Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2011/11/16/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:32:47+00:00

Document:
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Klen v. City of Loveland on Tuesday, November 15, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision. Petitioners brought this civil rights action against Respondent City of Loveland, Colorado (City) and various City employees, alleging many constitutional violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent on the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Petitioners appeal from the district court’s award of summary judgment to Respondent.
The Court determined that the district court only considered the first element of the test for Petitioners’ First Amendment retaliation claim, “that the plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity;” because the analysis of that element was insufficient, the issue was remanded. In Petitioners’ substantive due process claim, they allege that Respondent “engaged in a continuous campaign of harassment, deceit, and delay . . . intended to injure . . . in a way unjustifiable by any government interest.” The Court found that an arbitrary deprivation of a property right may violate the substantive component of the Due Process Clause if the arbitrariness is extreme, but that extremity was not present here.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd. on Tuesday, November 15, 2011.
However, at least nine other circuit courts of appeals disagree with that interpretation of § 362(a)(1) and have held “that a bankruptcy filing automatically stays appellate proceedings where the debtor has filed an appeal from a judgment entered in a suit against the debtor.” Further, Collier on Bankruptcy has explicitly rejected the Court’s past reliance on it to support their minority position.
section 362 . . . to stay all appeals in proceedings that were originally brought against the debtor, regardless of whether the debtor is the appellant or appellee. Thus, whether a case is subject to the automatic stay must be determined at its inception. That determination should not change depending on the particular stage of the litigation at which the filing of the petition in bankruptcy occurs.
Under this analysis, Petitioner’s appeal must be stayed until such time as it may proceed in a manner consistent with the Bankruptcy Code.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey on Tuesday, November 15, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner sought coverage for his son’s residential treatment costs from his employer’s ERISA benefits insurer. Respondent’s delegated third-party plan administrator, Magellan, originally denied the claim and explained that Petitioner’s son qualified for intensive outpatient treatment, but not for residential treatment. Magellan affirmed its initial denial of residential treatment benefits through several appeals by both Petitioner and the residential treatment center. Having exhausted his administrative appeals, Petitioner filed this action challenging Respondent’s denial of benefits under ERISA. On appeal, Petitioner alleges 1) that the district court erred by denying his motion to strike and allowing the VSA into evidence, 2) that the district court erred in reviewing Respondent’s denials of benefits under an arbitrary and capricious, rather than a de novo, standard, and 3) that Respondent improperly denied him benefits under the terms of his ERISA benefits plan.
The Court disagreed with all of Petitioner’s contentions. The Court refused to overturn the district court’s ruling because that court permissibly exercised its discretion and Respondent’s failure to disclose was harmless or justified. The Court also found that, to the extent it must independently assess the deference to which Magellan is entitled, Magellan was entitled to deferential review and that review should be under an arbitrary and capricious standard. And, under this standard, the administrator’s decision was reasonable, made in good faith, and supported by substantial evidence.
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and six unpublished opinions.
Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Apportionment of the Colorado General Assembly on November 15, 2011.
Redrawing Legislative Districts for the House and Senate of the Colorado General Assembly.
The Supreme Court held that the finalized Reapportionment Plan submitted by the Colorado Reapportionment Commission (Commission) was not sufficiently attentive to county boundaries to meet the requirements of article V, § 47(2) of the Colorado Constitution, and that the Commission did not make an adequate showing that a less drastic alternative could not have satisfied the hierarchy of constitutional criteria set forth in In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, 45 P.3d 1237 (Colo. 2002). The Court disapproved the plan and returned it to the Commission for further consideration, modification, and resubmission by 5:00 p.m. on December 6, 2011.
On December 1, 2011, the newly restyled Federal Rules of Evidence, approved last spring, take effect. While the wording and style of the rules are changing, the substance remains the same. Committee Notes to the restyled rules stress that the changes are intended to be stylistic only, making the rules more consistent in terminology and the language more user-friendly. No changes were made regarding evidence admissibility. The Committee also avoided drastic changes to rules that hold “sacred phrases.” Those are phrases that have become so familiar and common “as to be fixed in cement,” and their alteration would be disruptive in practice.
The new rules were crafted with plain language and readability in mind. So, while such sacred phrases as “offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted” remain, the revised rules should be easier to comprehend.
Click here to review a side-by-side comparison of the old rules and the restyled rules.
Editor’s Note: The 2011 Colorado Rules of Evidence Annotated is available for purchase from CBA-CLE and comes with a CD that includes these restyled Federal Rules of Evidence. The book is a portable, convenient in-court reference source and a handy desk guide, designed so the practitioner may quickly find the text of a rule as well as persuasive authority. Click here for more information and to order.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 362
 v. 
 v. 
 § 47