A teleconference company is off the hook, at least for now, from paying the legal fees of a former chief executive who was sent to prison in June for securities fraud, The National Law Journal reports.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that a trial judge erred in granting a preliminary injunction in favor of ClearOne Inc.’s former CEO, Frances Flood, who had an agreement with the Salt Lake City-based company to pay her legal fees.
The appeals panel found that the agreement did not create an unconditional obligation for ClearOne to cover her fees and instead permitted the company to assert its own financial problems as a way to avoid payment.
DENVER — Each finalist for the upcoming vacancy on the Colorado Supreme Court had five letters of reference written on their behalf. The letters, along with the job applications and interviews, were considered by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission in picking the finalists and will also be reviewed by Gov. Bill Ritter before he chooses one of the finalists as the state’s next justice. Law Week asked the letter writers to share what they wrote, and 12 of 15 agreed.
Finalist Bob Russel, a judge on the Colorado Court of Appeals, had letters written on his behalf by retired appeals court Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg; 1st Judicial District Judge Jane Tidball; sole practitioner Forrest Lewis; Tom Kearns of Fairfield and Woods; and Monica Russel y Rodriguez, associate dean at Northwestern University’s Weinberg College of Arts and Science, and Russel’s sister.
Monica Russel y Rodriguez, on Russel embracing the cultures of both his white father and Mexican-American mother:
“One solution to living in two worlds is to reject one of them. Bob has always simply refused to diminish either contribution and thereby defied assimilationist expectations. Cultural anthropologists will tell you that the urge to pick one identity or one world is strong and compelling in our society. Our own history of the Census reveals this ambivalence to race and ethnicity. Even closer to home, these dualities never put us in a stable place. Among our white working-class neighbors we were the Mexican-with-all-those-kids; among our Martinez and Rodriguez cousins we were the gringos.”
Jane Tidball:
“As a trial judge, I can attest to the superior quality of Bob’s work on the Court of Appeals. The opinions he authors are cogent, precise and understandable. He analyzes the issues presented on appeal and no more. He provides trial judges with a concise holding and a rule of law which can be applied at the trial court level.”
Sandra I. Rothenberg:
“Judge Russel has had considerable experience as an appellate lawyer and judge, and he is comfortable with the nature of appellate judging which is collegial, but can also be solitary and isolating. Finally, he is a superb writer whose opinions are clear and understandable, even when addressing complex issues.”
Forrest Lewis:
“In a short time, he has risen to the top of the court in respect and excellence. His opinions are some of the best work the court has put forth. He works very hard to make them so. He has rejected my invitation for weekend outings on many occasions because he was working on opinions he ‘needed to get out.’”
Tom Kearns:
“I have socialized with Bob for many years, within a group of individuals who are quite vocal with their political opinions. Although I have heard Bob speak quite eloquently within this group, I cannot identify a set political philosophy. Even in his casual discourse Bob examines issues and reaches conclusions specific to the discussion without burden of predetermined beliefs.”
DENVER — Each finalist for the upcoming vacancy on the Colorado Supreme Court had five letters of reference written on their behalf. The letters, along with the job applications and interviews, were considered by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission in picking the finalists and will also be reviewed by Gov. Bill Ritter before he chooses one of the finalists as the state’s next justice. Law Week asked the letter writers to share what they wrote, and 12 of 15 agreed.
Finalist Monica Marquez, a Colorado deputy attorney general, had letters written on her behalf by Attorney General John Suthers; Secretary of State Bernie Buescher; former state Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky; Deputy Attorney General Maurie Knaizer; and Kathleen Nalty, director of the Colorado Campaign for Inclusive Excellence. All letters but Knaizer’s appear below.
Jean Dubofsky:
“[F]our of the justice’s law practices were primarily if not exclusively criminal law practices. Ms. Marquez would be replacing the chief justice who is known for her expertise in government law, and Ms. Marquez would bring to the court sophistication about the numerous cases that involve, for example, TABOR, ballot titles, election issues, voter-initiated constitutional amendments, property tax, public pensions, labor law, and regulations issued by a wide variety of state agencies.”
Kathleen Nalty, on Marquez’ keynote speech at the 2010 State High School Diversity Conference:
“She spoke for an hour to an audience of over 1000 diverse high school students from 80 high schools across the state. You could have heard a pin drop as the high school students listened to Monica’s incredibly inspiring story of courage — about leaving her family at age 16 to become an exchange student in Germany, being mugged while walking to work in Camden through a crime and drug infested neighborhood where she taught inner-city children during her years as a Jesuit Volunteer, telling her Catholic family that she is gay, and meeting a death row inmate one summer during law school and building a 13-year friendship with him until he was executed — a friendship the two maintained even after she became a prosecutor.”
John Suthers:
“I have managed three large public law offices over a period of eighteen years and have observed the work of approximately 700 lawyers who I’ve managed over that period of time. I rate Monica Marquez as one of the very best lawyers who’ve worked for me.”
