June 19, 2013

Mandatory E-Filing in Domestic Relations Cases in Denver Starts January 1, 2013

The Honorable Robert S. Hyatt, Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District, issued an order mandating e-filing for all district court domestic relations cases in the Second Judicial District, effective January 1, 2013. Parties filing domestic relations cases must e-file through State Judicial’s new ICCES filing system. Mandatory e-filing of civil cases in the Denver District Court has been effective since December 1, 2010.

Pro se litigants will continue to file in paper through the clerk’s office, since they do not have access to ICCES. The clerk will scan and e-file documents for pro se litigants at no charge. Attorneys who file in paper will be charged $50 per document to have the documents scanned and e-filed by the court. If a document is e-filed using any status other than “Public,” the submitting attorney must state specific authority for limiting access to the document.

Denver Probate Court No Longer Accepting Faxes as of September 2012

As of September 1, 2012, faxes will no longer be accepted in the Denver Probate Court without permission of the Judge.

Pro se litigants without an attorney may file in paper format with the court. Attorneys in probate cases should use LexisNexis File and Serve to submit filings to the Court. Attorneys in mental health cases should submit filings via email at DenverProbateMH@judicial.state.co.us.

Further details about this change are contained in Presiding Judge Order 12-02: Order Regarding Fax Filings in the Denver Probate Court.

Elizabeth Starrs Appointed as Second Judicial District Court Judge

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Governor John Hickenlooper announced his appointment of Elizabeth Ann Starrs to serve as a district court judge in the Second Judicial District, which covers Denver County. Starrs will fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Honorable Christina Habas. Her appointment is effective July 13.

Elizabeth Starrs is currently a partner at Starrs Mihm LLP, a position she has held since 2003. Her present law practice focuses on extensive commercial and complex civil litigation including business torts, legal malpractice, employment, medical malpractice, and insurance bad faith. Before starting her own firm, Starrs worked for a number of private law firms, including Cooper & Kelly P.C. and Kennedy & Christopher P.C. She served as president of the Colorado Bar Association from 2006-2007.

Starrs earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan and her law degree from Suffolk University Law School.

Finalists Selected to Fill Judgeship on Second Judicial District Court

The Second Judicial District Nominating Commission has nominated three candidates for a district court judgeship created by the resignation of the Honorable Christina M. Habas on July 13, 2012.

The nominees for the bench are Daniel Christopher, Kandace Gerdes, and Elizabeth Starrs. All nominees are from Denver and were selected by the commission on June 15.

Under the Colorado Constitution, Governor Hickenlooper has until July 3 to appoint one of the nominees as District Court Judge for the Second Judicial District, which serves Denver County.

Governor Hickenlooper Appoints More to Judicial Nominating Commissions

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012, Governor John Hickenlooper announced several Board and Commission appointments. The appointments were to the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Twelfth, and Twenty-First Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commissions.

Colorado’s twenty-two judicial districts have judicial district nominating commissions that select nominees for district and county judicial vacancies. Each district nominating commission is chaired by a justice of the Supreme Court, who is a non-voting member of the commission.

Commission members serve six-year terms. Non-lawyers, who are the majority of every nominating commission, are appointed by the governor. Lawyer members are appointed by joint action of the governor, attorney general, and chief justice.

The members appointed to the Second Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commission for terms expiring December 31, 2017, are:

  • Larry Allen Nelsen of Denver, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Republican from Denver County.
  • Andrew Dean Schneider of Denver, to serve as a non-attorney and as an Unaffiliated from Denver County.

The members appointed to the Fifth Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commission for terms expiring December 31, 2017, are:

  • Gregory V. Johnson of Edwards, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Republican from Eagle County.
  • Heather N. Scanlon of Leadville, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Democrat from Lake County.

The member appointed to the Sixth Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commission for a term expiring December 31, 2017, is:

  • Stephen C. Fearn of Silverton, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Democrat from San Juan County.

The member appointed to the Twelfth Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commission for a term expiring December 31, 2017, is:

  • Marvin K. “Zeke” Ward of Creede, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Republican from Mineral County.

