Maynard et al v. Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, The et al

Filing 17

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Philip A. Brimmer. Motion Hearing held on 9/8/2009. Denying 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Denying as Moot 14 Motion for TRO. (Court Reporter Janet Coppock) (pabcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO JUDGE PHILIP A. BRIMMER COURTROOM MINUTES Courtroom Deputy: Kathy Preuitt-Parks Court Reporter: Janet Coppock Date: September 8, 2009 Time: 5 hours and 49 minutes CASE NO. 09-cv-02052-PAB Parties ALLISON MAYNARD, and GERALD LEWIS, Plaintiff (s), vs. COLORADO SUPREME COURT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY REGIONAL COUNSEL, et al, Defendant (s). Maurice Knaizer James Coyle Counsel Pro Se Pro Se HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 9:07 a.m. COURT IN SESSION APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL for defendants. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc #2), filed 8/27/09. Page Two 09-cv-02052-PAB September 8, 2009 Discussion regarding Ms. Maynard's failure to comply with the Court's Practice Standards in submitting her witness and exhibit lists. Court will hear argument as to the applicability of Rooker-Feldman to plaintiffs' challenges of the 2007, 2008 and 2009 disciplinary matters. 9:16 a.m. 9:36 a.m. 9:38 a.m. Argument by Ms. Maynard. Questions by the Court. Statement by Mr. Lewis. Argument by Mr. Knaizer. Questions by the Court. Court states its findings and concludes under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court is prohibited from reviewing both claims decided by a state court and that the claims are inextricably intertwined with a prior state court judgment. Counsel and the plaintiffs waive opening statements. 9:54 a.m. Direct testimony of plaintiff Alison Maynard. Plaintiffs' exhibit 40 identified, offered and ADMITTED for purposes of these proceedings, over objection by Mr. Knaizer. Plaintiffs' exhibits 1 through 39 (inclusive) are offered and ADMITTED for purposes of these proceedings. 10:42 a.m. 11:02 a.m. COURT IN RECESS COURT IN SESSION Direct testimony of plaintiff Alison Maynard continues. Testimony regarding Plaintiffs' exhibit 13 which was admitted under seal. Mr. Knaizer expresses his concerns regarding the confidentiality of that exhibit and objects to it remaining under seal and its admission. Court will take the objection under advisement. 12:09 p.m. 1:14 p.m. COURT IN RECESS COURT IN SESSION Page Three 09-cv-02052-PAB September 8, 2009 Court concludes plaintiffs' exhibit 13 will remain under seal. Direct testimony of plaintiff Alison Maynard continues. 1:59 p.m. Cross examination by Mr. Knaizer. Defendants' exhibit A3 identified, offered and ADMITTED for purposes of these proceedings. Defendants exhibits A through Z, A1, A2 and A4 through A8 are offered. Objection by Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard is directed to review defendants' exhibits and which ones she objects to during the afternoon break. 2:55 a.m. 3:10 p.m. COURT IN RECESS COURT IN SESSION Court addresses Ms. Maynard's objections. ORDERED: Ms. Maynard's objection to the admission of Defendants' exhibit D is sustained. All other objections are overruled. Defendants' exhibits A through C, E through A2, A4 and A8 are ADMITTED for purposes of these proceedings. 3:15 p.m. 3:19 p.m. 3:35 p.m. 3:51 p.m. 4:06 p.m. 4:08 p.m. 4:49 p.m. Redirect testimony by the plaintiff Alison Maynard. Direct testimony by plaintiff Gerald Lewis. Mr. Knaizer orally motions the Court to deny plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and argues in support of that motion. Argument by Ms. Maynard. Comments by Mr. Lewis. COURT IN RECESS COURT IN SESSION Page Four 09-cv-02052-PAB September 8, 2009 Court states its findings and conclusions. ORDERED: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc #2), filed 8/27/09 is DENIED. ORDERED: Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc #14), filed 9/4/09 is DENIED as MOOT. 5:17 p.m. COURT IN RECESS 349 minutes Total in court time: Hearing concluded

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?