April 21, 2019

Archives for December 30, 2015

Top Ten Marijuana Law Programs and Homestudies

Colorado is in the forefront of the marijuana industry, and as such the need for legal guidance regarding medical and recreational marijuana has exponentially increased. In fact, the CBA has a new Cannabis Law Committee to further the legal profession’s understanding of marijuana law. Today’s Top Ten Programs and Homestudies feature marijuana law. (In case you missed it, we previously featured ethics, family law, trust and estate law, real estate law, litigation,business law, employment law, criminal law, and construction/environmental/oil and gas/water law.) Grab a snack and read on for the Top Ten Marijuana Law Programs and Homestudies:

10. Ethics 7.0 2014. Although not strictly a marijuana law program, the 2014 Ethics 7.0 program featured a discussion by Chief Deputy Regulation Counsel James Sudler on hot topics in attorney regulation, including marijuana. As a bonus, this program fulfills an entire compliance period’s ethics credits requirements. Seven general credits, including seven ethics credits; available as CD homestudy, MP3 audio download, and Video OnDemand.

9. Marijuana in Estate Planning and Administration. Even trust and estate attorneys encounter marijuana-related issues. The recent addition of recreational marijuana rights to the already-existing medical marijuana industry means that estate and probate attorneys are almost certain to encounter marijuana-related issues in both estate planning and probate. This is a must-attend session dealing with everything from a joint found with a decedent’s personal property to an estate-planning client who owns a thriving, licensed marijuana business. One general credit; available as MP3 audio download and Video OnDemand.

8. Criminal Law Fall Update 2013. Amendment 64 provides for the regulation of marijuana like alcohol, and allows for the lawful operation of marijuana-related facilities. Amendment 64 presented issues of first impression in Colorado and in the United States, as no other state except Washington State at that time had legalized marijuana for non-medical, adult use in the face of federal legal restrictions. What are the implications for the criminal law landscape on the state and federal levels? What does it mean from a behavioral health perspective? Get answers to these questions and more. Seven general credits, including one ethics credit; available as CD homestudy, MP3 audio download, and Video OnDemand.

7. Lending Compliance Update: Appraisals, Marijuana, and More. As the Colorado marijuana industry flourishes, banking issues related to marijuana become more and more important. This program discusses banking compliance and provides a CPA’s perspective on the marijuana business and compliance issues. One general credit; available as MP3 audio download and Video OnDemand.

6. New Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2: Marijuana Law Update. On March 24, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted a comment to Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2. According to the comment, a lawyer may counsel a client regarding the validity, scope and meaning of Colorado’s marijuana laws and may assist a client in conduct the lawyer believes is permitted under state law. It’s important to know not only what the comment said, but what it didn’t say—and possible consequences for Colorado attorneys. Two general credits, including two ethics credits; available as MP3 audio download and Video OnDemand.

5. Banking for Marijuana Businesses — An Update. Get up to speed on banking for marijuana businesses! Learn about the Justice Department’s efforts to craft guidance for banks that work with marijuana businesses and how banking views those efforts. Learn what bank regulators, who aren’t bound by Justice Department actions, are doing. Are banks still at risk of racketeering charges if they knowingly handle money made from the sale of marijuana? Hear obstacles, potential solutions and potential best practices. One general credit; available as MP3 audio download and Video OnDemand.

4. The Business of Marijuana. In November 2012, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64, which makes the personal, non-medical use, possession, and limited home-growing of marijuana legal under Colorado law for adults 21 years of age and older. Amendment 64 presented issues of first impression in Colorado and in the United States, as no other state except Washington State had legalized marijuana for non-medical, adult use in the face of federal legal restrictions at that time. This 2013 program discussed tax, accounting and legal implications for people involved in marijuana-related businesses in light of Amendment 64. Six general credits; available as CD homestudy, MP3 audio download, and Video OnDemand.

3. Marijuana — The Colorado Model. Colorado pulled in $2 million in taxes related to the sale of recreational marijuana… in January 2014 alone. Combined with taxes on sales from medicinal marijuana, Colorado pulled in nearly $3.5 million in pot-related tax revenue. This growing industry and resulting revenue has created a myriad of legal, financial and regulatory issues for the State of Colorado. Hear from some of the State’s top regulatory and legal experts on what’s going on in the ever-changing marijuana industry. Seven general credits; available as CD homestudy, MP3 audio download, and Video OnDemand.