The members appointed to the Twenty-First Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commission for terms expiring December 31, 2017, are:

  • Ivan Daniel Geer of Grand Junction, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Republican from Mesa County.
  • Beverly Jean Sewell of Grand Junction, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Republican from Mesa County.

Vacancy on Second Judicial District Court Bench Following Resignation of Judge Christina Habas

The Second Judicial District Nominating Commission will meet June 15, 2012 to interview and select nominees for appointment by Governor Hickenlooper to the office of District Judge for the Second Judicial District, which serves Denver County. The vacancy will be created by the resignation of the Honorable Christina M. Habas on July 13.

Eligible applicants for appointment to fill the vacancy must be qualified electors of the Second Judicial District and must have been admitted to the practice of law in Colorado for five years. Applications must be received by Friday, June 1. The appointed district court judge will serve an initial provisional term of two years before facing a retention election. If retained in the general election, judges serve six-year terms.

Further information about applying for the vacancy is available here from the Colorado Judicial Branch.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Grand Jury Report Did Not Identify Malfeasance and Therefore Was Appropriately Withheld from Public Release

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Denver County Grand Jury, and Concerning the Grand Jury Report Issued December 8, 2010 on March 15, 2012.

Grand Jury—Report—Public Document—Misfeasance.

This appeal involved the potential public release of a report, issued by a grand jury, that declined to return an indictment in an investigation involving alleged perjury. Special prosecutor Scott W. Storey, the First Judicial District Attorney, appealed the court’s order declining to release the report, contending that the report met the “public interest” criteria of CRS § 16-5-205.5. He also asserted that the court erroneously refused to extend the term of the grand jury so that it could consider whether to modify its report. The order was affirmed.

A Denver County grand jury convened in September 2010 to investigate allegations of perjury by a police officer. The grand jury did not return an indictment. It did, however, issue a report concerning its investigation, which identified purported deficiencies in policies and procedures relating primarily to the Denver Police Department. The grand jury sought to make the report public pursuant to CRS § 16-5-205.5. The trial court reviewed the report and declined to release it as a public document.

The special prosecutor asserted that the grand jury report contained allegations of government misfeasance within the meaning of CRS § 16-5-205.5(5) and, therefore, should have become a public document. Although CRS § 16-5-205.5 may provide for exposure of “government actions that fall short of criminal activity, but are nonetheless not good government,” misfeasance involves conduct that is not simply bad public policy, but an illegal, wrongful, or corrupt exercise of government power. The grand jury’s recommendations regarding public policy and other matters of judgment or discretion did not constitute allegations of government misfeasance under CRS § 16-5-205.5. The report does not sufficiently allege misfeasance and therefore does not qualify for public release.

The special prosecutor also contended that the court erroneously refused to extend the term of the grand jury so it could review and modify its report, or draft a new one, in light of the court’s order denying publication. The role of the district court is to review the report independently to determine whether, on its face, the report satisfies the requirement that it concern matters of public interest. The governing statutes cast the district court as an independent gatekeeper, not as an active partner in the publication of a report. Further, minor revisions or the use of different terminology would not change the fact that the grand jury report did not allege sufficient misconduct to permit publication under CRS § 16-5-205.5. The grand jury’s desire to revise its report for publication cannot override the court’s determination that the allegations in the report do not meet the public interest standard. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to extend the grand jury’s term.

This summary is published here courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer. Other summaries for the Colorado Court of Appeals on March 15, 2012, can be found here.

Colorado Courts Celebrate National Adoption Day

National Adoption Day will be celebrated in many of Colorado’s Judicial Districts between Thursday, November 17 and Monday, November 21, 2011, with judges and magistrates throughout Colorado finalizing the adoption of more than 100 foster children into permanent families. Colorado is currently home to 365 children waiting for permanent families.

“Adoption Day is always a special day in Colorado’s courts,” said Chief Justice Michael L. Bender. “I am pleased to see many of our courts taking the opportunity to recognize National Adoption Day on a local level. However, this is but one day out of the year and we must remain focused on the fact that there are still many children in need of good homes.”

Adoption Day events in Colorado are being coordinated through the courts, state and local human services departments, as well as other local and state child agencies and advocacy groups.

