July 17, 2019

Archives for February 9, 2016

Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 2/8/2016

On Monday, February 8, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court issued one published opinion.

Newman, LLC v. Roberts

The summary for this case is forthcoming, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions.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

Colorado Supreme Court: Erroneous Denial of Challenge for Cause Does Not Require Automatic Reversal

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Newman, LLC v. Roberts on Monday, February 8, 2016.

Civil Law—Jury—Overruling Challenges to Jurors—Harmless Error— CRCP 61—Stare Decisis.

The Supreme Court held that allowing a civil litigant fewer peremptory challenges than authorized, or than available to and exercised by the opposing party, does not by itself require automatic reversal. Instead, the reviewing court must determine whether the error substantially influenced the outcome of the case in accordance with C.R.C.P. 61. This conclusion follows from People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18, in which the Court determined that the automatic reversal rule in the criminal context rested on the assumption that impairment of the ability to shape the jury through peremptory challenges affected a “substantial right” and thus warranted automatic reversal. This same assumption undergirds the Court’s parallel rule in the civil context, but, as it held in Novotny, subsequent developments in the law concerning harmless error analysis and the significance of the right to shape the jury have invalidated that assumption. As such, the Court rejected the automatic reversal rule in the civil context and overruled prior decisions to the contrary. See Blades v. DaFoe, 704 P.2d 317 (Colo. 1985); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Langdon, 532 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1975); and Denver City Tramway Co. v. Kennedy, 117 P. 167 (Colo. 1911).

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Diversity Jurisdiction Requires Complete Diversity of Parties

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. on Monday, November 2, 2015.

Celeste Grynberg, individually and on behalf of several trusts of which she is trustee, and Jack Grynberg petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to vacate an arbitration award entered against them in favor of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. and Kinder Morgan CO2 Company L.P. (Kinder Morgan entities). The Grynbergs alleged diversity jurisdiction since the amount in controversy was over $75,000, they were residents of Colorado, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (KMEP) was a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Texas, and Kinder Morgan CO2 Company (KMCO2) was a Texas limited partnership with its principal place of business in Texas. The district court issued an order to show cause that said the Grynbergs’ petition did not adequately allege diversity jurisdiction because it did not properly identify the citizenship of the Kinder Morgan entities as of the filing date. In response, the Grynbergs explained that KMEP was a publicly traded Delaware master limited partnership (MLP) and KMCO2 was a Texas limited partnership wholly owned by KMEP. The Kinder Morgan entities responded and explained that KMEP had unitholders who were citizens of Colorado. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice based on lack of diversity jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit analyzed the jurisdictional statutes and the citizenship of MLPs. The Tenth Circuit noted it could only find diversity jurisdiction if no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. The Tenth Circuit turned to the citizenship of MLPs and determined that an MLPs citizenship consists of its unitholders’ citizenship. First, the Tenth Circuit analyzed the long-standing rule regarding citizenship of corporations and unincorporated entities, finding that under Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990), an unincorporated entity’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members. The Tenth Circuit next found that the narrow exception set forth in Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co., 288 U.S. 476 (1933), did not apply because the entity at issue in Russell was wholly unique to Puerto Rico and resembled a corporation more than an unincorporated entity. The Tenth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court had declined to apply the Russell exception to any entities other than the type enunciated in Russell. Finally, the Tenth Circuit addressed the Grynbergs’ argument that applying Carden would preclude jurisdiction over MLPs, noting that these policy arguments were best addressed to Congress.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 2/8/2016

On Monday, February 8, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and four unpublished opinions.

Jones v. Estep

Suarez-Sanchez v. Lynch

United States v. Brown

Maehr v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

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