ORDER RE DEFENDANT S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "ORDER RE DEFENDANT S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS"

Transcription

1 DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock St. Denver, Colorado Plaintiff: RETOVA RESOURCES, LP, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. Defendant: BILL BARRETT CORPORATION DATE FILED: April 24, :57 PM CASE NUMBER: 2015CV34351 COURT USE ONLY Case No: Courtroom: CV34351 ORDER RE DEFENDANT S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MATTER is before the Court on Bill Barrett Corporation s ( Defendant ) renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Retova Resource, LP s ( Plaintiff ) Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to C.R.C.P 12(b)(1). The Court has reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff s Response, Defendant s Reply, all pertinent pleadings and authority, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds and orders as follows: FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company, registered with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ( COGCC ) as an Operator. Def. Mot. to Dismiss at 2. Defendant has been the Operator of certain wells in Colorado. Id. Plaintiff represents individuals who have entered into lease agreements with Defendant; the lease agreements contain Silent Royalty Agreements. Pl. Am. Compl. at 2. On December 14, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, setting forth claims arising from Defendant s alleged underpayment of royalties on natural gas production by improperly deducting post-production costs. Id. Plaintiff brought three claims against Defendant: (1) failing to pay full royalties due by wrongly deducting costs for making the gas marketable, failing to pay royalties on full commercial market value, and engaging in transactions that unreasonably reduced royalties; (2) breach of implied duty to market; and (3) breach of good faith and fair dealing. As pertinent here, the Silent Royalty Agreements do not address the allocation of postproduction costs incurred after the natural gas is severed from the wellhead in order to render production marketable and deliver it to the commercial market. On January 4, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that Plaintiff failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with COGCC. On March 11, 2016, the Court denied 1

2 Defendant s Motion to Dismiss, holding that it could determine whether a bona fide dispute existed regarding the interpretation of the lease agreements and that Plaintiff sufficiently pled a contract dispute. On February 5, 2018, Defendant renewed its instant Motion, arguing that a majority of recent case law supports its argument: the Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, C.R.S , et seq., ( Act ). Specifically, Defendant states that Plaintiff failed to bring the immediate action in front of the COGCC prior to filing the present lawsuit, depriving this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not dispute that it did not exhaust its administrative remedies with the COGCC prior to filing this suit. Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff s claims are solely issues of fact to be determined by the COGCC. Defendant s Renewed Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. LEGAL STANDARD The Court construes Defendant s Renewed Motion to Dismiss as a Motion to Reconsider. A motion for reconsideration is not specifically delineated in C.R.C.P. 59 and is generally discouraged. Stone v. People, 895 P.2d 1154, 1155 (Colo. App. 1995). But, reconsideration motions may be treated as post-trial relief motions, i.e., a motion to alter or amend findings or the judgment. Catlin v. Tormey Bewley Corp., 219 P.3d 407, 415 (Colo. App. 2009). Ordinarily, when a court issues a final decision, that decision stands and is not subject to relitigation. Vashone-Caruso v. Suthers, 29 P.3d 339, 342 (Colo. App. 2001). However, where a prior ruling results in error, is no longer sound because of changed conditions, or results in manifest injustice, a court may reconsider its prior ruling. People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d 1003, 1005 n.5 (Colo. 1983). Although the decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the discretion of the trial court, the movant must show that reconsideration is warranted. See Aldrich v. Dist. Court of Eighteenth Judicial Dist. In and For Arapahoe Cnty, 714 P.2d 1321, 1325 (Colo. 1986). A C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is properly granted when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In this case, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act (the Act ) is the primary means of regulating development, production, and utilization of gas and oil in Colorado. The Act gives the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ( COGCC ) authority to make rules, regulations, and orders necessary to enforce the Act. In particular, C.R.S (5) provides: Absent a bona fide dispute over the interpretation of a contract for payment, the oil and gas conservation commission shall have jurisdiction to determine the following: (a) The date on which payment of proceeds is due a payee under subsection (2) of this section; (b) The existence or nonexistence of an occurrence pursuant to subsection (3) of this section which would justifiably cause a delay in payment; and (c) The amount of the proceeds plus interest, if any, due a payee by a payer. Section (5.5) provides: 2

3 Before hearing the merits of any proceeding regarding payment of proceeds pursuant to this section, the oil and gas conservation commission shall determine whether a bona fide dispute exists regarding the interpretation of a contract defining the rights and obligations of the payer and payee. If the commission finds that such a dispute exists, the commission shall decline jurisdiction over the dispute and the parties may seek resolution of the matter in district court. A court s primary task when construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent. Springer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794, 799 (Colo. 2000); see also State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493, 502 (Colo. 2000) ( Legislative intent is the polestar of statutory construction. ). A court looks first to the language of the statute, giving words their plain and ordinary meaning; if the plain language of the statute demonstrates a clear legislative intent, the court looks no further. Springer, 13 P.3d at 799. Under the Act, the COGCC has primary jurisdiction to hear matters concerning royalty payments where there is no dispute as to the interpretation of the contract. Grant Bros. Ranch, LLC v. Antero Res. Piceance Corp., No. 15CA2063 (Colo. App. Dec. 1, 2016). Pursuant to the Act, the COGCC must determine whether a royalty payment dispute involves contract interpretation. C.R.S (5.5). If the COGCC determines that the royalty payment dispute does involve a contract interpretation, then it must decline jurisdiction. Id. Generally, if complete, adequate, and speedy administrative remedies are available, a party must generally exhaust those remedies before filing suit in district court. City and Cnty of Denver v. United Air Lines, Inc., 8 P.3d 1206, 1212 (Colo. 2000). This doctrine enables the agency to make initial determinations on matters within its expertise and compile a record adequate for judicial review. State v. Golden s Concrete Co., 962 P.2d 919, 923 (Colo. 1998). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies may deprive a court of jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Horrell v. Dept. of Admin., 861 P.2d 1194, 1197 (Colo. 1993). However, there is an exception that a plaintiff need not exhaust potential administrative remedies if the administrative authority lacks the authority to rule on the question raised. Id. In addition, the Act expressly states an exception by excluding the COGCC s jurisdiction from any bona fide dispute over the interpretation of a contract for payment. C.R.S (5). It is this clause that Plaintiff s solely rely on in contending that they are not required to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC. Specifically, Plaintiff claims its raised a contractual dispute regarding post-production costs, and thus the COGCC does not have jurisdiction over the matter. DISCUSSION The basis for the Court s previous Order Denying Defendant s Motion to Dismiss has been called into question. On March 11, 2016, the Court determined that the COGCC did not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the parties raised a bona fide dispute over the interpretation of contract. See Or. Denying Def. Mot. to Dismiss. Specifically, the Court found that 3

