Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Lukas Locket appealed the trial court’s restitution order entered in connection with his conviction for misdemeanor driving under the influence.
As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that Section 1.3-603(8)(a) of the Colorado Revised Statutes allows the court to award restitution to a victim’s insurance company in nonfelony traffic cases, but only if the prosecution proves that the insurer cannot be compensated for its loss under a policy of insurance, self-insurance, an indemnity agreement or a risk management fund.
In this case, the appeals court found that the prosecution failed to meet its burden. But the prosecution did establish that Locket proximately caused pecuniary loss to two vehicle owners.
The appeals court affirmed the part of the order awarding restitution to the vehicle owners but vacated the portion of the order awarding restitution to Allstate.
Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown specially concurred.
She noted that if the legislature had intended to preclude insurance companies from recovering restitution at all in nonfelony title 42 traffic offense cases, it could have made that intent much clearer. In the end, she agreed with the majority that Allstate is not entitled to recover restitution in this case.
Eric Coomer v. Salem Media of Colorado
This case stemmed from the same root as another case recently decided by a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals, Coomer v. Donald J Trump for President, Inc.
After the 2020 presidential election, some members of the media, political figures and pundits began publishing stories that the election had been compromised. One such story centered on the plaintiff, Eric Coomer, who is the former director of product security and strategy for Dominion Voting Systems Inc.
The central allegation in both cases arises from a supposed “antifa” conference call in late September 2020. It was reported that on the call, someone purporting to be Coomer said he had “made sure” that President-elect Donald J. Trump was “not going to win” the 2020 election.
Coomer denies that he was ever on such a call, and there is no evidence that he took any action to undermine the election results. Coomer filed multiple suits against the media outlets, political figures and pundits who repeated these reports, asserting claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.
The issues in this appeal were before the division on a special motion to dismiss under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute.
The appeals court concluded that Coomer established a reasonable likelihood that he would prevail on his claims for defamation and IIED against the defendants, Salem Media of Colorado Inc. and Randy Corproron. But it reached the opposite conclusion regarding his civil conspiracy claim.
The appeals court reversed the trial court’s denial of the special motion to dismiss the conspiracy claim but otherwise affirmed.
Judge Ted Tow specially concurred.
Tow wrote that he believes the L.S.S. rubric, established in the appeals court case L.S.S. v. SAP, contradicts the statutory language and structure and disrupts the careful balance the Colorado General Assembly struck between competing rights.
He also believes the reflexive adoption of California’s approach to anti-SLAPP proceedings without extensive consideration of differences in statutory language and legal landscape is unwise. In Tow’s view, the appeals court case Salazar v. Public Trust Institute announced the correct analytical rubric for addressing a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute. He therefore disagreed that the court must assume the truth of Coomer’s evidence.
But, after conducting the preliminary weighing of the evidence that he believes is required, he believed that Coomer had established a reasonable likelihood that he will prevail on the defamation and IIED claims, though not on his conspiracy claim. He concurred in judgment.
Galiant Homes v. Edward Herlik
Edward Herlik and Cynthia Strong-Herlik appealed the district court’s judgment approving the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien filed by plaintiff, Galiant Homes, a custom homebuilder.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case so the district court may determine Galiant’s reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal.
In this defamation case, Jogan Health LLC and its principal, Daniel Dietrich, sued Scripps Media and Bayan Wang for defamation and other torts based on statements made in four investigative, multimedia news stories published between December 2021 and October 2022.
Jogan appealed the district court’s order and judgment of dismissal granting Scripps special motion to dismiss the complaint under the statute commonly known as Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute. Jogan also appealed the court’s award of attorney fees and costs to the Scripps defendants as the prevailing parties.
The appeals court addressed and rejected all of Jogan’s arguments for reversal.
The appeals court affirmed the judgment and the attorney fees order and awarded reasonable appellate attorney fees to Scripps.
Charles Hogue v. Michael Hogue
This appeal arises from the judicial dissolution of two limited liability partnerships: the Hogue Ranch Partnership, which owned the Hogue Ranch, and the Squire Building Limited Partnership LLLP, which owned a commercial building. The district court consolidated the two dissolution cases for trial, but this appeal only concerns the dissolution of the Hogue Ranch Partnership.
The district court entered judgment in favor of Charles Hogue, dissolving and liquidating the assets of the Hogue Ranch Limited Partnership. Michael Hogue appealed.
Michael Hogue argued that the district court erred by concluding that the partnership could not be dissolved by ordering a partition of the ranch or distributing the property to the brothers as tenants in common to allow for a later partition action. He also argued that the district court erred by rejecting the unclean hands affirmative defense.
The appeals court found that the district court didn’t err in its choice to wind up the partnership’s business by liquidating its assets through the sale of the ranch. This adhered to the parties’ intent in their agreement, best fit the circumstances of the property and helped prevent further litigation, according to the opinion.
The appeals court also concluded the district court didn’t abuse its discretion by rejecting an unclean hands equitable defense where the record supports the conclusion that the party seeking the judicial dissolution neither manufactured nor solely caused the deadlock.
The appeals court affirmed.
Isabelle Bullock v. James Brooks
Isabelle Bullock appealed the trial court’s judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Denver Police Department officers James Brooks, Adam Paulsen and Shawn Saunders.
Bullock sued Brooks, Paulsen and Saunders, asserting that they violated Bullock’s civil rights by arresting and searching them without probable cause.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.
Jonathan Warnick v. Court Administration of 1st Judicial District
Jonathan Warnick appealed the dismissal of his complaint under the Colorado Supreme Court’s Public Access to Information and Records Rule 2 filed against the First Judicial District records custodian, and the denial of his motion to amend his complaint.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.