Walker David Miller

This case involves a coverage dispute under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Continental Western to Shay Construction. Shay sought coverage for defense and damages arising from cross-claims by general contractor Milender White alleging breaches of subcontracts on a Colorado construction project, including defective work, delays, and failure to pay subcontractors. Continental Western filed suit for a declaratory judgment that the policy provided no coverage and moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that the claims fell within policy exclusions (j)(5) and (j)(6) for property damage arising from the insured's faulty or defective work while ongoing, applying Colorado contract law to interpret the policy terms. On reconsideration, the court found its prior conclusions reasonable and not clearly erroneous.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned whether Xcel Energy was required to obtain a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) determination for mercury emissions under Clean Air Act section 112(g) before constructing its Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant, particularly after the D.C. Circuit invalidated EPA's delisting rule in New Jersey v. EPA. The court dismissed WildEarth Guardians' claims with prejudice, including requests for penalties and fees, after finding that Xcel had obtained MACT determinations prior to and during construction and that no continuing violation occurred. The core reasoning was that retroactive application of section 112(g) was inappropriate under the facts, including Xcel's compliance efforts and a settlement extending MACT standards to existing facilities, and that other cases cited by the plaintiff were distinguishable because those defendants had never sought MACT approvals.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a copyright infringement claim by a residential design firm against a construction company and its owners, alleging that a home built by the defendants copied the firm's protected house plans for designs HDS-2089 and its derivative HDS-1758. The court addressed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and a related motion to strike evidence. It granted summary judgment in part, holding the individual defendants vicariously liable for the company's actions and rejecting affirmative defenses based on a third-party draftsman's role, but denied summary judgment on other issues including copyright validity, infringement, and statute of limitations due to factual disputes over discovery of the alleged copying and other elements. The motion to strike was denied without prejudice.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned plaintiff Nathan Laidley's challenge to Denver's municipal Impoundment Ordinance and Costs Ordinance, which authorize police to seize a vehicle when the driver lacks a valid license and require posting a $2,500 bond plus fees for release or risk forfeiture. Laidley, who had his car impounded after a traffic stop and later pleaded guilty to driving without a license, alleged that the ordinances were invalid and that the seizure violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court denied Denver's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the claims arose under federal law, but granted summary judgment to Denver. It reasoned that the impoundment was supported by probable cause from the traffic violation and that the ordinances were consistent with state law and did not effect an unconstitutional seizure or deprivation of property.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case is a personal injury lawsuit in which plaintiff Wayne Watson alleges that his bronchiolitis obliterans and related lung conditions resulted from daily inhalation of butter flavoring chemicals in microwave popcorn he consumed over seven years. The defendants, including manufacturers Gilster-Mary Lee and Birds Eye and retailers Dillon Companies and Kroger, moved for summary judgment and to exclude portions of the plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation. The court denied summary judgment, concluding that factual disputes remain on general and specific causation, the adequacy of warnings, and whether the manufacturers' conduct was reckless in light of worker health studies from NIOSH and others. It also granted in part and denied in part the Daubert-style motions to exclude experts, admitting most testimony while limiting one expert's opinions on minimum exposure thresholds.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's withdrawal of a proposed rule to list Graham’s penstemon as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, citing threats from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, and off-road vehicles. The court reviewed the agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act to assess whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court granted the petition, vacated the 2006 Final Rule withdrawing the listing, and remanded the matter to the agency for further consideration. The core reasoning was that the agency failed to evaluate the combined impacts of identified threats, disregarded the best available scientific information on those threats, and relied on conservation measures that were neither implemented nor shown to be effective.

environmentfederal power

This case involves construction companies Furlong Enterprises, RBS, and D&L suing the City of Cortez and its Public Works Director Jack Nickerson over alleged civil rights violations stemming from enforcement of trench backfill requirements under the City's Construction Design Standards for residential development projects like Brandon’s Gate and Sedona Estates, as well as a breach of contract claim by Furlong related to a cease and desist order. Plaintiffs claimed they were treated differently from other developers permitted to use native soil instead of the more expensive Class 6 material. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The reasoning centered on the lack of evidence that plaintiffs were similarly situated to the other projects, as they had not requested or demonstrated suitability for alternative materials under the applicable 1980 CDS (which granted the City Engineer discretion), providing a rational basis for any difference in treatment, and insufficient support for the contract claims.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Peterson v. LaCabe, the plaintiff challenged Colorado's concealed handgun permit statute, which requires applicants to be state residents, claiming it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and right-to-travel protections. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the Attorney General's cross-motion, upholding the residency requirement. The decision rested on findings that residents and non-residents are not similarly situated, as the state has a substantial interest in conducting thorough background checks that depend on access to local records and databases often unavailable or unreliable for out-of-state applicants. The court concluded that the statute's distinctions were constitutional under rational-basis review for the equal-protection and privileges-and-immunities claims, and did not infringe protected Second Amendment rights.