4 Section (5.5) does not contain any mandatory language directed at a payee. Nowhere does the statute provide that COGCC is the only body that can determine jurisdiction or that a payee must bring an action with the COGCC prior to seeking resolution of the matter in district court. The Court further found that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a bona fide dispute concerning the interpretation of the royalty and lease agreements, removing jurisdiction from the COGCC. Id. Since the Court s previous Order, there has been an overwhelming shift in Colorado s application of (5.5). Most notably, in Grant Brothers Ranch, L.L.C. v. Antero Resources Piceance Corporation, ---P.3d---, 15CA2063 (Colo. App. Dec. 1, 2016), a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the COGGC has primary jurisdiction over disputes regarding payments of proceeds. As pertinent here, the Grant Brothers division affirmed a trial court s ruling that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC prior to seeking resolution in district court against defendant operators for payment of proceeds. Grant Brothers similarly involves a claim for payment of proceeds under C.R.S ; however, unlike the current matter, the Grant Brothers parties did not have a contract. Although the facts in Grant Brothers are distinguishable, the holding remains applicable: the Court of Appeals found that requires a payee (at least in that case) 1 to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC before seeking resolution in district court. This holding expressly contradicts the Court s previous Order finding that did not contain direct language to a payee. In addition to the appellate decision, twelve Colorado district courts have recently decided matters identical to the present lawsuit and all twelve cases were dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff s failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC. 2 Therefore, in light of the change in case law, the Court finds that reconsideration of its prior Order is warranted. I. Jurisdiction Defendant claims that the COGCC must initially determine whether a bona fide dispute exists regarding the interpretation of a contract pursuant to (5.5). In support of its contention, Defendant argues that (5.5) prescribes the mandatory procedure which 1 The Grant Brothers decision does not address or resolve the issue of whether a plaintiff alleging a contract dispute concerning post-production costs is required to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC prior to filing a suit in district court. However, because the appellate decision holds that the Act directs a payee-plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court s prior interpretation is no longer grounded in good law. 2 C&M Res., LLC v. Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc., Case No. 2017CV30685 (Denver Dist. Ct. Mar. 2, 2018); Jerry Jones, et al. v. Antero Resources Corp. et al., No. 2017CV30033 (Garfield Cty. Dist. Ct. Jan. 19, 2018); Energy Investments, Inc. v. Antero Resources Corp. et al., No. 2016CV30261 (Garfield Cty. Dist. Ct. Jan. 19, 2018); Daniels Petroleum Co. et al. v. Antero Resources Corp. et al., No. 2016CV30265 (Garfield Cty. Dist. Ct. Jan. 19, 2018); McClintock & Nikoloric LLC et al. v. Bill Barrett Corp., No. 2017CV34092 (Denver Dist. Ct. Dec. 20, 2017); Freeman Invs. v. Bill Barrett Corp., No. 2017CV32667 (Denver Dist. Ct. Nov. 6, 2017); Casey v. Antero Res. Corp., et al., No. 2017CV30071 (Garfield Cty. Dist. Ct. August 17, 2017); Shuster, et al. v. Antero Res. Corp., et al., No. 2017CV30049 (Garfield Cty. Dist. Ct. August 16, 2017); Shidelerosa, et al. v. Antero Res. Corp., et al., No. 2016CV30280 (Garfield Cty. Dist. Ct. August 16, 2017); Limbach v. Antero Res. Corp., No. 2016CV30263 (Garfield Cty. Dist. Ct. July 31, 2017); Airport Land Partners, Ltd. v. Antero Res. Corp., No. 2016CV30259 (Garfield Cty. Dist. Ct. July 31, 2017); Miller Land & Cattle Co. v. Bill Barrett Corp., No. 2016CV30102 (Garfield Cty. Dist. Ct. Mar. 6, 2017). 4

