Featured News http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36929 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/GmRYvptq0r4/ Case Law 10th Circuit disability law health law Social Security Tenth Circuit: Disability Appeals Council Not Required to Expressly Evaluate Treating Physician’s Report The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>Vallejo v. Berryhill</em> on February 28, 2017. Tue, 16 May 2017 15:30:17 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-disability-appeals-council-not-required-expressly-evaluate-treating-physicians-report/#respond DU Law Student <div class="pf-content"><p>The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-1283.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Vallejo v. Berryhill</em></a> on February 28, 2017.</p> <p>Vallejo applied for supplemental security income benefits alleging that she had been disabled for several months. The Social Security Administration denied her claim. She received a hearing with an administrative law judge, who issued a decision adverse to Vallejo. The next day, Vallejo’s treating physician, Dr. Ratner, completed his opinion, which stated that Vallejo was bipolar with an extreme level of impairment. Vallejo requested the Appeals Council to review the ALJ’s decision and submitted Ratner’s opinion with her request. The Appeals Council denied review, stating that it considered Ratner’s opinion and additional evidence but found the evidence did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ’s decision. This rendered the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.</p> <p>Vallejo sought judicial review of the Commission’s final decision. The district court found that the Appeals Council erred in not properly articulating its assessment of Ratner’s opinion in denying Vallejo’s request for review. The court reasoned that the Appeals Council was required to either assign Ratner’s opinion controlling weight or articulate reasons for assigning it a lesser weight. Because neither the ALJ nor the Appeals Council expressly evaluated Ratner’s opinion, the district court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded to the Appeals Council to either determine what weight to give Ratner’s opinion or to remand to an ALJ with directions to make such a determination.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the district court’s remand was a sentence-four remand. The Tenth Circuit held this because the district court did not retain jurisdiction and the remand was not solely for consideration of new evidence that was not before the Commissioner.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit addressed the issue of whether the district court’s determination that the Appeals Council failed to apply the correct legal standard was an error.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit held that the Appeals Circuit was not required to expressly analyze the new evidence of Ratner’s opinion. Rather, the statutes or regulations only require the Appeals Council to “consider” the new evidence. The Tenth Circuit acknowledges that an express analysis from the Appeals Council would be helpful to judicial review. But, further states that nothing in the statutes or regulations requires the Appeals Council to provide that analysis.</p> <p>Therefore, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order reversing the Commissioner’s final decision and remanding to the Appeals Council. The Tenth Circuit remanded to the district court with directions to address Vallejo’s remaining arguments and determine if the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and if substantial evidence in the administrative record supported the Commissioner’s final decision.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/GmRYvptq0r4" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-disability-appeals-council-not-required-expressly-evaluate-treating-physicians-report/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-disability-appeals-council-not-required-expressly-evaluate-treating-physicians-report/ 2017-05-16 15:30 +00:00 2017-05-16 09:30 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37019 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/P3eKq22_H2Q/ Updates adopted rule changes adopted rules changes bar admission professionalism Rules Governing Admission to the Bar Rules Governing Admission to the Bar Amended in Rule Change 2017(05) On Monday, May 15, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court released Rule Change 2017(05), amending Rules 203.2 and 203.4 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar. Tue, 16 May 2017 15:29:46 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/rules-governing-admission-bar-amended-rule-change-201705/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Monday, May 15, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court released <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Rule_Changes/2017/Rule%20Change%202017(05).pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rule Change 2017(05)</a>, amending Rules 203.2 and 203.4 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar. The changes to the two rules extend the time in which an applicant may take the mandatory professionalism course prior to admission from one year to 18 months. The amendment was adopted and effective May 11, 2017. A redline of the changes is <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Rule_Changes/2017/Rule%20Change%202017(05).pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">available here</a>. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court&#8217;s adopted and proposed rule changes, <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Rule_Changes.cfm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">click here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/P3eKq22_H2Q" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/rules-governing-admission-bar-amended-rule-change-201705/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/rules-governing-admission-bar-amended-rule-change-201705/ 2017-05-16 15:29 +00:00 2017-05-16 09:29 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37017 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/AGAocK4evjQ/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 5/15/2017 On Monday, May 15, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion. Tue, 16 May 2017 15:24:44 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-5152017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Monday, May 15, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion.</p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-2201.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>United States v. Esquibel</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/AGAocK4evjQ" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-5152017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-5152017/ 2017-05-16 15:24 +00:00 2017-05-16 09:24 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37014 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/io4IISelL_0/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 5/15/2017 On Monday, May 15, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court issued nine published opinions. Mon, 15 May 2017 15:34:21 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/colorado-supreme-court-announcement-sheet-5152017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Monday, May 15, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court issued nine published opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SC366.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Foster v. Plock</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SC832.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Montoya v. People</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SC226.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Colorado Department of Revenue v. Creager Mercantile Co.</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SC710.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Stoorman &amp; Assoc., P.C. v. Dixon</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA166.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Select Energy Services, LLC v. K-LOW, LLC</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA170.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>People v. King</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA171.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>People v. Sewick</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA172.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>People v. Maxwell</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA194.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>People v. Maxwell</em></a></p> <p>Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.</p> <p>Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2017/E9EC76May%2015,%202017.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">available here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/io4IISelL_0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/colorado-supreme-court-announcement-sheet-5152017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/colorado-supreme-court-announcement-sheet-5152017/ 2017-05-15 15:34 +00:00 2017-05-15 09:34 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36919 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/leIpABcu4qE/ Case Law § 1983 10th Circuit civil rights criminal law Fourth Amentment Tenth Circuit: No Fourth Amendment Violation Where Person with Apparent Authority Consented to Search The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>Patel v. Hall</em> on March 1, 2017. Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:39 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-no-fourth-amendment-violation-person-apparent-authority-consented-search/#respond DU Law Student <div class="pf-content"><p>The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-8110.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Patel v. Hall</em></a> on March 1, 2017.</p> <p>On April 20, 1011, Officers Bubla and Hall arrived at Mr. Austin’s auto-repair business pursuant to a call from Ms. Austin regarding suspicious activity by their landlord, Plaintiff Chetan Patel. The officers were informed that several cars that Plaintiff brought in were missing their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). Additionally, Mr. Austin told the officers that he suspected the VINs had been switched on certain vehicles.</p> <p>The officers contacted the County Attorney’s Office after speaking with the Austins and were informed that the officers could permit the Austins to remove their belongings from the premises and seal the building pending a search warrant. The officers also photographed the trucks with missing or replaced VIN plates which Mr. Austin had pointed out to them. The officers sealed the building. The next morning, Mr. and Ms. Austin and their son submitted written statements to the police and swore to their truthfulness in front of a notary. The statements included instances where the Plaintiff told Mr. Austin he needed to remove Plaintiff’s vehicles off the premises “because they were starting to draw the state’s attention.”</p> <p>Officer Hall was unable to immediately obtain a search warrant, as none of the judges in Big Horn County were available. Officer Hall contacted the County Attorney’s Office to inquire whether there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff because Officer Hall believed Plaintiff might remove evidence from the premises. The County Attorney determined that there was probable cause to justify a warrantless arrest for felony VIN fraud. Plaintiff was arrested and the county court issued an arrest warrant the next day, along with a search warrant for the premises.</p> <p>Pursuant to the search warrant, the officers discovered a syringe and white powder on a table in the premises. The officers left the building and obtained a new warrant to search for drugs as well as VIN plates inside the building. In total, the officers seized two loose VIN plates, a truck with switched VIN plates, a truck with a missing VIN plate, and an empty insurance envelope which was found laying on the floor with a claim number written on it. The officers also photographed several documents with VIN numbers written on them.</p> <p>The charges against Plaintiff for felony VIN fraud were dismissed on October 4, 2011. In April 2014, Plaintiff filed the § 1983 complaint. Defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff supplied an affidavit purportedly signed by Mr. Austin. Plaintiff’s two attorneys also submitted affidavits stating they met with Plaintiff and Mr. Austin when Mr. Austin allegedly made statements that differed from his original sworn police witness statement.