August 20, 2019

Archives for July 19, 2013

El Paso Bar Association Offers Additional Legal Assistance to Wildfire Victims

The El Paso County Bar Association will offer a second Ask-A-Lawyer event where lawyers will be available at no cost to answer legal questions for Black Forest residents affected by this year’s devastating wildfire.

“We saw such a great need for legal help at our last legal clinic, we decided to offer this second clinic to continue to provide clarity, guidance, and support for those who have been impacted by the Black Forest Fire,” said EPCBA Executive Director Claire Anderson.

Event Details: Tuesday, July 23 from 4 to 7 p.m. in the west training room at El Paso County’s Charles C. Brown Transportation and Environment Complex, 3275 Akers Drive, Colorado Springs.  No appointment is required.

The El Paso County Bar Association will have lawyers available specializing in the following areas of law:

  • Real Estate
  • Tenant/Landlord
  • HOA
  • Insurance
  • Employment
  • Probate

If you are an attorney and would like to help, please contact Claire Anderson ((719) 473-9700 or

Tenth Circuit: Corporation May Sue Canadian Officers and Directors in Oklahoma

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Newsome v. Gallacher on Wednesday, July 17, 2013.

Plaintiff David Newsome is a litigation trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma to administer the legal claims of Mahalo Energy (USA), Inc. Newsome brought suit in the Northern District of Oklahoma alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty against the corporation’s former directors and officers, other closely affiliated persons, and a law firm that provided legal services to the corporation. All defendants are Canadian citizens or entities.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the district court granted that motion. Newsome appealed.

The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred in part. Specifically, the Court held the that individual defendants (every defendant but the law firm) cultivated sufficient contacts with Oklahoma to justify suit there: (1) the defendant purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum state; (2) the plaintiff’s injury arose from those purposefully directed activities; and (3) defendants did not show that exercising jurisdiction in Oklahoma would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The Tenth Circuit further held that the fiduciary shield doctrine—under which personal jurisdiction may not attach to a corporate agent by virtue of actions the agent takes solely on the corporation’s behalf—did not apply. The Tenth Circuit therefore reversed as to the individual defendants and remanded for further proceedings.

As for the law firm, however, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Given the law firm’s out-of-state character and that it performed all of its relevant services out of state on an out-of-state transaction, it did not cultivate sufficient contacts with Oklahoma to justify personal jurisdiction there. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court correctly dismissed the law firm.

Tenth Circuit: Motion to Amend Published Decision Granted

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its amended opinion in Ibarra v. Holder on Friday, July 12, 2013.

This matter was before the court on Respondent’s “Motion to Amend Published Decision” filed July 1, 2013. The motion was granted. The amended opinion was filed nunc pro tunc to the original filing date.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 7/17/13

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and eight unpublished opinions.

Trujillo v. Martinez

United States v. Bishop

Haynes v. Maye

Conley v. McKune

United States v. Lee-Speight

Preston v. Citimortgage

Soriano v. Jones

Dragna v. Maynard

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.