Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Anthony Cuevas appealed his conviction of first-degree murder, vehicular eluding and identity theft.
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant’s not-guilty plea alone is not tantamount to an express assertion of innocence under the U.S. Supreme Court case McCoy v. Louisiana. It also rejected Cuevas’s other contentions.
The appeals court affirmed.
V.M. and T.M. appealed the summary judgment order adjudicating C.M., L.M., M.M., P.M. and D.H. dependent or neglected based on D.H.’s positive test for methamphetamine.
The juvenile court concluded that there was a factual dispute as to whether D.H. was exposed to methamphetamine while in his mother’s care or in foster care. But it concluded that the dispute was immaterial because D.H.’s exposure established that her environment was injurious to her welfare, regardless of who was at fault for the exposure. It then imputed that injurious environment to the other children, who were living in different homes at the time.
The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that the juvenile court erroneously conflated the issue of parental fault with the issue of which environment must be injurious. When a child has been removed from the parents’ care, the relevant environment is the one the child would be in if returned to the parents—not the child’s environment while in the physical custody of the department.
Because D.H.’s exposure to methamphetamine in foster care would have no bearing on the child’s environment with mother—much less on the other children’s environments—the juvenile court erred by granting summary judgment while a material factual dispute existed as to where the exposure occurred, according to the opinion.
The appeals court reversed the summary judgment order adjudicating the children dependent or neglected and remanded the case. But it affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of the parent’s motion to disqualify the Montrose County Department of Human Services and the Montrose County Attorney.
Grand Junction Peace Officers’ Association v. City of Grand Junction
The Grand Junction Peace Officers’ Association appealed the district court’s orders dismissing its amended complaint against the City of Grand Junction and Claudia Hazelhurst, Jodilyn Welch and Gregory Caton in their individual and official capacities.
Courts are required to address certain issues at the preliminary stages of a civil case. According to the opinion, they must consider a public entity’s or a public employee’s assertion of sovereign immunity “at the earliest possible stage” of a case because courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims barred by sovereign immunity.
In addition, courts must determine whether a case may proceed as a class action “[a]s soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action.”
This case presented a novel issue of whether a court abuses its discretion by deferring adjudication of the plaintiff’s motion for class certification until it has resolved the defendants’ assertion of sovereign immunity.
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that under the facts of this case, the court didn’t err when it decided that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act barred the plaintiff’s claims before considering whether the case could proceed as a class action.
The appeals court affirmed, dismissed the appeal in part and remanded the case.
J.S. and A.B. appealed the judgment adjudicating B.C.B. dependent or neglected under Section 19-3-102(1)(g) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which provides that a child is dependent or neglected if “[t]he child is born affected by alcohol or substance exposure, except when taken as prescribed or recommended and monitored by a licensed health care provider, and the newborn child’s health or welfare is threatened by substance abuse.”
The Colorado Appeals Court, interpreting this statutory language, concluded that to secure an adjudication, the government must establish that at birth the child was adversely affected—rather than merely exposed to—alcohol or substances.
Because the government didn’t present evidence sufficient to support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the child suffered a physical, developmental or behavioral response to substance exposure, the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the child’s adjudication as dependent or neglected.
The appeals court reversed.
Trudgian v. LM General Insurance Co.
The total loss statute imposes an affirmative duty on motor vehicle insurers: they “shall pay” to the insured the title and registration fees “associated with the total loss of the [insured’s] motor vehicle.” The question the Colorado Court of Appeals decided in this appeal was whether there is an implied private right of action to enforce this statutory duty.
It concluded there is no implied right of action to enforce the statute.
The appeals court affirmed and dismissed the cross-appeal.
James Gallo appealed the district court’s order granting the claim of Kathleen Gallo for past due child support.
In resolving James’ appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed for the first time in a published Colorado opinion whether the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel is available as an affirmative defense to a claim for recovery of the principal amount of past due child support.
Applying Colorado Supreme Court case law on the affirmative defense of the applicability of laches to claims for child support, the appeals court concluded that promissory estoppel is not a viable defense to a claim to collect the principal amount of past due child support.
The appeals court affirmed.
HMLL LLC v. MJM Holdings Limited
Colorado’s marijuana industry is thoroughly regulated, according to the opinion. The state’s comprehensive regulatory scheme includes restrictions on who can own or hold a financial stake in a marijuana business and imposes robust disclosure, application and licensing requirements on those who seek to participate in the industry. This case examines whether an aggrieved party’s violations of this regulatory framework can be a basis for a court to deny that party relief.
This case involves a failed business deal between HMLL LLC and Avniel Wellner, ORAM LLC and MJM Holdings Limited, involving agreements to transfer the ownership of a marijuana business from Wellner to HMLL.
After the deal went south, HMLL asserted various equitable and legal claims against defendants, and Wellner asserted numerous counterclaims against HMLL.
Following a lengthy bench trial, the court denied relief to all of the parties on their various equitable and legal claims and counterclaims because all of the parties, the court found, “violated Colorado’s regulatory scheme for approving and licensing those seeking to invest in and obtain ownership interest in a marijuana business.”
Instead, the court left the parties where it found them. As a consequence, the defendants, who were also found to be wrongdoers, received a substantial windfall at HMLL’s expense.
HMLL appealed the trial court’s judgment, arguing that the trial court erred by denying it any relief, either in equity or at law, based on unclean hands and due to its illegal conduct—all based on alleged violations of Colorado’s marijuana regulatory scheme.
The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded the trial court didn’t err by declining to grant HMLL any relief.
The appeals court affirmed.