2. Medicolegal Aspects of Marijuana in Criminal Law, Civil Regulations, and Forensic Science. The legalization of both medical and later recreational possession of marijuana in Colorado has brought an abundance of new legal issues in criminal, civil and regulatory law. With a focus on the new book Medicolegal Aspects of Marijuana (Lawyers and Judges Publishing, 2015), the faculty explores both the forensic and legal issues of running a dispensary, drug testing for confirmation in narcotics cases and THC levels for DUI-D cases. Topics covered include land use and HOA laws, federal controlled substance laws, licensing and regulation, business regulation, and more. Eight general credits; available as live Video Replay in Denver on January 6, 2016, and also available as CD homestudy, MP3 audio download, and Video OnDemand.

1. The Colorado Marijuana Industry — Legal and Accounting Advice and Compliance. Colorado marijuana stores sold a record amount of marijuana in June 2015, a huge leap over the previous record set in March 2015. Recreational marijuana sales topped $50 million for the first time. Medical marijuana also had its biggest month in more than a year. Some owners reported seeing more than 300 customers a day. At the halfway mark of 2015, Colorado stores had sold nearly half a billion dollars in marijuana and paid about $60 million in taxes to the state. Clearly, the marijuana business is thriving in Colorado. But we as attorneys, accountants, business valuators, regulators, bankers and citizens still have a lot to learn about this fledgling industry. Find out what you need to know about marijuana law in Colorado at this important program. Seven general credits; available as CD homestudy, MP3 audio download, and Video OnDemand.

Ramsey Lama Appointed to District Court Bench in 11th Judicial District

On Tuesday, December 29, 2016, Governor Hickenlooper’s office announced the appointment of Ramsey Lama to the Eleventh Judicial District Court Bench, effective January 12, 2016. Lama will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon. David Thorson.

Lama currently is a solo practitioner in Salida at the Law Offices of Ramsey Lama, where he practices criminal defense. Prior to opening his solo practice, Lama worked at the Colorado State Public Defender’s Office in Grand Junction and Salida. He also worked for the Cleveland Public Defender’s Office in Ohio. He received his law degree from the Cleveland-Marshall School of Law, cum laude, and his undergraduate degree from Aquinas College in Michigan.

 

Tenth Circuit: District Court Within Discretion to Deny Late-Filed Motion to Amend Complaint

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Zisumbo v. Ogden Regional Medical Center on Friday, September 4, 2015.

Raymond Zisumbo worked at Ogden Regional Medical Center (ORMC) as a CT scan technician from March 2005 to October 2009. In 2009, Anthony Rodebush became Zisumbo’s supervisor. About the same time, Zisumbo applied for a promotion to a vacant CT Coordinator position. Rodebush expressed curiosity about why Zisumbo was eager for the promotion, and asked whether he’d ever been fired from other jobs. In response, Zisumbo produced letters from three previous employers to prove he was not fired, which Rodebush filed without reviewing. On September 15, 2009, at a staff pizza party, Rodebush remarked that Zisumbo wanted the CT Coordinator position and invited criticism from Zisumbo’s coworkers about why he was not suited for the job. Later that day, Zisumbo accused Rodebush of treating him differently because Zisumbo is Hispanic. Rodebush informed Zisumbo that he should discuss his concerns with the human resources manager, Chris Bissenden. Zisumbo interpreted this as a threat. Rather than discuss his concerns with Bissenden, Zisumbo filed a complaint with the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division about a week after the pizza party alleging race discrimination, and also contacted ORMC’s ethics line with complaints of race discrimination and unprofessional behavior. ORMC’s record of the call noted only complaints of unprofessional behavior.

Judd Taylor, ORMC’s ethics compliance officer, investigated Zisumbo’s ethics line complaint and met privately with Rodebush during his investigation. He later met with Zisumbo and Rodebush, and the following day issued a written warning to Zisumbo for events that had occurred months earlier. Taylor and Rodebush also reviewed the letters Zisumbo had provided from his previous employers and immediately became suspicious that they were fabricated. On October 8, Rodebush and Taylor gave the letters to Bissenden, who began investigating their authenticity and discovered that at least one letter was falsified. Later that day, Taylor, Bissenden, and Rodebush met with Zisumbo and terminated his employment based on dishonesty because of the falsified letters.