</p> <p>The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants and refused to consider the purported Mr. Austin affidavit. The district court also disregarded Plaintiff’s attorneys’ affidavits holding that the affidavits would make the attorneys material witnesses to the case in violation of Rule 3.7 of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.  The district court held that Plaintiff had not shown a constitutional violation relating to the search and seizure because (i) Mr. Austin consented to the initial search, (ii) the officers had probable cause to seize the shop while they obtained a search warrant, (iii) the subsequent search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant, and (iv) there was sufficient probable cause for Plaintiff’s arrest. The district court also rejected Plaintiff’s claim that the search was beyond the scope of the search warrant because Plaintiff had not shown the officer’s actions violated clearly established law. Finally, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s state law claims with prejudice based on a procedural deficiency by Plaintiff and the state defense of qualified immunity.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit first addressed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Hall on Plaintiff’s official-capacity claim. The claim requires evidence that the municipality “caused the harm through the execution of its own policy or customs or by those whose acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” The police department at the time had no chief of police, and Officer Hall was the senior officer. The Tenth Circuit laid out the test to decide whether a government employee is a final policymaker whose actions can give rise to municipal liability. First, the employee must be constrained by policies not of his own making. Second, his decisions must be final. Finally, the policy decisions and actions must fall within the realm of the employee’s grant of authority.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit held that there was no evidence to indicate whether or not Officer Hall was meaningfully constrained by policies not of his own making, whether or not his decisions were final, or whether his actions fell within the realm of his grant of authority. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the municipal liability test. Simply because Hall was “in charge” before the new chief took office was not enough. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit next addressed the claims against Defendants in their individual capacities. The Tenth Circuit held that because Defendants asserted qualified immunity, the burden shifted to Plaintiff to establish that the Defendants violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.</p> <p>Plaintiff’s first claim was against Officers Hall and Bubla for violation of his Fourth Amendment right when they initially searched the shop without a warrant. The Tenth Circuit held that the search was conducted pursuant to consent. The Austins had actual or apparent authority to consent as both worked at the auto-repair business. Ms. Austin contacted police and both she and Mr. Austin were present when the officers were shown around the shop. Mr. Austin did not protest, and the Tenth Circuit held that this was non-verbal consent.</p> <p>Next, Plaintiff argued that Officers Hall and Bubla violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they sealed the premises without a warrant or probable cause. The Tenth Circuit held that there was probable cause and therefore Plaintiff’s rights were not violated. Probable cause existed because of what the officers found during their initial search with the Austins, Plaintiff’s suspected criminal conduct, and what Mr. Austin had told the officers about his conversations with Plaintiff. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that the officers were justified in sealing the building.</p> <p>Third, Plaintiff argued that Hall violated his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him without a warrant. The Tenth Circuit held that the arrest was valid because Hall had probable cause to believe Plaintiff was fraudulently altering VIN Plates. The Tenth Circuit held that the factors justifying the warrantless seizure of the building also supported Plaintiff’s arrest.</p> <p>Fourth, Plaintiff argues that the warrants to search his shop and for his arrest were defective because they were “procured with reckless insufficient information.” The Tenth Circuit stated that there only needs to be a “substantial probability” that the suspect committed the crime before making an arrest. The Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff’s evidence did not dispute that there was a substantial probability. Further because the prior search was lawful due to consent, the Tenth Circuit held that there was probable cause for a warrant to search the shop based on the initial findings.</p> <p>Fifth, Plaintiff argued that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant. The Tenth Circuit held that the first two ways alleged by Plaintiff were not supported by evidence. The third allegation was that the officers exceeded the scope by seizing an envelope found on the ground of the shop. The Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff met his burden of showing that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on that issue. The warrant clearly specified what items were to be seized, and by seizing additional items, the officers acted unreasonably for Fourth Amendment purposes.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit next addressed the district court’s decision to disregard the affidavit purportedly signed by Mr. Austin and its holding that the attorneys’ affidavits were inadmissible based on Wyoming’s professional conduct lawyer-as-witness rule. The Tenth Circuit held that is did not need to consider whether the district courts holding was accurate because even if the information from Mr. Austin’s purported affidavit was considered, it would not have created a material dispute of fact to defeat the Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that any error by the district court regarding Mr. Austin’s affidavit was harmless.</p> <p>Finally, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s state law claims with prejudice. Because the district court did not explain why the defendants were entitled to the state qualified immunity, the Tenth Circuit remanded the issue for further consideration by the district court.