Here’s a rundown of Adoption Day activities going on around Colorado:

  • First Judicial District (Jefferson and Gilpin counties)
  • Saturday, November 19, 2011, from 9:00 to 11:00 am at the Jefferson County Combined Court (100 Jefferson Parkway, Golden, CO 80401).
  • District Court Judges Margie Enquist, Tamara Russell and Ann Meinster will finalize 18 adoptions for 12 families.  Colorado Supreme Court Justice-designate Brian Boatright (currently a First Judicial District Court Judge) will be in attendance. For more information contact Kris Kinzli at (303) 271-4601 or Mallory Hyatt at (303) 271-4389 with Jefferson County Human Services.
  • Second Judicial District (Denver County)
  • Friday, November 18, 2011, from 8:45 am to noon at the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse (520 W. Colfax, Denver, CO 80204).
  • Denver Juvenile Court Judges Donna Schmalberger and D. Brett Woods will join Juvenile Magistrates Howard Bartlett and Melanie Gilbert, along with Denver District Court Judges Morris Hoffman and Herbert Stern to unite 51 children with 33 families. For more information contact Barbara Bosley, Family Court Facilitator, Denver Juvenile Court, (720) 337-0584.  This is the seventh annual celebration of National Adoption Day in Denver.
  • Speakers at the event will include Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, Chief Judge Karen Ashby (Denver Juvenile Court), Penny May (Denver Department of Human Services), and Marne Gulley (adoptive parent).
  • Speakers will make their remarks in the Cisneros Jury Assembly Room.  Adoption proceedings will take place from 10:00 am to noon in courtrooms 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E, 2F and 2H. Judge Ashby has entered an order allowing Expanded Media Coverage; cameras are welcome.
  • Third Judicial District (Huerfano and Las Animas counties)
  • While no adoption proceedings are scheduled, District Court Judge Leslie Gerbracht reports that the Court will host a reception on Monday, November 21, 2011, at 2:30 pm for families who have adopted in the past. The reception will be held in the District Court Courtroom at the Las Animas County Courthouse (200 E. 1st St., Trinidad, CO 81082). For more information contact Arlene Lopez, DHS Child Protection Unit Supervisor, at (719) 846-2276.
  • Fifth Judicial District (Clear Creek, Eagle, Lake and Summit counties)
  • On Friday, November 18, 2011, from 1:30 to 4:30 pm, District Court Judge Russell Granger will preside over the adoption of five children into four families. The proceedings will take place at the Clear Creek County Courthouse (405 Argentine, Georgetown, CO 80444). For more information contact Kimberlee Hill, Clerk of Court, at (303) 679-4220.
  • Tenth Judicial District (Pueblo County)
  • On Friday, November 18, 2011, beginning at 9:30 am in Division B, District Court Judge Larry Schwartz will preside over the adoption docket. Nine children are slated to be adopted into seven families. For more information contact Karen Hiraki, Pueblo Department of Human Services, at (719) 583-4716.
  • Eleventh Judicial District (Chaffee, Custer, Fremont and Park counties)
  • On Thursday, November 17, 2011, Chief District Court Judge Charles Barton will finalize the adoptions of five children into four families. The adoption proceedings will begin at 1:30 pm at the Fremont County Justice Center (136 Justice Center Road, Canon City, CO 81212). For more information contact Nancy Myers, Fremont County DHS, at (719) 269-2092.
  • Seventeenth Judicial District (Adams and Broomfield counties)
  • On Saturday, November 19, 2011, from 9 am to noon, 23 children will be united with permanent families. The proceedings will take place at the Adams County Justice Center (1100 Judicial Center Drive, Brighton, CO 80601). District Court Judges Mark Warner and Francis Wasserman will join Magistrates Greg Beacom and Peter Stapp in presiding over the docket. For more information contact Jennifer Mendoza, Juvenile Court Programs Coordinator, at (303) 654-3230.
  • Nineteenth Judicial District (Weld County)
  • On Friday, November 18, 2011, from 1 to 5 pm, District Court Judge Marcelo Kopcow will preside over 11 adoptions and Magistrate Randall Lococo will preside over one adoption. Adoption proceedings will take place at the Weld County Courthouse (901 9th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631). For more information call Judge Kopcow’s chambers at (970) 351-7300 ext. 5490.
  • Twenty-first Judicial District (Mesa County)
  • On Friday, November 18, 2011, from 8 am to 1:30 pm, District Court Judge Valerie Robison will preside over an adoption docket bringing together eight children with seven families.  The adoptions will take place at the Mesa County Justice Center (125 N. Spruce Street, Grand Junction, CO 81501). For more information contact Karen Martsolf, Mesa County DHS, at (970) 256-2453.

