April 17, 2019

Archives for April 25, 2014

Registration Still Open for 18th JD Fraud Prevention and Safety Summit

Registration is still open for the 18th Judicial District & AARP ElderWatch Fraud Prevention and Safety Summit. This free informative event will take place on May 15, 2014 at the Parker Arts, Culture, & Events Center. Registration is open through May 7, 2014. UPDATE: Registration extended until May 13, 2014. You can register by phone at (877)  926-8300 or click the link below. 

Click here to register

An informational flyer about the event is available here for download and is also reprinted below. Forward this information to friends, family, and coworkers – it will be a great event.

Summit Registration Flyer

Don’t miss this terrific informative event! Register today.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 4/24/2014

On Thursday, April 24, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued 10 published opinions and 24 unpublished opinions.

People v. Lane

People v. Cisneros

People v. Richardson

People v. Dutton

People v. Notyce

People v. Lucero

People v. Paglione

Qwest Corp. v. City of Northglenn

People v. Houston

People in Interest of Marquardt

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Creating Diversity Jurisdiction by Collusively Assigning Interest Is Improper

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in National Fitness Holdings, Inc. v. Grand View Corporate Centre, LLC on Thursday, April 24, 2014.

Several Utah citizens sued J. Hoyt Stephenson in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Stephenson responded with state-law counterclaims and a third-party complaint asserting state-law claims against other Utah citizens. The district court dismissed Stephenson’s counterclaims and third-party claims, finding that Stephenson was a Utah citizen—not a Wyoming citizen—so it lacked diversity jurisdiction to hear Stephenson’s claims. Stephenson then created National Fitness Holdings, Inc. and incorporated it in Wyoming. Stephenson was the sole director, officer, and shareholder. A week after creating National, Stephenson assigned it all his stock in three companies and his interest in Utah real property. Four days after that, National sued Grand View Corporate Centre, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Defendants moved to dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), arguing that Stephenson improperly made the assignments to manufacture diversity jurisdiction. The district court agreed and granted defendants’ motion.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed, undergoing a detailed analysis of 28 U.S.C. § 1359 and concluding that the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 4/24/2014

On Thursday, April 24, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and five unpublished opinions.

Sanchez v. Labate

Simpson v. Chrisman

Garrison v. Colvin

United States v. Westhoven

United States v. Henderson

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

SB 14-190: Creating a Statewide Criminal Discovery Sharing System

On April 10, 2014, Sen. Kent Lambert introduced SB 14-190 – Concerning Criminal Discovery, and, in Connection Therewith, Creating a Statewide Discovery Sharing System, a Criminal Discovery Surcharge, Civil Immunity for District Attorneys that Make a Good-Faith Effort to Redact Information from Discovery Documents, and Making an Appropriation. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Joint Budget Committee.

In 2013, a discovery task force (task force) was convened to develop recommendations regarding criminal discovery systems and costs. The task force recommended creating a statewide discovery sharing system (system). The bill turns the task force into the discovery project steering committee (committee). The committee shall develop a request for proposal and selection process for choosing a vendor to develop the system. The committee shall make a recommendation to the Colorado district attorneys council (CDAC) regarding the vendor after the application process is complete. CDAC shall select a vendor to develop the system after the application and selection processes are complete. The committee shall develop benchmarks and contractual requirements for the project. CDAC shall enter into a contract with the selected vendor to complete the system by June 30, 2016.

The general assembly shall appropriate moneys to the judicial department for allocation to CDAC for development and maintenance of the system. The bill creates a criminal surcharge to fund the development and maintenance of the system. A $10 surcharge applies to each felony conviction, and a $5 surcharge applies to each misdemeanor conviction if the defendant is represented by private counsel or appears pro se.

The bill gives civil immunity to district attorneys who make a good-faith effort to redact all information legally required to be redacted and provide discovery documents that contain information that should have been redacted.

The bill is assigned to the Judiciary Committee.

Since this summary, the Judiciary Committee referred the bill, amended, to the Finance Committee.

SB 14-184: Revising Regulation of Industrial Hemp

On April 4, 2014, Sen. Gail Schwartz introduced SB 14-184 – Concerning Oversight of the Industrial Hemp Program. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Current law limits a person who holds a registration to grow industrial hemp for research and development purposes to growth outdoors and on not more than 10 acres. The bill removes these limitations. The bill also changes the time period during which a person who wishes to grow industrial hemp may apply to the department of agriculture (department) from May first of the year in which the person wishes to grow hemp to prior to planting.

The bill requires the department to test at least 80% of the hemp crop in the industrial hemp registration program. The bill allows the general assembly to make general fund appropriations to support the program.

The bill exempts state-accredited research institutions that are engaged in research and development from the industrial hemp testing program. The bill allows a research and development registrant to use or destroy hemp that exceeds delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration limits established by the department in a manner approved and verified by the department.

The bill requires the department to administer an industrial hemp grant program that is funded through registration fees and moneys from the medical marijuana cash fund. The grants allow state institutions of higher education to conduct the research. The bill creates the industrial hemp research grant program fund.

The bill allows a person to process, sell, and distribute hemp cultivated by a registered person or to sell hemp products produced from the hemp.

On April 15, the Senate Local Government referred the amended bill to the Consent Calendar for consideration on 2nd Reading.

Since this summary, the bill passed the Senate on Second and Third Readings. It was amended on Second Reading. The bill was introduced in the House and assigned to the Local Government Committee.

SB 14-183: Increasing the Maximum Term for a Business Incentive Agreement with a Taxpayer who Pays Business Personal Property Tax

On April 4, 2014, Sen. Rollie Heath introduced SB 14-183 – Concerning an Increase in the Maximum Term of a Business Incentive Agreement that a Local Government Enters into with a Taxpayer who Pays Business Personal Property Tax. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Counties, municipalities, and special districts (local governments) are currently authorized to negotiate an incentive payment or credit with a taxpayer that pays business personal property tax if:

  • The taxpayer establishes a new business facility;
  • The taxpayer expands an existing business facility; or
  • There is a substantial risk that the taxpayer will relocate an existing facility out of state.

These payments or credits are included in an agreement that is commonly known as a business incentive agreement. The maximum term of a business incentive agreement is 10 years, including the term of any original agreement being renewed. The bill increases the maximum term of a business incentive agreement to 35 years, which does not include the term of any prior agreement.

On April 14, the Business Labor, & Technology referred the unamended bill to the full Senate. The Senate approved the bill on 2nd Reading on April 17.

Since this summary, the bill passed the Senate on Third Reading. It was introduced in the House and assigned to the Local Government Committee, which referred it, unamended, to the House Committee of the Whole.