5 requires a payee, such as Plaintiff, to bring an action with the COGCC prior to seeking resolution of the matter in a district court. Further, Defendant argues that in light of Grant Brothers, the Court s previous determination that it had concurrent jurisdiction, because (5.5) does not expressly require a payee to seek COGCC remedies prior to filing suit, is unsupported by law. On the other hand, Plaintiff argues that the COGCC does not have jurisdiction because Plaintiff s claims involve a contractual dispute. The threshold issue is whether the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether a bona fide dispute over the interpretation of contract for payment exists. The applicable section (5.5) provides: Before hearing the merits of any proceeding regarding payment of proceeds pursuant to this section, the oil and gas conservation commission shall determine whether a bona fide dispute exists regarding the interpretation of a contract defining the rights and obligations of the payer and payee. If the commission finds that such a dispute exists, the commission shall decline jurisdiction over the dispute and the parties may seek resolution of the matter in district court. Defendant contends that the Act gives initial and primary jurisdiction to the COGCC to determine (1) whether it retains jurisdiction to resolve the matter, and (2) whether a bona fide dispute over the interpretation of a contract exists, absolving the agency of jurisdiction. Plaintiff claims that the Court s prior interpretation and holding was proper, and that the district court has jurisdiction to determine whether a bona fide dispute exists. In support, Plaintiff cites Retova v. Vanguard Permian, LLC, 16CA670 (Colo. App. June 2, 2016), where the Colorado Court of Appeals denied an interlocutory appeal of a trial court s order denying a defendant s motion to dismiss a complaint for plaintiff s failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC. Pl. Ex. 4. The denial of an interlocutory appeal is not an opinion on the merits of the case. Further, the underlying trial court order did not analyze the defendant s jurisdiction claims or make any findings; as such it is not insightful to the present situation. Plaintiff also cites Grant Brothers Ranch, LLC v. Antero Resources Piceance Corporation, Case No. 15CA2063, 2016 WL (Colo. App. December 1, 2016), which it claims reaffirms Grynberg v. Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Com n, 7 P.3d 1060 (Colo. App. 1999). In Grynberg, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed an order of the COGCC, holding that the oil and gas commission lacked jurisdiction to interpret any royalty agreement to determine the propriety of disputed post-production deductions. 7 P.3d There, as in the present situation, a dispute arose between [the operators and the royalty owners] with respect to whether [the operators] were entitled under the terms of the lease to deduct certain post-production expenses in computing the royalties due to [the royalty owners]. Id. at However, unlike Plaintiff, in Grynberg, [The royalty owners] initially commenced an action at law to recover royalties from [the operators]. Later, however, they filed an application with the Commission pursuant to , as it existed prior to recent amendments... to have the Commission determine the amount of royalties owed by [the operators], and the district court stayed its proceedings, pending final action by the Commission. 5

6 Although the royalty owners in Grynberg did not file an application to determine whether the COGCC has primary jurisdiction, they recognized that the first step pursuant to was to file with the COGCC, not to file an action with the district court. The COGCC s primary jurisdiction is further supported by the plain language of the statute. As explained in Grynberg, the General Assembly amended the Act in 1998, clarifying its intent to exclude bona fide contractual disputes from the COGCC s jurisdiction And, as further explained in Grant Brothers, the Act s amendments did not change the COGCC s primary jurisdiction over disputes for payment of proceeds. See Grant Brothers, 16 COA 178, 30. Grant Brothers does state that claims involving a bona fide dispute over the interpretation of a contract for payment should be brought in district court. Id. However, Grant Brothers does not address or resolve whether the COGCC was first required to determine whether a bona fide dispute exists prior to filing an action in district court. Id. Based on the overall statutory scheme and the language in Grant Brothers opining that the Act directs plaintiff-payees to comply with the COGCC, the Court now finds that the Act confers initial and primary jurisdiction to the COGCC for several reasons. First, the Act expressly states that the oil and gas commission shall determine whether a bona fide dispute exists regarding the interpretation of a contract (5.5). The language does not support a finding that a district court has concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether a bona fide contractual dispute exists. See id. Further, the statute expressly states that if the COGCC finds a dispute exists, the parties may seek resolution in district court. Id. On that basis, the Court finds that the COGCC has initial jurisdiction to determine whether an issue concerning payment of proceeds pursuant to involves a bona fide dispute regarding the interpretation of a contract, and only after said determination, may a party seek resolution in district court. This interpretation is supported by the overall statutory scheme of the Act, which bestows primary jurisdiction to the COGCC for disputes involving payment of proceeds, such as the present claim. See (5.5). The statute allows for a jurisdiction exception when and if the COGCC determines that a question of law regarding contract interpretation exists. Id. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Court holds that the Act confers initial, primary jurisdiction to the COGCC to determine (1) whether it has jurisdiction over the payment of proceeds dispute, and (2) whether a claim concerning payment of proceeds pursuant to involves a bona fide dispute over the interpretation of a contract, removing jurisdiction from the commission. As such, the Court improvidently found that it could initially determine whether a bona fide dispute exists. Having determined that the COGCC has primary jurisdiction to determine whether a bona fide contractual dispute exists, the Court must next determine whether Plaintiff was required to exhaust the COGCC s administrative remedies prior to filing the present litigation. II. Administrative Remedies The COGCC is an agency, which outlines administrative remedies, and the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC prior to filing this lawsuit. As such, the sole issue is whether Plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to