National Adoption Day is a collective national effort to raise awareness of the 107,000 children in foster care across the country waiting to find permanent, loving families. Since its inception, National Adoption Day has made the dreams of thousands of children come true through the cooperative work of courts, judges, attorneys, adoption professionals, child welfare agencies, and advocates to finalize adoptions and find permanent, loving homes for children in foster care.

National Adoption Day is celebrated every year in November. In 2006, for the first time, National Adoption Day was celebrated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. That year, more than 250 events were held throughout the country to finalize the adoptions of more than 3,300 children in foster care, and to celebrate all families who adopt. Since 2000, more than 35,000 children have had their adoptions finalized on National Adoption Day.

[UPDATED] Piloting Change: A Brief Overview of the Colorado Civil Access Pilot Project Rules

Editor’s Note: CBA-CLE will be holding a program next month highlighting the Civil Access Pilot Project, which will help practitioners understand the practical information they need to know once the rules go into effect. The rules have been changed significantly, and failing to navigate them correctly can be detrimental to clients and cases. Registration information is provided below.

By Jessica L. Fuller and Tamara F. Goodlette

In Chief Justice Directive 11-02, the Colorado Supreme Court approved a new set of civil procedure rules known as the Colorado Civil Access Pilot Project. The goals of the Pilot Project are to increase access to the courts and reduce the expense of civil litigation by identifying and narrowing disputed issues at the earliest stage of litigation; requiring ongoing active case management by a single judge; and keeping litigation costs proportionate to the issues being litigated through controlled discovery and other means.

The Pilot Project makes significant changes to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure for certain types of business cases in specified judicial districts, which will dramatically affect the way civil cases are litigated. Below is a brief overview of the highlights of the Pilot Project Rules (PPRs).

Not all of the PPRs are addressed below and they may continue to be amended through 2011. To review the full set of the most recent version of the PPRs, visit www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Directives and click on Chief Justice Directive 11-02, “Civil Litigation in Business Actions.”[1]

Introduction to the Pilot Project

When do the PPRs take effect?

  • The PPRs are effective Jan. 1 for certain types of cases filed on or after that date, and will be in effect for applicable cases filed in the next two years.

What happens at the conclusion of the two years?

  • During the two-year period when the PPRs are in effect, IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, will collect data to measure the effects of the procedural changes. The study results will be used to determine whether to make future amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.

Where do the Pilot Project Rules apply?

  • For designated cases in the First Judicial District (Jefferson and Gilpin counties), Second Judicial District (Denver County), Seventeenth Judicial District (Adams County), and the Eighteenth Judicial District (Arapahoe County).

What kinds of cases are governed by the PPRs?

  • “Inclusion in the pilot project will be determined based on the contents of the complaint at the commencement of the action,” according to PPR 1.1.
  • The PPRs will apply to cases that are predominately “business actions” as defined in Amended Appendix A of CJD 11-02. Amended Appendix A lists various types of “included actions” and “excluded actions.” Litigators in the specified judicial districts should refer to Amended Appendix A to determine whether a case is subject to the PPRs.

Do the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure still apply?

  • Yes. The PPRs are not a complete set of rules and the C.R.C.P. will continue to govern, except where there is an inconsistency, in which case the PPRs will control. (See PPR 1.2.)

Are the PPRs optional?

  • No. In fact, the court may impose sanctions for any failure to timely or completely comply with the PPRs. (See PPR 11.1.)
Overview of Central Provisions of the Pilot Project Rules

Proportionality is the Buzz Word

  • All aspects of the case shall be addressed by the court and the parties to assure the process and costs are proportionate to the needs of the case. The proportionality factors include the “amount in controversy, and complexity and importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. …This proportionality rule shall shape the process of the case in order to achieve a just, timely, efficient, and cost effective determination of all actions.” (See PPR 1.3.)

