Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2011/11/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:12:49+00:00

Document:
Initiative 300, which would have required Denver employers to provide paid sick and safe time to their employees, was rejected by Denver voters in yesterday’s election. The issue failed by a 2-1 ratio. The initiative would have required city employers to give workers paid sick days at a rate of one hour off per every 30 hours worked. Large businesses would have had to supply up to nine days of paid leave per year, with small businesses having that number capped at five.
Initiative 300 was the subject of a Legal Connection point/counterpoint discussion last month. Those articles can be found here and here.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Reyher on October 31, 2011.
Class Actions—Class Certification—Burden of Proof—Colorado Automobile Accident Reparations Act.
Applying the standards enunciated in Jackson v. Unocal Corp. (Oct. 31, 2011, No. 09SC668), the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny class certification, thereby reversing the court of appeals’ judgment. The Court concluded that the trial court rigorously analyzed plaintiffs’ class-wide theories of liability, as well as the evidence offered by defendant to refute those theories in determining that the predominance of individual issues precluded class certification.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in BP America Production Co. v. Patterson on October 31, 2011.
Class Actions—Burden of Proof—Circumstantial Evidence—Inference or Presumption—Fraudulent Concealment.
Applying the standards enunciated in Jackson v. Unocal Corp. (Oct. 31, 2011, No. 09SC668), the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant class certification. The Court held that the ignorance and reliance elements of fraudulent concealment may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, enabling plaintiffs to establish a theory of fraudulent concealment on a class-wide basis with evidence common to the class. The Court also held that a defendant may introduce individual evidence to rebut such a class-wide inference. The Court concluded that the trial court rigorously analyzed all the evidence presented in support of and in opposition to class certification, as required by Jackson.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, Inc. on October 31, 2011.
Class Actions—Burden of Proof—Circumstantial Evidence—Inference or Presumption—Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
Applying the standards enunciated in Jackson v. Unocal Corp. (Oct. 31, 2011, No. 09SC668), the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court failed to rigorously analyze the evidence in deciding to grant class certification. The Court therefore affirmed the court of appeals’ decision remanding the case to the trial court to conduct such an analysis.
Consistent with its opinion in BP America Production Co. v. Patterson, 185 P. 3d 811 (Colo. 2008),the Court held that the causation and injury elements of plaintiffs’ Consumer Protection Act claims may be inferred from circumstantial evidence common to the class. The Court further held that defendant has the opportunity to rebut such class-wide inferences with individual evidence. The Court concluded that, in its analysis, the trial court neglected to consider the evidence offered by defendant to refute plaintiffs’ class-wide theories of liability.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Jackson v. Unocal Corp. on October 31, 2011.
Civil Procedure—Class Actions—Burden of Proof—Expert Disputes.
In the lead case in a series of four class action cases, the Supreme Court addressed the standards a trial court must apply when deciding whether to certify a class pursuant to C.R.C.P. 23. The Court declined to adopt a specific burden of proof and therefore reversed the court of appeals’ decision holding that a trial court must apply a preponderance of the evidence standard to C.R.C.P. 23’s class certification requirements. Instead, the Court held that a trial court must rigorously analyze the evidence presented and determine to its satisfaction that each C.R.C.P. 23 requirement is met.
The Court also considered whether a trial court may resolve factual or legal disputes relevant to class certification where those disputes independently overlap with the merits. The Court held that a trial court may consider factual or legal disputes to the extent necessary to satisfy itself that the requirements of C.R.C.P. 23 have been met, but may not resolve factual or legal disputes to screen out or prejudge the merits of the case. The Court extended this holding to expert disputes, such that a trial court may consider expert disputes in determining whether class certification is appropriate, but need not determine which expert will prevail at trial or whether an expert’s testimony ultimately will be admissible at trial.
The First Judicial District Nominating Commission will meet December 5, 2011, at the Jefferson County Combined Court to interview and select nominees for appointment by Governor Hickenlooper to the office of District Judge for the First Judicial District, which serves Gilpin and Jefferson counties. The vacancy will be created by the appointment of the Honorable Brian Boatright to the Colorado Supreme Court. The vacancy will occur on November 18.
Eligible applicants for appointment to fill the vacancy must be qualified electors of the First Judicial District and must have been admitted to the practice of law in Colorado for five years. Applications must be received by Thursday, November 17. The appointed district judge will serve an initial provisional term of two years before facing a retention election. Retained judges serve six-year terms.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.