7 Plaintiff contends that it is not required to exhaust the COGCC s administrative remedies, i.e., file an application with the COGCC to determine whether the agency has jurisdiction, because pursuant to Grynberg and Grant Brothers, the COGCC lacks the authority to rule on the contractual issues regarding disputed post-production deductions. In Colorado, when the administrative agency does not have the authority to grant the requested relief, and the available administrative remedies are ill-suited for providing such relief, administrative exhaustion is not required. Brooke v. Rest. Servs., Inc., 906 P.2d 66, 71 (Colo. 1995). However, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to limited exceptions. For example, a plaintiff need not exhaust potential administrative remedies if the administrative authority lacks the authority to rule on the question raised. Horrell v. Dept. of Admin., 861 P.2d 1194, 1197 (Colo. 1993). Plaintiff cites three authorities to support its position that exhaustion is not required, arguing that the COGCC and Colorado case law has consistently held that the COGCC does not have jurisdiction over contract disputes. First, Plaintiff relies on Grynberg, where the Court of Appeals affirmed the COGCC s order that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve a contractual dispute concerning whether operators are entitled to deduct post-production expenses in calculating royalties. Grynberg, 7 P.3d Second, Plaintiff cites The Matter of Payment of Proceeds from the Production of Oil and Gas as Established by Section , C.R.S., Wattenberg Field, Weld County, Colorado (May 2017) ( COGCC Order ) in which the COGCC re-affirmed its prior determination that pursuant to Grynberg, it did not have jurisdiction to interpret any agreement to determine the propriety of disputed post-production deductions. Pl. Ex. 6. Third, Plaintiff cites Crighton v. Augustus Energy Resources, LLC, 15CV00835-KLM (D.Colo. June 9, 2017), which held that the Act does not require a plaintiff to file in district court only after a COGCC determination that the dispute is contractual in nature, because exhaustion would likely be futile. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to prove that it was not required to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC prior to filing the present lawsuit. Plaintiff relies on three authorities, two of which are not binding, and the third, Grynberg, is procedurally different than the case at hand. First, the COGCC Order does not address the issue of whether Plaintiff is required to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC prior to filing an action with the district court. Pl. Ex. 6. In reviewing the COGCC Order, the COGCC outlines the dispute, determines that the issue involves terms and obligations under the parties agreement, and holds that the commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the controversy. Id. Notably, the COGCC Order does exactly what Defendant argues is required pursuant to the Act: the COGCC determines whether the parties have a bona fide dispute and whether the commission retains jurisdiction to resolve the controversy. Second, in an order denying a defendant s motion to dismiss, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado relied on the above-referenced COGCC Order in holding that exhaustion would be futile. Pl. Ex. 7. The District Court s order is not binding, nor is it overwhelmingly persuasive. Although Plaintiff submits the COGCC Order declining jurisdiction over a contract dispute, the order is not sufficient evidence that exhaustion would be futile. Instead, the Court finds the COGCC Order reaffirms its finding that the Act gives initial and primary jurisdiction to the COGCC. See supra. Third, Grynberg reaffirms the COGGC s initial determination that it lacked jurisdiction over a matter because it involved a contractual dispute. Grynberg, 7 P.3d at Plaintiff s argument that Grynberg stands for the proposition that a mere contractual dispute allegation regarding post-production costs summarily allows a district court to have jurisdiction over the matter is unavailing. See supra. Grynberg does not address whether a plaintiff merely 7

8 alleging a contract dispute may bypass the COGCC and file an action with the district court. See id. Instead, the procedural posture in Grynberg reaffirms the finding that the Act gives the COGCC primary and initial jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the claim concerning payment of proceeds and whether a bona fide contractual dispute exists. See Ultimately, Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence that it was not required to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC prior to filing the present action with the Court. On that basis, the Court finds that reconsideration of its prior Order is warranted and VACATES its March 11, 2016 Order Denying Defendant s Motion to Dismiss. The Court hereby GRANTS Defendant s Motion to Dismiss, finding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff s claim concerning payment of proceeds pursuant to for failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that reconsideration of its prior Order is warranted. As such, the Court s prior March 11, 2016 Order Denying Defendant s Motion to Dismiss is now VACATED. The Court hereby GRANTS Defendant s Motion to Dismiss, finding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff s claim concerning payment of proceeds pursuant to for failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the COGCC. Accordingly, this matter is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, all pending discovery matters are hereby DENIED AS MOOT, including Defendant s and Nonparty Enterprise s Motions for Sanctions against Plaintiff for Violating Protective Order. SO ORDERED. Dated this 24th day of April, BY THE COURT: MICHAEL A. MARTINEZ District Court Chief Judge 8

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal Volume 3 Number 3 The 2017 Survey on Oil & Gas September 2017 Colorado Diana S. Prulhiere David R. Little Casey C. Breese Follow this and additional works

More information

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for partial summary judgment and preliminary injunction and cross motion for partial summary judgment.

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for partial summary judgment and preliminary injunction and cross motion for partial summary judgment. DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock St. Denver, CO 80202 OASIS LEGAL FINANCE GROUP, LLC, OASIS LEGAL FINANCE, LLC, OASIS LEGAL FINANCING OPERATING COMPANY, LLC,

More information

has reviewed the Motion, Response, Reply, Exhibits, Court s file and applicable law to now

has reviewed the Motion, Response, Reply, Exhibits, Court s file and applicable law to now DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 1 st Judicial District Court Jefferson County Court & Administrative Facility 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401-6002 Plaintiff(s): RUSSELL WEISFIELD,

More information

ORDER TO ISSUE LICENSE

ORDER TO ISSUE LICENSE DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO DATE FILED: June 9, 2016 1:19 PM CASE NUMBER: 2016CV31909 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202-5310 Plaintiff: CANNABIS FOR HEALTH, LLC

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 176

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 176 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 176 Court of Appeals No. 13CA0093 Gilpin County District Court No. 12CV58 Honorable Jack W. Berryhill, Judge Charles Barry, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bally Gaming, Inc.,

More information

Case 2:15-cv CDJ Document 31 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:15-cv CDJ Document 31 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:15-cv-00773-CDJ Document 31 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN D. ORANGE, on behalf of himself : and all others similarly