Notice Pleading Plus

  • “The party that bears the burden of proof with respect to any claim or affirmative defense should plead all material facts that are known to that party,” including “any known monetary damages.” (See PPR 2.2.)
  • General denials of any statement of fact are not permitted. (See PPR 2.3.)

Defendants Must Answer, and Motions to Dismiss Do Not Stay the Case

  • Even if you elect to file a motion to dismiss, you also must file an answer. (See PPR 4.1.)
  • Unless otherwise prohibited by statute, the filing of a motion to dismiss will not delay any pleading, disclosure, or case management deadlines. (Id.)

After You Plead, Get Ready to Disclose

  • No later than 21 days after service of a pleading making a claim for relief or defending against a claim for relief, the pleading party must file its initial disclosures with the court. (See PPR 3.1, 3.3.)

Meet, Confer, and Preserve

  • Within 14 days after the filing of an answer, the parties must meet and confer regarding the “reasonable preservation of all relevant documents and things, including any electronically stored information.” (See PPR 6.1.)

Do Not Expect Extensions or Continuances

  • Motions for extensions of time or continuances (including motions to change the trial date) are strongly disfavored and will be denied on receipt, absent extraordinary circumstances. (See PPR 1.4, 8.5.)
  • Stipulated motions to continue or extend deadlines are not binding on the court and parties should assume the court will deny such motions. (See PPR 1.4.)

Do Expect Active Case Management

  • One judge will be assigned to the case for all purposes, and “absent unavoidable or extraordinary circumstances,” that judge will remain assigned to the case through its final resolution. (See PPR 5.1.)
  • No later than 49 days after the responsive pleadings are filed, the judge shall hold an initial case management conference, which each party’s lead trial counsel is required to attend. (See PPR 7.1.)
  • The court will provide ongoing, active case management, and the parties may contact the court for prompt conferences to clarify or modify any court order or resolve any disputed pretrial matter. (See PPR 8.1, 8.2.)

Factual and Expert Discovery Will Be Limited

  • Discovery will be limited, based on the proportionality factors and “matters that would enable a party to prove or disprove a claim or defense or to impeach a witness.” (See PPR 9.1.)
  • Absent extraordinary circumstances, only one expert witness per side may submit a report and testify in any given specialty or with respect to any given issue. (See PPR 10.2.)
  • An expert’s testimony will be limited to matters disclosed in reasonable detail in the report. (See PPR 10.1(b).)
  • Along with the expert’s report, a party also must produce its expert’s files at the time the witness is disclosed. (See PPR 10.1(a), (c), App. C (defining scope of production and noting parties do not have to produce their expert’s draft reports).)
  • There will be no depositions or other discovery of experts. (See PPR 10.1(d).)

Key Deadlines

  • Twenty-one days after service of the complaint, plaintiff files initial disclosures. (See PPR 3.1.)
  • Twenty-one days after plaintiff’s initial disclosures are filed, defendant files a responsive pleading, which must include an answer. (See PPR 3.2, 4.1.)
  • Fourteen days after defendant’s responsive pleading is filed, the parties meet and confer regarding preservation of documents and electronically stored information. (See PPR 6.1.)
  • Twenty-one days after service of defendant’s responsive pleading, defendant files initial disclosures. (See PPR 3.3.)
  • Seven days before the case management conference, parties file a joint case management report in the form set forth in Appendix B of CJD 11.2. (See PPR 7.1, App. B.)
  • No later than 49 days after defendant’s responsive pleading is filed, the case management conference is held, and lead counsel must attend. (See PPR 7.1.)

Generally, within 91 days of service of the complaint, the answer, any motions to dismiss, all disclosures, and the joint case management report will be filed and the case management conference will have occurred.

The PPRs are an attempt to improve the management of the civil litigation process and increase access to our judicial system by controlling the discovery process and lessening the expense of litigation. We urge litigators in the Denver area to support the Pilot Project and share their feedback during the two-year pilot period with IAALS.

