July 17, 2019

Archives for August 16, 2013

Finalists Selected for Court of Appeals Judgeship

On Thursday, August 15, the Supreme Court Nominating Commission announced three nominees for the vacancy on the Colorado Court of Appeals. The vacancy was created by the retirement of Hon. Janice B. Davidson, Chief Judge of the Colorado Court of Appeals. The three nominees are Karen Ashby, Michael Berger, and Marcelo Kopcow.

Hon. Karen Ashby is the presiding judge on the Denver Juvenile Court bench. She was appointed in September 1998, and practiced in the Denver Trial Office of the Colorado State Public Defender prior to her appointment. She has been described as the go-to person on juvenile issues in Colorado.

Michael Berger is a partner at Husch Blackwell, where he practices business litigation in the areas of commercial, appellate, employment, and intellectual property litigation. He also acts as a consultant on legal ethics and is a frequent presenter at CLE programs.

Hon. Marcelo Kopcow is a district court judge in the Nineteenth Judicial District. He was appointed to the district court in 2005, and prior to that he served on the county court bench and the Greeley Municipal Court bench. He currently is the presiding family court judge and hears cases involving domestic relations, dependency and neglect, and adoptions.

For contact information for the three candidates, click here. For contact information for the Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission, click here.

Forms Regarding Protection Orders and Sealing Juvenile Cases Amended by State Judicial

The Colorado State Judicial Branch released several amended forms in August 2013, in the categories of filing fees, protection orders, and sealing cases. The forms can be downloaded here, or from State Judicial’s individual forms pages.

All forms are available in Adobe PDF format, and some are also available as Microsoft Word documents and templates.


  • JDF 202 – “Finding and Order Concerning Inmate Motion Requesting Waiving Prepayment of Filing/Service Fees” (revised 8/13)


  • JDF 395 – “Instructions for Restrained Person to Modify/Dismiss Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 396 – “Instructions for Protected Person to Modify/Dismiss Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 400 – “Instructions for Obtaining a Civil Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 393 – “Verbal Emergency Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 394 – “Emergency Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 397 – “Motion to Modify or Dismiss Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 398 – “Citation and Temporary Civil Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 399 – “Permanent Civil Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 401 – “Incident Checklist” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 402 – “Verified Complaint/Motion for Civil Protection Order” (revised 6/13)
  • JDF 404 – “Affidavit Regarding Children” (revised 6/13)
  • JDF 410 – “Order Modifying Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 413 – “Verified Motion for Contempt Citation” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 440 – “Mandatory Protection Order” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 442 – “Information Sheet for Registering a Protection Order” (revised 8/13)


  • JDF 301 – “Instructions to File an Expungement – Juvenile “JV” Case or Criminal “CR” Case” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 302 – “Petition for Expungement of Records” (revised 8/13)
  • JDF 304 – “Order of Expungement of Records” (revised 8/13)

For a complete listing of JDF forms, visit the Colorado State Judicial Branch website, or click here.

Tenth Circuit: Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Decide Motion to Compel Arbitration

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published Grosvenor v. Qwest Corporation on Wednesday, August 14, 2013.

Richard Grosvenor filed a complaint against Qwest Corporation and Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. (“Qwest”) alleging that Qwest violated its “Price for Life Guarantee” by raising the price for internet service after he signed up for the program. He sought to represent a proposed class of certain Qwest internet customers. After Grosvenor filed this putative class action, Qwest moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The district court denied Qwest’s motion and scheduled a trial to determine whether the parties had reached an agreement to arbitrate. Both parties then moved for partial summary judgment. Qwest argued that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement and that Grosvenor should be compelled to arbitrate under the terms of that agreement. However, Qwest did not make another request for an order to compel arbitration.

Instead, Qwest indicated that it would move for summary judgment on another issue and to compel the agreed-upon arbitration. In Grosvenor’s motion for partial summary judgment, he argued that the agreement to arbitrate was illusory. The district court granted both motions in a single order, concluding that the parties entered into an agreement, but that the agreement was illusory and unenforceable.

Qwest argued that the Tenth Circuit possessed interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s summary judgment ruling because it constituted “an order . . . denying a petition under section 4 of the FAA to order arbitration to proceed. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). However, the Tenth Circuit had previously held that “in order to properly invoke appellate jurisdiction under the [FAA], the movant must either explicitly move to stay litigation and/or compel arbitration pursuant to the [FAA], or it must be unmistakably clear from the four corners of the motion that the movant seeks relief provided for in the FAA.” Conrad v. Phone Directories Co., 585 F.3d 1376, 1379 (10th Cir. 2009).

The court concluded Qwest did not satisfy this standard. The issue of whether the court had appellate jurisdiction turned on whether the district court’s summary judgment order was one “denying a petition . . . to order arbitration” within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). The order at issue was titled “Opinion and Order Granting Motions for Summary Judgment.” It identified the parties’ summary judgment motions, not Qwest’s motion to compel arbitration. It recited the standards for summary judgment rather than discussing the criteria for deciding a motion to compel arbitration. Qwest stated that a motion to compel arbitration would be forthcoming: Qwest noted in the motion that it “will move for summary judgment on the unconscionability issues and to compel the agreed-upon arbitration.” Far from making it “unmistakably clear” that it sought an order to compel arbitration, this statement demonstrated that Qwest was not seeking an order to compel arbitration in the motion for partial summary judgment. Instead, Qwest notified the district court that it would move for such an order in a future filing.

Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit DISMISSED the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/14/13

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and nine unpublished opinions.

Girard-Lara v. Holder

Escobar v. Chrisman

United States v. Arias-Lopez

United States v. Prince

Maunz v. Zupan

Cleveland v. Havanek

United States v. Collins

United States v. King

Gonzales v. Artspace Affordable Housing 

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