More information

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DISTRICT COURT, PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO 501 N. Elizabeth Street Pueblo, CO 81003 719-404-8700 DATE FILED: July 11, 2016 6:40 PM CASE NUMBER: 2016CV30355 Plaintiffs: TIMOTHY McGETTIGAN and MICHELINE SMITH

More information

16CA0940 Development Recovery v Public Svs

16CA0940 Development Recovery v Public Svs 16CA0940 Development Recovery v Public Svs 06-15-2017 2017COA86 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 16CA0940 City and County of Denver District Court No. 15CV34584 Honorable Catherine A. Lemon,

More information

Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1320 City and County of Denver District Court No. 00CV996 Honorable Joseph E. Meyer, III, Judge

Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1320 City and County of Denver District Court No. 00CV996 Honorable Joseph E. Meyer, III, Judge COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1320 City and County of Denver District Court No. 00CV996 Honorable Joseph E. Meyer, III, Judge Jack J. Grynberg, d/b/a Grynberg Petroleum Company, and

More information

No. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

No. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT No. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT FRANKLIN P. FRIEDMAN, AS TRUSTEE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court THE FRANKLIN P. FRIEDMAN LIVING ) of Cook County, Illinois TRUST, individually

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 28, 2015 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 28, 2015 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 28, 2015 Session SHELBY COUNTY v. JAMES CREWS, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT00436904 Karen R. Williams, Judge No.

More information

O R D E R A N D E N T R Y O F F I N A L J U D G M E N T U N D E R C. R. C. P. 5 8 ( a )

O R D E R A N D E N T R Y O F F I N A L J U D G M E N T U N D E R C. R. C. P. 5 8 ( a ) DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: City and County Building 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 DATE FILED: December 12, 2018 2:09 PM CASE NUMBER: 2018CV31286 Plaintiffs:

More information

Case: 5:17-cv SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 5:17-cv SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 5:17-cv-01695-SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION BOUNTY MINERALS, LLC, CASE NO. 5:17cv1695 PLAINTIFF, JUDGE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM & ORDER. April 25, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM & ORDER. April 25, 2017 Case 1:16-cv-02529-JEJ Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES R. WILLIAMS, : 1:16-cv-02529-JEJ : Plaintiff, : : Hon. John

More information

District Court, Adams County, Colorado 1100 Judicial Center Drive Brighton, Colorado Safeway, Inc.; and Michael Arellano, Plaintiffs,

District Court, Adams County, Colorado 1100 Judicial Center Drive Brighton, Colorado Safeway, Inc.; and Michael Arellano, Plaintiffs, District Court, Adams County, Colorado 1100 Judicial Center Drive Brighton, Colorado 80601 EFILED Document District Court CO Adams County District Court 17th JD 2008CV44 Filing Date: Dec 26 2008 8:00AM

More information

Case 1:07-cv UU Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:07-cv UU Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:07-cv-23040-UU Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 07-23040-CIV-UNGARO NICOLAE DANIEL VACARU, vs. Plaintiff,

More information

By Order of the Court, Judge TERESA KIM-TENORIO

By Order of the Court, Judge TERESA KIM-TENORIO FOR PUBLICATION E-FILED CNMI SUPERIOR COURT E-filed: Mar 0:AM Clerk Review: N/A Filing ID: Case Number: -000-CV N/A By Order of the Court, Judge TERESA KIM-TENORIO IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Before the Court is Twin City Fire Insurance Company s ( Twin City ) Motion for

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Before the Court is Twin City Fire Insurance Company s ( Twin City ) Motion for UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRADEN PARTNERS, LP, et al., v. Plaintiffs, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS Case 5:14-cv-00182-C Document 5 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1 STAMPS BROTHERS OIL & GAS LLC, for itself and all others similarly

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Craft v. Target Corporation Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-00634-WJM-MJW ZAFIE CRAFT, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant. ORDER

More information

DEFENDANT S CRCP 12(B)(5) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ( Commission ), by and through

DEFENDANT S CRCP 12(B)(5) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ( Commission ), by and through DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 XIUHTEZCATL MARTINEZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLORADO OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Defendant. JOHN W. SUTHERS,

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA45 Court of Appeals No. 16CA0029 El Paso County District Court No. 13DR30542 Honorable Gilbert A. Martinez, Judge In re the Marriage of Michelle J. Roth, Appellant, and

More information

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division III Opinion by: JUDGE ROY Taubman and Loeb, JJ., concur. Announced: March 23, 2006

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division III Opinion by: JUDGE ROY Taubman and Loeb, JJ., concur. Announced: March 23, 2006 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0466 Adams County District Court Nos. 04JA81 & 04JA82 Honorable Chris Melonakis, Judge In the Matter of the Petition of Darrell A. Taylor, Petitioner

More information

2018COA151. A division of the Colorado Court of Appeals considers the. district court s dismissal of a pretrial detainee s allegations that she

2018COA151. A division of the Colorado Court of Appeals considers the. district court s dismissal of a pretrial detainee s allegations that she The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY * COMMISSION * Plaintiff * vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-02-3192 * PAUL HALL CENTER FOR MARITIME TRAINING AND EDUCATION,

More information

Case 1:17-cv LG-RHW Document 42 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:17-cv LG-RHW Document 42 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 8 Case 1:17-cv-00083-LG-RHW Document 42 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION JESSICA C. McGLOTHIN PLAINTIFF v. CAUSE NO.

