Anh Dinh's claim for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed group policy issued by Standard Insurance Company to her corporation after two car accidents caused reported brain injury, cognitive impairment, headaches, and physical pain that she said prevented her from working as an executive recruiter. Standard denied the claim multiple times, finding insufficient medical evidence of disability under the policy's own-occupation standard. The court reviewed the denial under the arbitrary and capricious standard modified by a sliding scale of deference due to the insurer's conflict of interest as both administrator and payer. It concluded that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence in the record because Standard did not give full consideration to the opinions of treating physicians, applied a biased approach to the medical reviews, and failed to account for the cognitive demands of Dinh's sole-proprietor role. The court ordered payment of unpaid benefits for the first 24 months of coverage plus interest and attorney's fees.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved motion picture studios suing companies like CleanFlicks, Family Flix, CleanFilms, and Play It Clean for creating and distributing edited versions of copyrighted movies by removing content such as sex, nudity, profanity, and violence. The court granted partial summary judgment to the studios on their copyright infringement counterclaims, issuing a permanent injunction against the defendants' activities. The core reasoning was that the defendants infringed the studios' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act by reproducing the movies through unauthorized digital copying, preparing derivative works via editing, and distributing the altered copies commercially, without any valid defenses.

business & regulatoryproperty

The Fort Peck Housing Authority, a tribal entity authorized to receive and administer annual block grant funds from HUD under NAHASDA for low-income housing, sued under the APA to challenge HUD's March 2004 determination that it had received excess funding for fiscal years 1998-2002 and must repay over $1.8 million. The dispute centered on whether HUD's regulations validly required inclusion of certain pre-1997 Mutual Help and Turnkey III homeownership units in the funding allocation formula, which FPHA contended conflicted with the statute. The court reviewed the administrative record and prior agency interpretations, ultimately ruling that the challenged units should not be included in FPHA's formula calculations. This order modifies the prior declaratory judgment to apply only to FPHA and HUD's allocations for it, rather than extending to other tribes.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved WWC Holding Co., Inc. (Western Wireless), a wireless telecommunications provider, challenging conditions imposed by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission on its application to be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The conditions included submitting pricing plans for Commission approval and complying with a prior stipulation. The court held that these requirements were preempted by federal law under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A) as unlawful regulation of an interstate carrier and enjoined their enforcement, while dismissing the state-law claim without prejudice and finding the § 1983 claim redundant. The reasoning centered on federal preemption of state authority over interstate services and the exclusive federal mechanisms for universal service funding and ETC designations.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved claims by Medtronic that BrainLAB's image-guided surgery products infringed four patents on methods and systems for tracking surgical instruments and reference points using various emitters and detectors. A jury found infringement, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, on multiple claims and awarded $51 million in damages. On post-trial motions, the court set aside the infringement verdicts, ruling that prosecution history estoppel from amendments and arguments during patent prosecution barred the doctrine of equivalents and precluded infringement findings, while upholding the validity determinations on the Heilbrun patents. Judgment was entered for the defendants that the patents were valid but not infringed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Climax Molybdenum sued Molychem for infringing two patents on a form of ammonium octamolybdate used as a smoke suppressant in plastics, after an ITC proceeding had already found one patent invalid and unenforceable. Molychem responded with antitrust counterclaims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act against both Climax and its parent Phelps Dodge, alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization through fraud on the patent office, a price squeeze, and other exclusionary conduct in the molybdenum and AOM markets. The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims against Phelps Dodge, finding the allegations of concerted action and market control sufficient to state a claim. It also denied bifurcation of the patent and antitrust issues, concluding that a single trial would best serve efficiency and fairness. Related discovery motions were addressed in light of these rulings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Matthews v. Potter, postal clerk Tracy Matthews sued his employer alleging that a series of disciplinary actions, including letters of warning, suspensions, and a notice of removal, were issued in retaliation for his assistance to a co-worker in pursuing an EEO complaint of sex discrimination, in violation of Title VII, and that his supervisor denied him leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove a retaliatory motive tied to protected activity under Title VII, instead attributing the discipline to his own defiant and contumacious conduct toward supervisors in a stressful workplace. On the FMLA claim, the court determined that the medical documentation was insufficient to justify the plaintiff's asserted right to take unscheduled absences. The court dismissed both claims for failure of proof and entered judgment for the defendants without awarding costs. The topics are civil rights and labor & employment.

