303 Creative v. Elenis
In a preemptive suit, 303 Creative LLC and Lorie Smith sued various Colorado officials to keep them from enforcing the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The plaintiffs design wedding websites and willfully admit they exclude same-sex couples from their service, though no suit has been brought against them yet for that discrimination.
The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, and the district court offered to expedite the litigation with summary judgment, which was accepted by both parties.
The district court dismissed several claims from the plaintiffs for lack of standing and did not address the remaining claims while the very similar Masterpiece Cakeshop case was pending. The plaintiffs appealed and while the appeal was pending the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was decided.
The plaintiffs renewed motions for preliminary injunction and summary judgment in the district court and the appeal became irrelevant, and the appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the plaintiff’s motions.
William F. Sandoval Trust v. Taylor
William Sandoval named Mark Taylor trustee of the William F. Sandoval Irrevocable Trust in 2006. Taylor misused large amounts of money from the trust resulting in three state court judgments against Taylor in amounts between $23,000 and $385,000.
Taylor had a 50 percent interest in a home that was shared with his ex-wife. The trust put liens on the house and tried to foreclose on it. In 2015 Taylor filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13, he included his house in his amended schedules. The trust filed a complaint saying its liens are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Taylor moved to avoid the trust’s liens under U.S. Code section 522(f) arguing the sum of liens on his house were more than how much money he had ownership of for the house. The bankruptcy court ruled he could avoid them. The court reversed the bankruptcy’s ruling and remand for further proceedings.
Fowler v. Bank of America
The Fowlers had a mortgage on their home from Bank of America. The loan fell into delinquency for five years, leading to foreclosure on the home. In the middle of those five years the Fowlers began sending letters about their loan to Bank of America.
The Fowlers filed a complaint alleging that Bank of America violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and its Colorado equivalent by not responding substantively and timely to their letters, of which they sent 867. They conceded they received many letters back, but, with one exception, the responses weren’t substantive or in the prescribed timeframe. They claimed the poor responses were an unfair trade practice prohibited by the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and were intentional inflictions of emotional distress. Bank of America moved to dismiss and the Fowlers moved for leave to amend their complaint. The district court dismissed the case. The Fowlers appealed.
The Fowlers argued the district court should have granted their motion to amend, as they would have included clarification of fact among other things. However, they did not include their motion or proposed amendment in the appendix on appeal, giving the court insufficient material to address the arguments. The district court’s dismissal was affirmed.
Lebere v. Trani
Kent LeBere was found not guilty of first-degree murder, felony murder and manslaughter after a trial where evidence was presented of his involvement with a woman the night of her death and who was found in a burning van at a carwash. LeBere was convicted of second-degree murder and arson. He was sentenced for 60 years imprisonment.
A man who lived with LeBere, Ronnie Archuleta, who testified that LeBere had confessed the crime to him recanted his testimony while LeBere’s appeal was pending. The district court decided that the verdict did not depend on the recanted testimony and that the evidence showing a police officer helped Archuleta fabricate a testimony did not raise doubts of the recanted testimony.
Kent LeBere appealed the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. The appellate court concluded that the district court took an improperly narrow view of the evidence LeBere claimed the government improperly withheld. Exercising jurisdiction, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Duran v. Archuleta
Jaime Nolan Duran, a Colorado state prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S. Code section 2254 application for habeas relief.
The district court granted Duran a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment the applicant had made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
Duran argued that the district erred by concluding that his claims were procedurally defaulted and by rejecting them on the merits. The appellate court agreed that his claims failed on the merits and affirmed the district court’s decision on that basis.
The court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code sections 1291 and 2253 and affirmed.