</p> <p>In sum, the Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the seizure of the envelope, remanded for further proceedings on the state qualified immunity issue, and affirmed the district courts grant of summary judgment in favor of all Defendants on the remaining claims.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/leIpABcu4qE" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-no-fourth-amendment-violation-person-apparent-authority-consented-search/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-no-fourth-amendment-violation-person-apparent-authority-consented-search/ 2017-05-15 15:27 +00:00 2017-05-15 09:27 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36915 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/4e81HKnzLos/ Case Law 10th Circuit agricultural law constitutional law Eleventh Amendment litigation Tenth Circuit: Eleventh Amendment Barred Claims Against Agricultural Employees The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>Colby v. Herrick</em> on March 1, 2017. Mon, 15 May 2017 15:17:50 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-eleventh-amendment-barred-claims-agricultural-employees/#respond DU Law Student <div class="pf-content"><p>The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1120.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Colby v. Herrick </em></a>on March 1, 2017.</p> <p>This case stemmed from a battle between Ms. Colby and her mother over the ownership of a horse. The mother complained to the Colorado Department of Agriculture, which sent someone from the Brand Inspection Division to investigate the situation. After investigating, the inspector seized the horse. Ms. Colby and her mother settled the ownership dispute in court and after three years, Ms. Colby prevailed and received the horse back. Ms. Colby and her husband then sued the Division and two of its officers. The district court dismissed the action.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit first addressed the Division as a defendant in the suit. It held that the Division was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an arm of the state and therefore could not be sued in federal court. Further, the Tenth Circuit held that because the Division was an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Colbys could not sue the two officers in their official capacity.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit reviewed the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue de novo. The Eleventh Amendment extends to governmental entities that are considered arms of the state. When determining if the Division was an arm of the state, the Tenth Circuit laid out five factors that it considered: (1) how the Division is characterized under Colorado law; (2) how much guidance and control the state of Colorado exercises over the Division; (3) how much funding the Division receives from the State; (4) whether the Division enjoys the ability to issue bonds and levy taxes; and (5) whether the state of Colorado bears legal liability to pay judgments against the Division.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit held that the first factor weighed in favor of regarding the Division as an arm of the state. This was due to the fact that Colorado law treats the Division as part of the state government. Additionally, the Division participates in state government as a state agency and the agency’s inspectors are Colorado law enforcement officers with the power to make arrests for violations of state law.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit held that the second factor also weighed in favor of regarding the Division as an arm of the state. This was because the Division is considered part of the state Department of Agriculture and is therefore subject to control by state officials.</p> <p>With regard to the third factor, the Division is entirely self-funded. Additionally, with regard to the fourth factor, the State Board of Stock Commissioners is entitled to issue bonds worth up to $10 million to pay the Division’s expenses. The Tenth Circuit held that these two factors by themselves would cut against Eleventh Amendment immunity. However, the Tenth Circuit held that because the Division is entitled to participate in the Colorado risk management fund, which obtains money from state appropriations, that use of state money supports consideration of the Division as an arm of the state.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit held that it was unclear whether the State bears legal liability to pay a judgment of the Division.</p> <p>Therefore, because the first and second factors clearly support characterization as an arm of the state, and the third and fourth could go both ways, the Tenth Circuit held that the balancing of all of the factors led it to regard the Division as an arm of the state. Therefore, the Division was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not err in dismissing the claims against the division. However, it did hold that the dismissal with prejudice was a mistake. Because Eleventh Amendment immunity is jurisdictional, the Tenth Circuit held that the dismissal should have been without prejudice.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit next addressed the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue with regards to the Divisions’ two officers on the official-capacity claims for damages. The Tenth Circuit held that the officers were entitled to immunity in their official capacitates on behalf of the Division being an arm of the state. Therefore, The Tenth Circuit held that the officers were entitled to dismissal on the official-capacity claims for damages. However, just as with the Divisions Eleventh Amendment claim, because Eleventh Amendment immunity is jurisdictional, the district court should have dismissed the claim without prejudice.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit finally addressed the federal personal-capacity claims against the officers for damages. The district court had dismissed these claims based on timeliness. The Tenth Circuit stated that the Colbys claims had a two year statute of limitations. Further, the Tenth Circuit determined that the suffered damage accrued when the horse was seized on July 22, 2011. That action triggered the statute of limitations period. Because the Colbys did not sue until nearly three years later, the Tenth Circuit held that the claims were time-barred.