Notes

[1] The PPRs are not to be confused with the amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure for calculating trial and appellate deadlines that will apply in all cases in all judicial districts in the state. Most of these deadline amendments become effective Jan. 1, and others become effective July 1. Go to http://bit.ly/CPRCChanges for a copy of the amended rules.

Jessica Fuller and Tamara Goodlette are litigation associates at Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP and can be reached at (303) 623-9000 or jfuller@rothgerber.com and tgoodlette@rothgerber.com.

The Docket eFile brings features from your favorite Denver Bar Association publication to you digitally. When you see the logo, you’re reading an article from The Docket. You’ll also still be able to read the full issue online at denbar.org/docket.

CLE Program: The Civil Access Pilot Project – New Rules of Civil Procedure for Cases in 5 Districts

This CLE presentation will take place on Friday, December 2. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live programs or webcasts, the programs will also be available as a homestudy in three formats: video on-demand, mp3 download, and audio CD recordings.

Colorado Civil Access Pilot Project: Changes to Included/Excluded Actions

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended the Chief Justice Directive that outlines the implementation of the Civil Access Pilot Project. As of October 2011, an amended Appendix A has been included in CJD 11-02. The Appendix describes the types of cases that will be included in the program, and those that will be excluded.

The revised Chief Justice Directive with the updated list of included and excluded actions can be found here.

The Civil Access Pilot Project is an attempt by State Judicial to revamp the discovery process and reduce the expense of civil litigation in certain business actions. The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure concerning pleading, discovery, and trial management have been modified for the cases falling within the realm of the project.

The pilot project is scheduled to last two years, unless extended by the Court.

CJD 11-02 – “Adopting Pilot Rules for Certain District Court Civil Cases”

Application Period Open for Forty-Five Vacancies on Judicial Nominating Commissions

On behalf of Governor John Hickenlooper, Attorney General John Suthers, and Chief Justice Michael L. Bender, the Colorado Judicial Branch announced on Thursday, September 15, 2011, the opening of the application period for forty-five vacancies on judicial nominating commissions across the state.

Some positions are open now, but the majority of vacancies will occur when current commissioners’ six-year terms end December 31, 2011. All commissioners serve as volunteers. Applications are due on or before October 14.

Thirty-two vacancies must be filled by non-attorneys selected by the Governor. Thirteen vacancies must be filled by attorneys selected by joint action of the Governor, Attorney General, and Chief Justice. Vacancies will occur in twenty judicial district nominating commissions.

Each judicial district in Colorado has a nominating commission comprised of three attorneys and four non-attorneys who are tasked with selecting nominees for appointment to county and district judgeships. The Supreme Court Nominating Commission is made up of seven attorneys, seven non-attorneys, and one non-attorney at-large member. Each of Colorado’s seven Congressional Districts is represented by one attorney and one non-attorney on the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, which selects nominees for positions on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

Application forms for vacancies on the various commissions can be found here. Completed application forms should be mailed to Romaine Pacheco, Governor’s Office of Boards and Commissions, 136 State Capitol Bldg., Denver, Colorado 80203.  They also can be faxed to (303) 866-6368 or sent by e-mail to boards@state.co.us.

Article VI, Section 24 of the Colorado Constitution requires that for any nominating commission, “no more than one-half of the commission members plus one, exclusive of the Supreme Court justice serving as ex officio chair, shall be members of the same political party.” The Constitution also requires that at least one commissioner reside in each of the counties of the district. Applicants must reside in the judicial district – or, for the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, the congressional district – to which they are applying for appointment.

