Case Resources

CO Supreme Court Image: Jeffrey Beall (Own work) [CC BY 3.0 (], via Wikimedia Commons

Community Rights Cases

Roske, Tamara et al. v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2014CV032637 (D. Ct. Denver County). Co-Counsel representing youth plaintiffs in District Court challenging the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s denial of the plaintiffs’ Petition for Rulemaking to place a state-wide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing permits until new rules are developed that meet the COGCC’s mandate to protect the public health, safety and the environment, including the atmosphere.  The District Court recently issued an Order denying the COGCC’s motion to dismiss the Complaint, and ruled that the case can now proceed to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act to determine if the agency’s denial of the plaintiff’s Petition for Rulemaking was lawful.

Case documents:  Roske Complaint with Attachments   /   2014-07-03 Exhibit A – Order of the Commission  /  2014-08-22 Exh. 4 Petition for Rulemaking   /  2014-07-03 Exh. B-part 1 – Health Impacts   /  2014-07-03 Exh. B-part 2- Health Impacts   /  2014-07-03 Exh. C- AG Opinion   /  2014-08-20 Motion to Dismiss   /   Roske Opp to MTD  /    ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS    /  2016-08-18-21-25-03-2016-08-18-opening-brief-final

Media:  Kids Take on COGCC   /  May 28, 2014 Denver Post: Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, 14,  Wants to Save the World   /  Our Children’s Trust: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Denies Young People the Right to a Healthy Future  /  Our Children’s Trust: Colorado Legal Update

Protect Our Loveland, Inc. v. City of Loveland, et al.,   2013CV31071 (D. Ct. Larimer County). Co-Counsel with the University of Denver Environmental Law Clinic (“ELC”) in defending Protect Our Loveland’s petition initiative for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.  After the City Clerk issued a Finding of Petition Sufficiency, Protect Our Loveland filed a Writ of Mandamus and Complaint,  against the City and the City Council of Loveland, to compel the City Council to place the petition initiative on the ballot, which the City Council refused to do.  There was also a Protest to the Finding of Petition Sufficiency filed, and Protect Our Loveland filed a motion to interven in that case to defend the City Clerk’s Finding.  The cases were consolidated.   After six months of legal proceedings, the Court upheld the City Clerk’s finding of petition sufficiency and ordered the City to place the measure on a special election ballot, held June 24, 2014.

Case Documents:    2013-09-26 Writ and Complaint   /   2013-09-30 13-38-11 POL-Mot for PI- FINAL   /  2013-10-28 23-03-00 POL_PI Reply to City’s Response_FINAL  /   Order Regarding Issues Pending in Consolidated Cases 13CV31071 and 13CV31142  /  Sharon Carlisle Affidavit in Support of Preliminary Injunction with Exhibits   /   13.09.03 – Sarner Complaint  /   POL Mot to Intervene_FINAL  /   2013-12-03 22-51-09 POL Answer Brief_Final   /   2014-03-14 POL- Response Brief on Final Determination of Petition Sufficiency    /   Findings and Order  /

Media:    Oct. 1, 2013 Loveland Reporter-Herald: Protect Our Loveland Files Lawsuit Against City to Get Fracking Measure on Ballot  /  Oct. 29 Loveland Reporter-Herald:  Protect Our Loveland Files Reply to City’s Response on Fracking Moratorium   /  Feb. 12, 2014 Reporter-Herald: Judge Upholds Loveland Fracking Petition /   June 13, 2014 As Special Election Looms Loveland’s Fracking Moratorium Debate Heats Up  June 24, 2014 Reporter-Herald: Loveland Fracking Moratorium Falls By 52-48 Margin

Our Broomfield v. City and County of Broomfield, Colorado, 2013CV030221 (D. Ct. Broomfield County). Co-Counsel with the University of Denver Environmental Las Clinic in defending Our Broomfield’s petition initiative for a 5 year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. Our Broomfield filed a challenge to the Broomfield City Council’s improper ballot title language.   As the result of a mediation on the eve of a summary trial proceeding, the ballot title language was changed to better reflect the intent of the petition. The ballot measure passed by 20 votes.  The election result was upheld by the District Court after a legal challenge.

Case Documents:   Our Broomfield Ballot Title Protest Letter_08.16.13-1   /   Petition for Review of Ballot Title_Final-Signed  /  2013-08-29 16-05-25 OB_Resp to Mot to Dismiss_FINAL  /  2013-09-03 11-50-57 OB_Trial Brief_Final   /  Order_ Order Setting Ballot Title  /

Media: Sept. 5, 2013 Broomfield Enterprise: Sides Agree on Ballot Language for Broomfield Fracking Ban  /  Sept. 14, 2013: Our Broomfield and Broomfield City Council Reach Agreement on Ballot Title Language  /  Feb. 27, 2014 Broomfield Enterprise: Judge Upholds Broomfield Election – Fracking Ban Remains in Effect

Partial List of Civil Rights Cases Dan Leftwich Has Litigated As Lead Counsel or Co-Counsel:

Monopoly Power / Unfair Competition Cases

Morelock Enterprises, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Company (D. Or.) (Panner, J.).  Co-Lead Trial Counsel. Berry & Leftwich represented a class of direct purchasers of alder lumber alleging Weyerhaeuser’s monopolization of the alder sawlog market had allowed it to raise prices for alder lumber above competitive levels.  After a nine-day trial, the jury found Weyerhaeuser monopolized the market for finished alder lumber and awarded the business class nearly $28 million (trebled to nearly $84 million).   Appeal resolved by settlement in 2009.

Case Documents:  Class Cert Grant   /  Trial Brief Corrected Filed 2-12-08   /

Bradburn Parent Teacher Store, Inc., et al. v. 3M Company (E.D. Pa.) (Padova, J.), Co-Lead Trial Counsel. Berry & Leftwich represented a class of businesses alleging that 3M had unlawfully maintained a monopoly over the sale of transparent tape in the United States.   Settlement of the matter was reached through mediation, less than thirty days before trial. The businesses in the class received approximately $40 million in damages, which has been distributed to the class.

Case Documents:   Bradburn-3M SJ Reply Brief   /

Lingo et al. v. Microsoft Corp. (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco) (Alvarado, J.). Co-Trial Counsel. Berry & Leftwich filed the first action for damages against Microsoft under California’s unfair competition and antitrust laws, alleging monopolization of markets in California for operating system and office suite software and overcharges of more than $3 billion. Less than one month before trial, a mediated settlement was reached, awarding nearly 13 million California businesses and consumers $1.1 billion in award credits for the purchase of computer hardware or software from any vendor, including Microsoft’s rivals. Unclaimed settlement funds were paid to the California Department of Education to benefit poor schools.

Case Documents:  MS Settlement Motion   /





© Copyright Mind Drive Legal Services - Theme by Pexeto