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit addressed the Colbys’ argument that the statute of limitations should not have started until they were denied a timely post-deprivation hearing. The Tenth Circuit held that, even if this claim was accurate, that would only have moved the statute of limitations period six weeks in the future, which would still have resulted in the statute of limitations running out before the suit was filed.</p> <p>Finally, the Tenth Circuit held that the continued violation doctrine did not apply to this case because the complaint does not base the claim on any acts taking place after July 22, 2011. Though the Colbys did not have their horse for three years, and therefore damages continued that entire period, the wrongful acts occurred only on July 22, 2011. Therefore, the Colbys’ claims against the officers in their individual capacity were time-barred.</p> <p>In sum, the Tenth Circuit held that the Division and the officers in their official capacities were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. However, because the district court dismissed these claims with prejudice, the Tenth Circuit remanded them for the limited purpose of directing the district court to make the dismissals without prejudice. Additionally, the remaining federal claims against the officers were properly dismissed based on the expiration of the statute of limitations.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/4e81HKnzLos" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-eleventh-amendment-barred-claims-agricultural-employees/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-eleventh-amendment-barred-claims-agricultural-employees/ 2017-05-15 15:17 +00:00 2017-05-15 09:17 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37012 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/Fjd58Q1Hjjg/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 5/12/2017 On Friday, May 12, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions. Mon, 15 May 2017 15:09:37 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-5122017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Friday, May 12, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-3014.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>United States v. Arrendondo-Valenzuela</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-4011.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>United States v. Tubens</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/Fjd58Q1Hjjg" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-5122017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-5122017/ 2017-05-15 15:09 +00:00 2017-05-15 09:09 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37010 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/VAAT6Vr0Xcw/ Updates ABA ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility communication competence confidentiality ethics professional responsibility technology ABA Formal Ethics Opinion Issued Regarding Secured Communications of Client Information On Thursday, May 11, 2017, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released Formal Opinion 477, "Securing Communication of Protected Client Information." The opinion discusses internet transmission of protected client information. Fri, 12 May 2017 04:55:53 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/aba-formal-ethics-opinion-issued-regarding-secured-communications-client-information/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Thursday, May 11, 2017, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba_formal_opinion_477.authcheckdam.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Formal Opinion 477</a>, &#8220;Securing Communication of Protected Client Information.&#8221; The opinion discusses internet transmission of protected client information, concluding that:</p> <blockquote><p>A lawyer generally may transmit information relating to the representation of a client over the internet without violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct where the lawyer has undertaken reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized access. However, a lawyer may be required to take special security precautions to protect against the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of client information when required by an agreement with the client or by law, or when the nature of the information requires a higher degree of security.</p></blockquote> <p>Formal Opinion 477 is an update to the basic confidentiality requirements addressed in Formal Opinion 99-413. The opinion was issued in response to the 2012 amendments to the ABA Model Rules in which technological competency was enunciated. This opinion discusses cybersecurity and measures that lawyers should take to safeguard client information, electing to reject requirements for specific security measures in favor of a fact-specific approach to business security obligations.</p> <p>The opinion offers guidance on what reasonable steps an attorney may undertake in response to a cybersecurity threat, including:</p> <ol> <li>Understand the nature of the threat;</li> <li>Understand how confidential client information is transmitted and where it is stored;</li> <li>Understand and use reasonable security measures;</li> <li>Determine how electronic communications about client matters should be protected;</li> <li>Label confidential client information;</li> <li>Train lawyers and nonlawyer assistants in technology and information security; and</li> <li>Conduct due diligence on vendors providing communication technology.</li> </ol> <p>To read the entire opinion, <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/aba_formal_opinion_477.authcheckdam.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">click here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/VAAT6Vr0Xcw" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/aba-formal-ethics-opinion-issued-regarding-secured-communications-client-information/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/aba-formal-ethics-opinion-issued-regarding-secured-communications-client-information/ 2017-05-12 04:55 +00:00 2017-05-11 22:55 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37002 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/Zq8doFjYAZM/ Case Law business law Colorado Court of Appeals Forum non conveniens hospitality law jurisdiction litigation Colorado Court of Appeals: Double Recovery Not Considered in Forum Non Conveniens Determination The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>Cox v. Sage Hospitality Resources, LLC</em> on Thursday, May 4, 2017. Fri, 12 May 2017 04:55:33 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/colorado-court-appeals-double-recovery-not-considered-forum-non-conveniens-determination/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/16CA0766-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cox v. Sage Hospitality Resources, LLC</a></em> on Thursday, May 4, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p>Forum Non Conveniens<em>—Judicial Inefficiency—Double Recovery.