Here is a list of upcoming nominating commission attorney vacancies along with any applicable residency and political-affiliation requirements:

  • First Judicial District: One vacancy.
  • Second Judicial District: One vacancy. Appointee cannot be a registered Democrat.
  • Fourth Judicial District: One vacancy. This commission also will have one non-attorney vacancy. Only one position may be filled by a registered Democrat.
  • Fifth Judicial District: One vacancy. This commission also will have two non-attorney vacancies. One of the positions must be filled by a resident of Eagle County, one other by a resident of Lake County.
  • Sixth Judicial District: One vacancy. This commission also will have one non-attorney vacancy. One of the positions must be filled by a resident of San Juan County.
  • Seventh Judicial District: One vacancy. Appointee must reside in Ouray County.
  • Ninth Judicial District: One vacancy. This commission also will have one non-attorney vacancy. One appointee must be a resident of Rio Blanco County and one a resident of Pitkin County.
  • Thirteenth Judicial District: One vacancy. This commission also will have three non-attorney vacancies. One appointee must be a resident of Yuma County, one a resident of Phillips County, one a resident of Sedgwick County, and one a resident of Logan County.
  • Fourteenth Judicial District: Two vacancies.
  • Sixteenth Judicial District: One vacancy. Appointee cannot be a registered Democrat.
  • Nineteenth Judicial District: One vacancy.
  • Supreme Court: One vacancy. Appointee must be a resident of the Fifth Congressional District.

Here is a list of non-attorney vacancies, along with any applicable residency and political-affiliation requirements:

  • Second Judicial District: Two vacancies. Neither may be filled by a registered Democrat.
  • Third Judicial District: Two vacancies.
  • Fourth Judicial District: One vacancy. This commission also will have one attorney vacancy. Only one position may be filled by a registered Democrat.
  • Fifth Judicial District: Two vacancies. This commission also will have one attorney vacancy. One of the positions must be filled by a resident of Eagle County, one other by a resident of Lake County.
  • Sixth Judicial District: One vacancy. This commission also will have one attorney vacancy. One of the positions must be filled by a resident of San Juan County.
  • Eighth Judicial District: One vacancy. Appointee must not be a registered Democrat.
  • Ninth Judicial District: Three vacancies. This commission also will have one attorney vacancy. At least one appointee must be a resident of Rio Blanco County and one a resident of Pitkin County.
  • Tenth Judicial District: Two vacancies. Neither may be filled by a registered Democrat.
  • Eleventh Judicial District: One vacancy.
  • Twelfth Judicial District: Two vacancies. One appointee must be a resident of Mineral County and one a resident of Costilla County.
  • Thirteenth Judicial District: Three vacancies. This commission also will have one attorney vacancy. One appointee must be a resident of Yuma County, one a resident of Phillips County, one a resident of Sedgwick County, and one a resident of Logan County.
  • Fourteenth Judicial District: Two vacancies.
  • Fifteenth Judicial District: Two vacancies.
  • Nineteenth Judicial District: One vacancy.
  • Twentieth Judicial District: One vacancy. Appointee cannot be a registered Democrat.
  • Twenty-First Judicial District: Two vacancies. Neither appointee may be a registered Democrat.
  • Twenty-Second Judicial District: One vacancy. Appointee must be a resident of Dolores County.
  • Supreme Court: Two vacancies. One appointee must be a resident of the Second Congressional District and the other a resident of the Seventh Congressional District.

Click here to read the full release about the commission vacancies from State Judicial.

Pilot Rules for Certain District Court Civil Cases Adopted by Colorado Supreme Court

Following the Colorado Supreme Court’s approval of the Civil Access Pilot Project, the Court has issued a new Chief Justice Directive to implement the rules outlined by the project. These revised rules are an attempt by the Court to study if the control of the discovery process reduces the expense of civil litigation in certain business actions.

In order for the project to be implemented successfully, the Court has determined that the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the pleading, discovery, and trial management of certain cases must be modified.

All of the new rules are outlined in CJD 11-02.

The rules contained therein are effective January 1, 2012 and will be applicable to cases filed on or after that date. The rules are adopted for use in the designated cases in the First, Second, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Twentieth Judicial Districts.

The pilot project is scheduled to last two years and apply to all applicable cases filed in the pilot districts up to December 31, 2013 or until further order of the court.

The effect of the pilot project will be studied by the Institute for the Advancement of the
American Legal System (IAALS), working at the request of the Court. IAALS will issue a report
on the effect of the project upon the conclusion of the two year period.

CJD 11-02 – “Adopting Pilot Rules for Certain District Court Civil Cases”

Protected

2013-06-19 01:20:04