More information

MOTION TO STRIKE, IN PART; FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND TO DISMISS, IN PART, FOR LACK OF RIPENESS

MOTION TO STRIKE, IN PART; FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND TO DISMISS, IN PART, FOR LACK OF RIPENESS DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 LESLIE TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE, POLICY and FINANCING, and SUE BIRCH, in her official

More information

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84 Case: 1:16-cv-04522 Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISA SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. Case No.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants. Case :-cv-00-wqh-ags Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 0 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation, v. MONSANTO COMPANY; SOLUTIA, INC.; and PHARMACIA CORPORATION, HAYES, Judge: UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

Case 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:16-cv-01544-LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH W. PRINCE, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BAC HOME LOANS

More information

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE ST A TE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. BUSINES AND CON UMER COURT DOCKET NO. BCD-CV-2017-61 v RICK SAVAGE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER ON DEFENDANT CENTRAL MAINE POWER

More information

2018COA59. As a matter of first impression, we adopt the reasoning of In re. Gamboa, 400 B.R. 784 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008), abrogated in part by

2018COA59. As a matter of first impression, we adopt the reasoning of In re. Gamboa, 400 B.R. 784 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008), abrogated in part by The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries

More information

Case 1:17-cv IMK Document 1 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

Case 1:17-cv IMK Document 1 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 Case 1:17-cv-00088-IMK Document 1 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CLARKSBURG JACKLIN ROMEO, SUSAN S. RINE, and DEBRA

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Court of Appeals No. 14CA1337 Mesa County District Court Nos. 13CR877, 13CR1502 & 14CR21 Honorable Brian J.

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Court of Appeals No. 14CA1337 Mesa County District Court Nos. 13CR877, 13CR1502 & 14CR21 Honorable Brian J. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA50 Court of Appeals No. 14CA1337 Mesa County District Court Nos. 13CR877, 13CR1502 & 14CR21 Honorable Brian J. Flynn, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF S RULE 60 MOTION; and DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY S FEES

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF S RULE 60 MOTION; and DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY S FEES DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Larimer County Justice Center 201 Laporte Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521-2761 (970) 498-6100 Plaintiff: STACY LYNNE v. Defendant: THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS;

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 185

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 185 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 185 Court of Appeals No. 11CA2193 Jefferson County District Court No. 11CV2943 Honorable Jane A. Tidball, Judge Michael Young, as father and next friend to D.B., a minor

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello 5555 Boatworks Drive LLC v. Owners Insurance Company Doc. 59 Civil Action No. 16-cv-02749-CMA-MJW 5555 BOATWORKS DRIVE LLC, v. Plaintiff, OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

Case 1:07-cv PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:07-cv PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:07-cv-01144-PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., AARON J. WESTRICK, Ph.D., Civil Action No. 04-0280

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 23, 2019 Elisabeth A.

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Colorado Air Quality Control Commission; and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Colorado Air Quality Control Commission; and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA26 Court of Appeals No. 16CA1867 Logan County District Court No. 16CV30061 Honorable Charles M. Hobbs, Judge Sterling Ethanol, LLC; and Yuma Ethanol, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ADRIAN ENERGY ASSOCIATES, LLC, CADILLAC RENEWABLE ENERGY LLC, GENESEE POWER STATION, LP, GRAYLING GENERATING STATION, LP, HILLMAN POWER COMPANY, LLC, T.E.S. FILER CITY

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA REL:10/21/2016 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THIS CAUSE, designated a complex business case by Order of the Chief Justice

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THIS CAUSE, designated a complex business case by Order of the Chief Justice STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE DOUGLAS D. WHITNEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES M. WINSTON, EDWIN B. BORDEN, JR., RICHARD L. DAUGHERTY, ROBERT

More information

Nelson v Patterson 2010 NY Slip Op 31799(U) July 12, 2010 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished from New York

Nelson v Patterson 2010 NY Slip Op 31799(U) July 12, 2010 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /09 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished from New York Nelson v Patterson 2010 NY Slip Op 31799(U) July 12, 2010 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 100948/09 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search

More information

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:10-cv-61985-WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GARDEN-AIRE VILLAGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013 RODNEY V. JOHNSON v. TRANE U.S. INC., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-000880-09 Gina

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 219. State of Colorado, Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles,

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 219. State of Colorado, Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles, COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 219 Court of Appeals No. 11CA2446 City and County of Denver District Court No. 10CV8381 Honorable Robert S. Hyatt, Judge Raptor Education Foundation, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA69 Court of Appeals No. 14CA0578 Boulder County District Court Nos. 06CR1847 & 07CR710 Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 09-0715 444444444444 MABON LIMITED, PETITIONER, v. AFRI-CARIB ENTERPRISES, INC., RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION

More information

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by: JUDGE TAUBMAN Márquez and J. Jones, JJ., concur. Announced: July 12, 2007

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by: JUDGE TAUBMAN Márquez and J. Jones, JJ., concur. Announced: July 12, 2007 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 06CA0426 Eagle County District Court No. 03CV236 Honorable Richard H. Hart, Judge Dave Peterson Electric, Inc., Defendant Appellant, v. Beach Mountain Builders,

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. West Colorado Motors, LLC, d/b/a Autonation Buick GMC Park Meadows,

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. West Colorado Motors, LLC, d/b/a Autonation Buick GMC Park Meadows, COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA103 Court of Appeals No. 15CA0842 City and County of Denver District Court No. 14CV34613 Honorable Catherine A. Lemon, Judge West Colorado Motors, LLC, d/b/a Autonation

More information

OCTOBER TERM, Ocean Reef Developers II, LLC. Michael L. Maddox Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court (CV )

OCTOBER TERM, Ocean Reef Developers II, LLC. Michael L. Maddox Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court (CV ) REL: 05/18/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA124 Court of Appeals No. 15CA1324 City and County of Denver District Court Nos. 14CR10235 & 14CR10393 Honorable Brian R. Whitney, Judge The People of the State of Colorado,

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA98 Court of Appeals No. 14CA1549 Pueblo County District Court No. 12CR83 Honorable Victor I. Reyes, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony

More information

{*148} OPINION. FRANCHINI, Justice.