civil rightslabor & employment

The SEC sued SeaLife Corp. and several individuals, including Florida resident Morgan J. Wilbur, for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from a scheme to manipulate SeaLife stock through coordinated trades. Wilbur moved to dismiss the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida. The court denied the motion, holding that the securities statutes authorize nationwide service of process and that Wilbur's use of a Colorado brokerage account plus his alleged trading with Colorado defendants satisfied due process for jurisdiction in Colorado. The court further ruled that venue was proper in the district and that transfer was unwarranted because the claims against Wilbur were intertwined with those against the other defendants already subject to suit there.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Gladys Antonio, an African woman from Zimbabwe, suing her former employer SYGMA Network, Inc. (and SYSCO Corporation) for race/national origin employment discrimination, retaliation, promissory estoppel, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing after her termination. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. The court reasoned that Antonio failed to establish a causal connection between her internal complaint about a supervisor's comments and her termination more than nine months later, that SYGMA articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination based on her failure to return from leave or contact the company during a critical work period (which was not shown to be pretextual), and that her contract-based claims failed because she was an at-will employee with no enforceable promises breached; SYSCO's separate motion was deemed moot.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a patent dispute in which Storage Technology Corporation (StorageTek), owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,549,363 relating to magnetic tape with optical servo patterns on the back surface for data storage, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Quantum Corporation from selling its SDLT I and II tape cartridges, alleging infringement of Claim 1. The court denied the motion after a hearing, applying the four equitable factors for preliminary injunctive relief in patent cases under 35 U.S.C. § 283: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest. The ruling emphasized the competitive market structure, with StorageTek dominant in the enterprise segment and Quantum in the mid-range, and found that StorageTek failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success due to substantial questions of obviousness based on prior art, while the other factors also did not support granting the injunction. Evidence on commercial success and other secondary considerations was inconclusive, and the court concluded that none of the cited prior art anticipated the claim but Quantum's obviousness defense had substantial merit.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves employees of Gannett Co. who participate in the company's defined benefit retirement plan and allege violations of ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that amendments to the plan effective in 1998 caused benefit accruals to cease or reduce based on a participant's age, violating 29 U.S.C. § 1054(b)(1)(H), and that the plan failed to meet consent and disclosure requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 1055(c). The defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court denied the motion on the first two claims, holding that the statutory term "any age" is unambiguous and applies to reductions occurring at any age rather than only at normal retirement age. The court granted the motion on the third claim, finding the plaintiffs' allegations insufficient to support a violation of the consent and disclosure rules.

labor & employment

In Ferguson v. Centura Health Corp., uninsured patients who received treatment at hospitals operated by tax-exempt organizations under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) filed a class action seeking injunctive relief, damages, and other remedies to halt alleged overcharging and aggressive collection practices, claiming the hospitals had a contractual duty to provide affordable charity care as intended beneficiaries of their tax exemptions. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that the federal claims premised on § 501(c)(3) failed because the statute creates no private right of action enforceable by patients, as it lacks rights-creating language and focuses on regulating the hospitals rather than protecting individuals. The court also dismissed the related state-law claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, noting their predominance and novel interpretations of state tax-exemption obligations. A single EMTALA claim was left intact, but all other claims against the hospitals and the American Hospital Association were dismissed.

healthcarefederal powertaxesprocedure

This case involves an appeal by debtor Nesbit Lee Lacy from a bankruptcy court order converting his Chapter 11 reorganization proceeding to a Chapter 7 liquidation at the request of creditor Stinky Love, Inc. The district court reversed the conversion order and remanded for reconsideration. The core reasoning was that the bankruptcy judge erred in construing the confirmed plan of reorganization to mean that assets vested in the debtor would become estate property subject to Chapter 7 administration, as the plan instead provided for payment of creditors through specified means and enforcement under 11 U.S.C. § 1142, with Chapter 7 following a different distribution scheme under § 726.

federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a French businessman, Patrick Maugein, who served as a consultant to Normandy Mining in disputes over ownership interests in a Peruvian gold mine and related assets, alleging that Newmont Mining and other defendants bribed Peruvian judges and defamed him during proceedings under the Fujimori administration, resulting in losses including unpaid compensation. Maugein brought federal claims under RICO and the Alien Tort Claims Act, along with state law claims, asserting violations involving judicial corruption and international treaties. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, holding that the ATCA claims failed because the alleged corruption was not the proximate cause of his injuries and defamation does not violate the law of nations or cited treaties, while the RICO claims lacked sufficient particularity in pleading. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Cynthia Duncan, a Denver police officer since 1979, sued the city and department officials alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on years of alleged sexual harassment, gossip, derogatory comments, surveillance, and inadequate responses to her complaints that culminated in her medical leave and disability retirement. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that many claims were barred by the 300-day EEOC filing deadline and two-year § 1983 statute of limitations and that the evidence failed to show sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct or a causal link to adverse actions. The court applied the continuing violation doctrine from National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan to allow consideration of acts outside the limitations period if they formed part of the same hostile work environment practice, then examined the record in the light most favorable to Duncan under the standards from Meritor, Harris, and Faragher to determine whether a reasonable jury could find liability.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Raccoon Recovery, LLC, as assignee of a judgment from a bankruptcy adversary proceeding, filing an application in state court for a charging order against Navoi Mining and Metallurgical Kombinat's alleged interest in a joint venture to satisfy the judgment. Navoi removed the matter to federal court and opposed the application, asserting that it was an instrumentality of the government of Uzbekistan entitled to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and that service had been improper. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the application and request for discovery, concluding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to foreign sovereign immunity and failure to comply with FSIA service requirements. The district court adopted the recommendation after limiting review to the record before the magistrate and dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

procedurefederal power