On May 2, 2010, Zisumbo filed this action, alleging a Title VII hostile work environment claim. Six months later, ORMC permitted Zisumbo to amend his complaint to include Title VII claims based on race discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to promote, and discriminatory termination; a Title VII retaliation claim asserting that Zisumbo was fired for complaining about race discrimination; and a state law claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The district court entered a stipulated order setting deadlines for the litigation, including a September 2011 deadline for amending pleadings. However, in January 2012, Zisumbo sought to amend his complaint to add a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court denied his motion. Zisumbo then filed a new lawsuit in the same court alleging the same claims he unsuccessfully sought to add to his previous complaint and moved to consolidate the two actions. The district court dismissed his second complaint, and Zisumbo appealed to the Tenth Circuit. A prior panel of the Tenth Circuit ultimately rejected his “ill-conceived effort to end-run the district court’s decision.”

In the meantime, the district court granted summary judgment to ORMC on Zisumbo’s good faith and fair dealing, hostile work environment, and failure to promote claims. Zisumbo moved for reconsideration and alternatively sought to amend his complaint, which motions the district court denied. Zisumbo’s remaining claims were tried to a jury, which ultimately found against him on his discriminatory termination claim but for him on his retaliatory termination claim. Zisumbo sought back pay up to trial and reinstatement or front pay up to three years, but the district court foreshortened his award based on Zisumbo’s misdemeanor conviction for assaulting his daughter. Both parties sought attorney fees and ORMC moved for judgment as a matter of law on Zisumbo’s retaliatory termination claim. The district court denied ORMC’s motion and awarded attorney fees to Zisumbo, reducing his request based on his limited success in the litigation.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit first addressed Zisumbo’s claim that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to amend his complaint after the September 2011 deadline. Although Zisumbo asserted his lawyer did not realize he could assert the § 1981 claim until January 2012, he possessed all the facts forming the basis of the claim by April 2011. The Tenth Circuit attributed the failure to timely amend his complaint to Zisumbo and found it well within the district court’s discretion to deny the proposed amendment. The Tenth Circuit also found no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment to ORMC on Zisumbo’s good faith and fair dealing claim, finding that Zisumbo was an at will employee and had no contractual relationship with ORMC to necessitate a duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The Tenth Circuit next addressed ORMC’s cross-appeal regarding the district court’s denial of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the retaliatory termination claim. ORMC disputed that there was a causal nexus between the employee’s opposition to discrimination and the employer’s adverse action. The Tenth Circuit found ample record support for the nexus, including that Bissenden’s termination decision was made based on more than one of the falsified letters and that she acted together with Taylor and Rodebush in making the termination decision. ORMC also argued that no reasonable jury could have concluded that its decision to terminate Zisumbo was pretextual, but the Tenth Circuit again disagreed, finding that the timing of the termination supported an inference that he was terminated because he complained of discrimination.

Zisumbo also argued the district court erred in denying his request for a punitive damages instruction. The Tenth Circuit found Zisumbo’s proffered cases inapposite, and instead noted that he must show that ORMC, not just its employees, failed to make good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Because ORMC had well established anti-discrimination policies, trained its managers on those policies, and consistently investigated reports of discrimination, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that punitive damages were inappropriate.

Finally, the Tenth Circuit evaluated Zisumbo’s argument that he should have received more in back pay and front pay or reinstatement. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that ORMC would have terminated Zisumbo based on the misdemeanor assault conviction and therefore it was appropriate to cut off the back pay award after the date Zisumbo pleaded guilty to the charge. The Tenth Circuit likewise approved of the method used by the district court to calculate the back pay award. The Tenth Circuit also approved of the district court’s reduction of the attorney fee award based on Zisumbo’s limited success in litigation.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 12/29/2015

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued five published opinions and three unpublished opinions.

United States v. Hill

United States v. Obregon-Perez

Jolliff v. Corrections Corp. of America

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