{*148} OPINION. FRANCHINI, Justice. TEAM BANK V. MERIDIAN OIL INC., 1994-NMSC-083, 118 N.M. 147, 879 P.2d 779 (S. Ct. 1994) TEAM BANK, a corporation, as Trustee for the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MERIDIAN OIL INC.,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 11, 2002 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 11, 2002 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 11, 2002 Session JIM REAGAN, ET AL. v. WILLIAM V. HIGGINS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sevier County No. 96-2-032 Telford E. Forgety,

More information

The supreme court holds that section (10)(a) protects the records of a

The supreme court holds that section (10)(a) protects the records of a Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association

More information

Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 91 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 91 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Case 1:16-cv-00103-DLH-CSM Document 91 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Enerplus Resources (USA Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,

More information

Case 1:13-cv S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Case 1:13-cv S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND Case 1:13-cv-00185-S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ) DOUGLAS J. LUCKERMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 13-185

More information

APPEAL DISMISSED. Division IV Opinion by JUDGE BERNARD Webb and Nieto*, JJ., concur

APPEAL DISMISSED. Division IV Opinion by JUDGE BERNARD Webb and Nieto*, JJ., concur 12CA1406 Colorado v. Cash Advance 12-19-2013 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS DATE FILED: December 19, 2013 CASE NUMBER: 2012CA1406 Court of Appeals No. 12CA1406 City and County of Denver District Court Nos.

More information

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 08 CVS STROOCK, STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) ROBERT DORF, ) Defendant )

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 08 CVS STROOCK, STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) ROBERT DORF, ) Defendant ) Stroock, Stroock & Lavan LLP v. Dorf, 2010 NCBC 3. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 08 CVS 14248 STROOCK, STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, ) Plaintiff

More information

Case 3:14-cv VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 3:14-cv VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Case 3:14-cv-01714-VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 PAUL T. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT v. CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1714 (VAB) NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 33,945. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY Violet C. Otero, District Judge

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 33,945. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY Violet C. Otero, District Judge This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note

More information

2018COA30. No. 16CA1524, Abu-Nantambu-El v. State of Colorado. Criminal Law Compensation for Certain Exonerated Persons

2018COA30. No. 16CA1524, Abu-Nantambu-El v. State of Colorado. Criminal Law Compensation for Certain Exonerated Persons The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries

More information

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division II Opinion by JUDGE WEBB Casebolt and Dailey, JJ., concur. Announced June 9, 2011

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division II Opinion by JUDGE WEBB Casebolt and Dailey, JJ., concur. Announced June 9, 2011 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 10CA1137 Eagle County District Court No. 09CV44 Honorable Robert T. Moorhead, Judge June Marie Sifton, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Stewart

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : : : : : : : :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : : : : : : : : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LUGUS IP, LLC, v. Plaintiff, VOLVO CAR CORPORATION and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendants. Civil. No. 12-2906 (RBK/JS) OPINION KUGLER,

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 53

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 53 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 53 Court of Appeals No. 11CA2030 City and County of Denver District Court No. 05CR4442 Honorable Christina M. Habas, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

Roberts & Stevens, P.A., by Ann-Patton Hornthal, Wyatt S. Stevens, Stephen L. Cash, and John D. Noor, for Defendants Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of

Roberts & Stevens, P.A., by Ann-Patton Hornthal, Wyatt S. Stevens, Stephen L. Cash, and John D. Noor, for Defendants Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of Insight Health Corp. v. Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of NC, LLC, 2015 NCBC 50. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BUNCOMBE COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 14 CVS 1783 INSIGHT HEALTH CORP.

More information

THIS MATTER, designated a complex business and exceptional case and

THIS MATTER, designated a complex business and exceptional case and RJM Plumbing, Inc. v. Superior Constr. Corp., 2011 NCBC 18. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK 08 CVS 189 RJM PLUMBING, INC., ) Plaintiff

More information

ROBERT PHILLIPS, Plaintiff/Appellee, CRAIG E. GARCIA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV

ROBERT PHILLIPS, Plaintiff/Appellee, CRAIG E. GARCIA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ROBERT PHILLIPS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. CRAIG E. GARCIA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0239 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2012-090337

More information

2018COA118. Nos. 18CA0664 & 18CA0665, People v. Soto-Campos & People v. Flores-Rosales Criminal Law Grand Juries Indictments Probable Cause Review

2018COA118. Nos. 18CA0664 & 18CA0665, People v. Soto-Campos & People v. Flores-Rosales Criminal Law Grand Juries Indictments Probable Cause Review The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 128. Henry Block and South Broadway Automotive Group, Inc., d/b/a Quality Mitsubishi, Inc., JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 128. Henry Block and South Broadway Automotive Group, Inc., d/b/a Quality Mitsubishi, Inc., JUDGMENT AFFIRMED COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 128 Court of Appeals No. 12CA0906 Arapahoe County District Court No. 09CV2786 Honorable John L. Wheeler, Judge Premier Members Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections and Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility,

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections and Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility, COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA7 Court of Appeals No. 15CA0083 Chaffee County District Court No. 14CV30 Honorable Charles M. Barton, Judge Raymond Lee Fetzer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Executive Director

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Public Service Company of Colorado, a Colorado corporation,

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Public Service Company of Colorado, a Colorado corporation, COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA138 Court of Appeals No. 15CA1371 Boulder County District Court No. 14CV30681 Honorable Judith L. Labuda, Judge Public Service Company of Colorado, a Colorado corporation,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Scaife v. Falk et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-02530-BNB VERYL BRUCE SCAIFE, v. Applicant, FRANCIS FALK, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

More information

No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY. [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment]

No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY. [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment] No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 132 September Term,

More information

DISTRICT COURT CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado Plaintiff Appellee: SECURITY CAPITAL FUNDING CORP.

