Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘colorado rules of civil procedure’

Matt Masich of Law Week Colorado has a good article out today previewing oral arguments scheduled for tomorrow in four class-action related cases.  The outcome of these cases could have a dramatic effect on class action practice in the state. 

The issues to be considered include the proper standard for reviewing class certification, the burden of proof on class certificeation, the level of scrutiny to be given to expert testimony at the class certification stage, the extent to which a plaintiff must prove that all class members suffered injury to justify class treatment, and whether reliance and causation can be presumed in putative class actions seeking damages for fraud.

Here is the schedule of the oral arguments to be held tomorrow, March 1, 2011, in the four cases, along with the issues presented in each case:

9:00 a.m., State Farm v. Reyher, No. 10SC77 (see the Court of Appeals’ Opinion)

Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s denial of class certification under C.R.C.P. 23.

10:00 a.m., Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, No. 09SC1080 (see the Court of Appeals’ opinion)

Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s certification of a class.

1:30 p.m., BP America v. Patterson, No. 10SC214 (See the Court of Appeals’ opinion)

Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s certification of a class.

2:30 p.m., Jackson v. Unocal Corp., No. 09SC668 (See the Court of Appeals’ opinion)

1) Whether the court of appeals erred by creating a “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof in the certification of a class pursuant to C.R.C.P. 23.

2) Whether the court of appeals erred by requiring the trial court to assess the credibility of expert testimony at the class certification stage.

3) Whether the court of appeals’ construction of C.R.C.P. 23 improperly invaded the trial court’s case management discretion.

The oral argument in each case is scheduled for one hour.

Read Full Post »

For those of you who practice in the Colorado state courts, the CBA weekly newsletter had a snippet today about what constitutes official service through the e-filing system that you’ll want to pay attention to.  I suspect that similar rules applies in other states that have adopted an official e-filing system.  I have never had an issue with not receiving the “convenience” email notice, but this serves as a reminder to check your e-filing inbox periodically to make sure you don’t miss an important filing.

*** E-Filing: What qualifies as Official Service
Some confusion exists about Official E-Service through File & Serve – e-filing in the Colorado state court system. Many File & Serve subscribers rely on e-mail notifications to know that a document has been e-served upon them. Be aware: the e-mail notification feature does not constitute service and is provided by LexisNexis File & Serve solely as a convenience. It is the responsibility of the subscriber to regularly and proactively check the Online Inbox for E-Filed and E-Served documents. Read more details, including some tips, about The Area of Official Service on the CBA’s website.

Read Full Post »