gunscivil rights

This case involves a dispute between COPIC Insurance Company and Wells Fargo Bank over losses from the bank's Securities Lending Program, in which COPIC's loaned securities were collateralized with cash that Wells Fargo invested in funds that declined sharply in value amid the 2008 financial crisis. COPIC alleged breach of fiduciary duty and related claims arising from the program's administration and investment decisions under the parties' custody and securities lending agreements. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted Wells Fargo's motion in part and denied it in part while denying COPIC's motion for partial summary judgment on the fiduciary duty claim. The core reasoning centered on the risk-allocation clauses in the agreements that assigned investment losses to the participant, the scope of any fiduciary relationship, and whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Wells Fargo's compliance with investment guidelines emphasizing safety and liquidity.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves civil rights and disability rights claims brought by deaf individuals (including the estate of Shawn Vigil, who died by suicide while detained, along with Roger Krebs and Sarah Burke) and advocacy organizations against the City and County of Denver and its police and sheriff personnel. The claims center on alleged failures to provide effective communication accommodations, such as sign language interpreters or appropriate mental health screenings, during arrests, bookings, court proceedings, and jail housing at facilities like the Pre-arraignment Detention Facility and Denver County Jail. The court overruled objections to the magistrate judge's orders and granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment and the parties' motions to strike, after reviewing evidence on medical assessments, housing decisions, training policies, and qualified immunity issues. Core reasoning focused on whether evidence created genuine disputes of material fact regarding deliberate indifference to disabilities, state-created danger theories, and compliance with ADA and constitutional requirements, while distinguishing claims for injunctive relief from individual damages actions.

civil rightsprocedurehealthcare

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute in which GEICO sought a declaratory judgment that its auto liability policy provided no defense or indemnity to the Insureds for claims arising from their son's intentional acts of ramming another vehicle and firing a shotgun during a pursuit, which caused injuries to the claimants. The claims against the Insureds in the underlying state court suits were based on negligent entrustment of the vehicle. The court granted GEICO's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the opposing motion, holding that the policy's intentional conduct exclusion applied to bar coverage and was not void as contrary to Colorado public policy. The court reasoned that Colorado law permits such exclusions in third-party liability policies, distinguishing them from cases involving uninsured motorist or no-fault coverage where public policy considerations differ. As a result, GEICO had no duty to defend or indemnify the Insureds.

torts & liability

This case concerned El Paso Corporation's conversion of its defined-benefit pension plan from a final average pay formula to a cash balance formula, which created a transition period during which some older, longer-service employees experienced "wear away" periods where their benefits did not increase until the new plan's credits caught up to the frozen old-plan benefits. Plaintiffs brought a class action claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging that the plan's design and transition discriminated against older workers. The court granted the defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment on the sole remaining ADEA claim. It reasoned that the wear-away effect was not "because of" age under 29 U.S.C. § 623(a) but instead resulted from the neutral transition rules, and that the plan did not violate § 623(i) because it did not reduce the rate of benefit accrual on account of age, as confirmed by precedents such as Hurlic v. Southern California Gas Co.

labor & employment

This case involves former Qwest employees who sued under ERISA, alleging that the company breached its fiduciary duty by making material misrepresentations in plan documents about the permanence of life insurance benefits for pre-1991 retirees, despite ambiguous reservation-of-rights language. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendants on this claim, finding no triable issue of reasonable reliance by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then moved to alter or amend the judgment, citing an alleged intervening change in Third Circuit law from the Unisys decision and claiming factual misapprehension. The court denied the motion, holding that Unisys did not alter the established ERISA fiduciary-duty standard requiring proof of a material misrepresentation and detrimental reliance, that the cited case was factually distinguishable, and that the record already showed consistent reservation-of-rights statements in the SPDs and other documents.