DISTRICT COURT CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado Plaintiff Appellee: SECURITY CAPITAL FUNDING CORP. DISTRICT COURT CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Plaintiff Appellee: SECURITY CAPITAL FUNDING CORP. v. Defendant: DANIEL DECLEMENTS Garnishee Appellant: US METRO

More information

St. James Place Condominium Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

St. James Place Condominium Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07 CA0727 Eagle County District Court No. 05CV681 Honorable R. Thomas Moorhead, Judge Earl Glenwright, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. St. James Place Condominium

More information

Case 3:16-cv JCH Document 20 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 3:16-cv JCH Document 20 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Case 3:16-cv-01944-JCH Document 20 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DOCTOR S ASSOCIATES INC., : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 3:16-CV-1944 (JCH) v. : :

More information

Case 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331

Case 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331 Case 6:14-cv-01400-CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel Case 1:11-cv-02971-WYD-KMT Document 125 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 11-cv-02971-WYD-KMT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 15, 2006 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 15, 2006 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 15, 2006 Session DANIEL MUSIC GROUP, LLC v. TANASI MUSIC, LLC, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 05-0761-II Carol

More information

2012 CO 5. In this juvenile delinquency case, the prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal

2012 CO 5. In this juvenile delinquency case, the prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association

More information

This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter 2014 UT 5. No Filed February 25, 2014

This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter 2014 UT 5. No Filed February 25, 2014 This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter 2014 UT 5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH LORI RAMSAY and DAN SMALLING, Respondents, v. KANE COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCE

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued July 9, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00473-CV ROBERT R. BURCHFIELD, Appellant V. PROSPERITY BANK, Appellee On Appeal from the 127th District Court

More information

Case 1:08-cv Document 50 Filed 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:08-cv Document 50 Filed 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 7 Case 1:08-cv-02767 Document 50 Filed 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RALPH MENOTTI, Plaintiff, v. No. 08 C 2767 THE METROPOLITAN LIFE

More information

Case 3:13-cv K Document 111 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID 2821

Case 3:13-cv K Document 111 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID 2821 Case 3:13-cv-01082-K Document 111 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID 2821 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TRINITY VALLEY SCHOOL, et al. v. Plaintiffs,

More information

DISTRICT COURT, ADAMS COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601

DISTRICT COURT, ADAMS COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 DISTRICT COURT, ADAMS COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 REBECCA BRINKMAN and MARGARET BURD Plaintiffs, v. KAREN LONG and THE STATE OF COLORADO

More information

Case 5:11-cv SMH-MLH Document 52 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 417

Case 5:11-cv SMH-MLH Document 52 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 417 Case 5:11-cv-00854-SMH-MLH Document 52 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 417 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION MAGNOLIA POINT MINERALS, LLC CIVIL ACTION

More information

J S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF.

J S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF. Case :-cv-00-jls-fmo Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF vs. Plaintiffs, THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL

More information

Case 7:14-cv O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996

Case 7:14-cv O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996 Case 7:14-cv-00087-O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION NEWCO ENTERPRISES, LLC, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 6. Farm Deals, LLLP, Farms of Hasty, LLLP, Kindone, LLLP, and Vanman, LLLP,

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 6. Farm Deals, LLLP, Farms of Hasty, LLLP, Kindone, LLLP, and Vanman, LLLP, COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 6 Court of Appeals No. 11CA2467 Bent County District Court No. 11CV24 Honorable M. Jon Kolomitz, Judge Farm Deals, LLLP, Farms of Hasty, LLLP, Kindone, LLLP, and Vanman,

More information

v No Clinton Circuit Court DENNIS J. DUCHENE, II, ANN DUCHENE,

v No Clinton Circuit Court DENNIS J. DUCHENE, II, ANN DUCHENE, S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S JOHN THOMAS MILLER and BG&M, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED December 21, 2017 v No. 334731 Clinton Circuit Court DENNIS J. DUCHENE, II,

More information

Case 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs,

Case 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs, Case 116-cv-03852-JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- COMCAST CORPORATION,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Emerick v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Anthem Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION WILLIAM EMERICK, pro se, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTHEM, Defendant.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SUSAN HARMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREGORY J. AHERN, Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-mej ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT Re:

More information

2018COA107. A division of the court of appeals considers whether the. district court may consider documents outside the bare allegations

2018COA107. A division of the court of appeals considers whether the. district court may consider documents outside the bare allegations The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA80 Court of Appeals No. 15CA0605 City and County of Denver District Court No. 14CV32774 Honorable Michael J. Vallejos, Judge Mountain States Adjustment, assignee of Bank

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 152

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 152 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 152 Court of Appeals No. 11CA2068 City and County of Denver District Court No. 10CV1726 Honorable R. Michael Mullins, Judge Susan A. Henderson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

More information

Case 2:16-cv AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:16-cv AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:16-cv-01375-AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA GATHERS, et al., 16cv1375 v. Plaintiffs, LEAD CASE NEW YORK

More information