</em></p> <p>Cox, a Colorado resident, stayed at a hotel in California owned by defendant Sage Hospitality Resources, LLC. Sage’s members are Colorado residents, and its principal place of business is in Denver. WS HDM, LLC, incorporated in Delaware and licensed to do business in California, owns and operates the hotel. Cox fell on the hotel property and fractured his femur. Cox sued Sage in Denver District Court and WS HDM in California state court. Sage’s motion to dismiss the action in Denver District Court under the doctrine of <em>forum non conveniens</em> was granted.</p> <p>On appeal, Cox argued that the Denver District Court erred in granting Sage’s motion to dismiss because there were no unusual circumstances sufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of Colorado courts hearing cases brought by Colorado residents. Colorado law is clear that the doctrine of<em> forum non conveniens</em> has “only the most limited application in Colorado courts.” Thus, unless there are “most unusual circumstances,” a Colorado resident’s choice of a Colorado forum will not be disturbed. Cox is a Colorado resident and claims to prefer to sue Sage in Colorado. Even though Cox filed a related suit in California state court, the existence of that lawsuit does not trump Cox’s choice of forum in Colorado. Further, the California state court suit is against a different defendant, and the record does not indicate that the joinder of Sage in Cox’s California state court suit is mandatory. Nor does the risk of double recovery overcome the presumption in favor of Colorado courts hearing suits filed by Colorado resident plaintiffs. The Denver District Court erred in dismissing Cox’s action.</p> <p>The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/Zq8doFjYAZM" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/colorado-court-appeals-double-recovery-not-considered-forum-non-conveniens-determination/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/colorado-court-appeals-double-recovery-not-considered-forum-non-conveniens-determination/ 2017-05-12 04:55 +00:00 2017-05-11 22:55 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37004 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/gZgQRnX6ZJw/ Case Law Colorado Court of Appeals domestic relations law jurisdiction juvenile law Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act Colorado Court of Appeals: UCCJEA Vests Issuing State with Exclusive Jurisdiction to Modify Custody Order The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>People in Interest of M.S.</em> on Thursday, May 4, 2017. Fri, 12 May 2017 04:55:12 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/colorado-court-appeals-uccjea-vests-issuing-state-exclusive-jurisdiction-modify-custody-order/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/16CA1082-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People in Interest of M.S.</a></em> on Thursday, May 4, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Dependency and Neglect</em><em>—</em><em>Allocation of Parental Responsibilities</em><em>—</em><em>Subject Matter Jurisdiction</em><em>—</em><em>Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.</em></p> <p>The Mesa County Department of Human Services (Department) assumed temporary custody of 8-year-old M.S. and initiated a dependency and neglect proceeding. Mother lived in Texas.</p> <p>The court, by stipulation, adjudicated M.S. dependent or neglected. The Department then moved for a permanent allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) for M.S. to mother. The magistrate determined it was in M.S.’s best interests to be placed with mother and issued an order granting permanent APR to mother.</p> <p>Father appealed, and a court of appeals division dismissed for failure to obtain district court review. Father then filed a petition for district court review, which was denied, and he appealed again.</p> <p>Initially, the court of appeals addressed the Department’s argument that the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) does not apply to dependency and neglect proceedings once a child has been adjudicated dependent and neglected. The UCCJEA does not exempt any stage of a dependency and neglect proceeding from its purview.</p> <p>The court, <em>sua sponte</em>, concluded that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to issue the permanent APR order. Under the UCCJEA, the court that makes an initial custody determination generally retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. As a result, a Colorado court, absent temporary emergency jurisdiction, may only modify a custody order issued by an out-of-state court under limited circumstances. Here, a California court had issued a custody order before the initiation of the dependency and neglect proceeding. The magistrate did not confer with the California court that issued the custody order or make a determination as to whether the California court had lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. Consequently, the magistrate failed to acquire jurisdiction under the UCCJEA before issuing the APR order that effectively modified the California custody order.</p> <p>The judgment was vacated and the matter was remanded to the district court to direct the magistrate to determine whether it has jurisdiction to issue an APR order that modifies the California custody order.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/gZgQRnX6ZJw" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/colorado-court-appeals-uccjea-vests-issuing-state-exclusive-jurisdiction-modify-custody-order/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/05/colorado-court-appeals-uccjea-vests-issuing-state-exclusive-jurisdiction-modify-custody-order/ 2017-05-12 04:55 +00:00 2017-05-11 22:55 -06:00