labor & employment

In this case, a former IBM employee sued the company for unpaid commissions and separation pay, asserting claims for breach of contract and violations of the Colorado Wage Claim Act after his employment ended in 2007. The court granted IBM's partial motion to dismiss these claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the applicable quota letter and incentive plan documents expressly disclaimed any contract or promise of payment, reserved IBM's right to modify or cancel the plan before payments were earned, and allowed adjustments for various reasons, meaning no enforceable obligation existed. Additionally, the Wage Claim Act does not cover separation pay, and the plaintiff had not satisfied the plan's conditions for receiving it.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case arises from the sale of office condominiums in Colorado, where Buyer Defendants defaulted on loans later assigned to Plaintiff Bayview Loan Servicing; Bayview sued Seller Defendants (Wyco and Legerski) for fraud, civil conspiracy, respondeat superior, and rights in stolen property based on allegations of a concealed agreement, misrepresentations about buyers' finances and use of the properties, inflated appraisals, and forged signatures on loan documents. Seller Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on these four claims. The court denied the motion, finding disputed facts on whether Bayview knew of any forgery at the time of foreclosure and concluding that the election of remedies doctrine did not bar the claims because the foreclosure occurred in a separate proceeding without seeking inconsistent remedies here, though it noted potential concerns about double recovery.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves WildEarth Guardians' lawsuit against Xcel Energy under Clean Air Act section 112(g), seeking to halt construction and operation of the Comanche Unit 3 coal-fired power plant and impose penalties for Xcel's alleged failure to obtain a required MACT determination for mercury emissions before starting construction. Xcel moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a collateral attack on state permitting, Burford abstention, and that the New Jersey v. EPA decision on EGU regulations should not apply retroactively. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, abstaining from further review of the state-issued permit for actions after February 22, 2010, dismissing the retroactivity argument without prejudice, and directing additional briefing on whether Xcel could face penalties or fee awards for pre-permit construction activities.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between plaintiffs Jack Grynberg and Cotundo Minerales S.A. and defendants Ivanhoe Energy, Inc., its subsidiaries, and executives over rights to the Pungarayacu tar sands oil field in Ecuador, including allegations that defendants obtained and used plaintiffs' confidential technical data and estimates to secure exploration concessions after initial discussions about a potential joint venture. The court addressed multiple pending motions, chiefly defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction along with related motions on clarification, summary judgment, striking filings, transfer, and appeals of magistrate rulings. The court decided to grant the motion to dismiss, concluding it lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over the corporate and individual defendants. The core reasoning was that the defendants' contacts with Colorado—limited to a few emails, phone calls, and one unconsummated visit arranged by the plaintiffs—were insufficient to show purposeful availment of the forum or continuous and systematic activity establishing minimum contacts under due process standards.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge by environmental plaintiffs to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's approvals allowing Lexam Explorations to conduct oil and gas drilling on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge, where the federal government owns only the surface rights and Lexam holds the severed mineral interests. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the agency from implementing its Final EA/FONSI or taking further actions that would alter the 2006 status quo on the Refuge. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on claims that NEPA procedures applied to the agency's decisions regarding private mineral development and that the agency's environmental assessment was deficient in its analysis of alternatives and impacts.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns ERISA claims by retirees against Qwest and its life insurance plan, challenging reductions in post-retirement life insurance benefits that had been described in summary plan descriptions and early retirement materials. Plaintiffs alleged that plan documents and communications created vested benefits or gave rise to fiduciary breaches through misrepresentations about the plan's stability. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the second claim in full and on the sixth, seventh, and eighth claims in part (denying the rest as moot), holding that the governing plan documents repeatedly and unambiguously reserved Qwest's right to amend or terminate benefits at any time, that no oral or written statements created contrary enforceable promises, and that plaintiffs failed to show the required elements of detrimental reliance or material misrepresentation for the fiduciary claims.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a firefighter's claim that his termination by the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District and its chief was in retaliation for his role in organizing and leading a local union, violating his First Amendment right to freedom of association. The defendants maintained that the firing stemmed from the plaintiff's alleged involvement in vandalism and related misconduct, while the plaintiff argued these reasons were pretextual. After a jury trial awarded the plaintiff $572,145 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages, the defendants moved for a new trial or remittitur on grounds of excessive verdict, spoliation of evidence, and verdict against the weight of the evidence. The court granted the motion for new trial in part as to the size of the noneconomic damages award, denied the remaining motions, and conditionally granted the plaintiff's request for reinstatement.

civil rightslabor & employmentfree speech