Bernie Buescher:
“Monica’s efforts on behalf of the Department of State have been nothing short of exemplary. She is the ultimate public servant — a brilliant attorney who is knowledgeable, open-minded, decisive, and conscientious.”
DENVER — Each finalist for the upcoming vacancy on the Colorado Supreme Court had five letters of reference written on their behalf. The letters, along with the job applications and interviews, were considered by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission in picking the finalists and will also be reviewed by Gov. Bill Ritter before he chooses one of the finalists as the state’s next justice. Law Week asked the letter writers to share what they wrote, and 12 of 15 agreed.
Finalist David Prince, an El Paso County district judge, had letters written on his behalf by Mark Gruskin of Senn Visciano Canges Rosenstein; Joseph Halpern of Holland & Hart; public defender Rose Roy; Tim Schutz of Hanes & Schutz; and fellow 4th Judicial District Judge David Shakes. The letters written by Halpern, Schutz and Shakes can be viewed below.
Joseph Halpern:
“Judge Prince’s extensive trial and appellate experience in complex commercial litigation while he was in private practice also commend him for nomination to our state’s highest court. While we have a strong Supreme Court, it would be further strengthened by adding a Justice who would bring great depth and breadth of experience in sophisticated commercial transactions and disputes.”
David Shakes:
“I have worked with David in developing the Judicially Speaking program. Our goal in this program is to develop in high school students an appreciation for the role of the judiciary in our society through curriculum development and speaking. That might sound like a lofty goal for a few judges from Colorado Springs. However, David has made it happen.”
Tim Schutz:
“Soon after his appointment to the bench, he [led] the formation of a ‘commercial docket’ which was designed to provide an expedited process for resolving complex cases that have significant impact upon the community. In formulating this docket, Judge Prince was instrumental in drafting the appropriate procedures and gaining the necessary support of the local judges and lawyers.”
DENVER — The Colorado Court of Appeals decision on Thursday revived a lawsuit brought by mobile home owners against the city of Steamboat Springs, reports Steamboat Today.
A group of mobile home residents brought a lawsuit against the city seeking compensation for the loss of an adjacent green belt in the construction of a highway. The district court tossed the suit because the plaintiffs didn’t own the ground their homes stand on. But a three-judge appeals panel reversed the decision and allowed the lawsuit to proceed.
“The city doesn’t view us as real people because we don’t own the land,” mobile home owner Tom Williams told Steamboat Today. “This is a move in the right direction. I’m pretty excited.”
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc violated a U.S. disability law by making the walls between customers and food-preparation counters in its restaurants too high, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday, according to Reuters.
A panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the 45-inch walls violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because Chipotle did not provide disabled customers with an experience “equivalent” to what non-disabled customers enjoy in being able to watch employees assemble burritos and tacos.
The federal court ruling in Colorado dismissing a law that makes it illegal for people to falsely claim they earned combat military medals has some veterans ready for a fight that may stretch to the U.S. Supreme Court, The Tampa Tribune reports.
The decision handed down on Friday in Denver involved a man who told a government board that he had won combat medals as a Marine. The story was untrue, and he was charged under the Stolen Valor Act, enacted in 2005, which criminalized such behavior.
Tampa Bay area veterans filled a courtroom last month for the sentencing of Angel Ocasio-Reyes, accused of violating the Stolen Valor Act by wearing a Marine uniform complete with medals he never earned. He never served in the military.
DENVER — For the second time in a year, a Colorado Court of Appeals opinion has called attention to the “confusing appellate labyrinth” created by the Colorado Rules for Magistrates.
An opinion released on Thursday, In re the Marriage of Rene Stockman and Wayne Stockman, concerned an award for attorney fees issued by Mesa County Magistrate Judge Stephanie Rubinstein. The wife in the divorce case, who like her husband was representing herself pro se, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals because Rubinstein’s instructions directed any appeals to go there.
But those instructions were incorrect, said Court of Appeals Judge John Dailey in the opinion. The appeal should have gone to district court.
“Although wife followed the directions provided by the magistrate to appeal directly to this court, the magistrate’s C.R.M. 7(b) language in this case was inappropriate and insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon us,” Dailey wrote.
Though the deadline to do appeal in district court has expired, Dailey said, some leeway should be granted because the wife acted on a magistrate’s instructions.
“The Colorado Rules for Magistrates create a ‘confusing appellate labyrinth’ perplexing both counsel and pro se parties alike, leading to the dismissal of a ‘significant, and perhaps unacceptable’ number of appeals,” Dailey wrote, quoting an opinion written by appeals court Judge Daniel Taubman in November. “This case presents a clear example of that ‘labyrinth’ as it resulted in erroneous language in the magistrate’s order and wife’s failure to seek district court review.”
