Tag Archives: CRS 13-17-201

Bristol Bay Productions, f/k/a Crusader Entertainment v. Peter Lampack; The Peter Lampack Agency; Simon & Schuster; and Penguin Group USA, 2013CO60 (October 21, 2013)

“The fox chases the rabbit around the tree and down the hole. That’s how the tie works buddy.” Dirk Pitt – Sahara. Plaintiff Bristol Bay (BB) produced Sahara, based on a Clive Cussler novel. Cussler told BB he had sold over 100 million books; actually it was 40 million. The movie failed and BB lost around $50 million. BB sued Cussler in California for fraudulent inducement. A CA jury found that BB’s damages were not caused by Cussler’s lie. BB then sued different defendants – Cussler’s agents – in Colorado for the same exact claim. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were precluded by the CA action and won. The Court agreed because the identity of the defendant is irrelevant to whether plaintiff’s reliance caused damages. But, the trial court should have converted the CRCP 12 motion to CRCP 56 because preclusion was an affirmative defense based on matters outside the pleadings.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2013/89BC44OCT.21.13.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9110&courtid=2

Leave a comment

Filed under Torts

Brandon Coats v. Dish Network LLC, 2013COA62 (April 25, 2013)

Despite rumors to the contrary, the use of medical marijuana is not a “lawful activity” under Colorado law; at least not under CRS 24-34-402.5, the Lawful Activities Statute protecting employees from termination for off-the-job activities. Plaintiff, a quadriplegic, is licensed to use medical marijuana. Defendant fired plaintiff after he tested positive for marijuana, which was a violation of its drug policy. The court of appeals, applying the ordinary meaning of “lawful activity” as used in section 24-34-402.5, held plaintiff’s medical marijuana use, unlawful under federal law, was not “lawful.” Although defendant defeated plaintiff’s claim, it was not entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to CRS 13-17-201, mandating fee awards, because the claim was not a “tort.” First, it is not an invasion of privacy tort and second, it lacks the general characteristics of a tort.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2013/12CA0595%20&%2012CA1704-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8922&courtid=1

CERTIORARI GRANTED

2 Comments

Filed under Appellate Review Challenged