Jones v. Auto Warehouse, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER: Defendant shall submit proposed jury instructions containing the elements it contends the plaintiff must establish to prove its claims and a more thorough statement of why it asserts the plaintiff's proposed instructions are improper, including citations to specific authority, on or before 12:00 NOON on MAY 2, 2013. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/29/13. (bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00712-BNB-KMT
JACOB JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTO WAREHOUSE, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff brings this action alleging violations of the Truth In Lending Act (15 U.S.C.
§1638(a)) and Reg. Z (12 C.F.R. 226.4) in connection with the purchase and financing of a used
automobile. In the Final Pretrial Order, the defendant withdrew all affirmative defenses, stating:
Defendant is withdrawing all of the Affirmative Defenses set forth
in its Answer and will attempt to demonstrate through Plaintiff and
Defendant’s witness Keegan Gleaton . . . that Plaintiff has failed to
meet his burden of proof under all three of his claims.
Final Pretrial Order [Doc. # 40] at p. 4.
By an Order [Doc. # 41] entered on January 29, 2013, I required that on or before April
1, 2013, the parties must do the following, among other things:
File and serve proposed jury instructions, verdict forms, and voir
dire questions. Prior to April 1, 2013, the parties shall confer in an
attempt to reach agreement on stipulated jury instructions and
verdict forms. Stipulated jury instructions and verdict forms shall
be so designated. Any jury instructions or verdict forms about
which the parties cannot agree shall be submitted as disputed. . . .
A citation of authority in support of each proposed jury instruction
must be contained at the bottom of each instruction.
Order [Doc. # 41] at ¶4. In addition, on or before April 15, 2013, the parties were required to

“[f]ile and serve objections to proposed jury instructions addressing the basis for each objection.
Id. at ¶6.
Plaintiff’s proposed jury instructions 11 through 25 contain the proposed instructions
concerning the elements the plaintiff asserts he must prove to establish his case. All of the
instructions are disputed by the defendant, although the defendant has failed to offer any
proposed instructions on those issues which it contends correctly state the law. Similarly, the
Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instructions [Doc. # 46] provides no
specifics as to the manner in which the plaintiff’s proposed instructions fail accurately to state
the law nor does it offer proposed instructions which the defendant contends are correct
statements of the law. Instead, and by way of example, the Objections state that “the instruction
is not supported by the case law cited by Plaintiff as a proper TILA instruction to be given to a
jury”; “the instruction does not accurately reflect the definition of ‘annual percentage rate’ and
the second and third sentences of the instruction will not be supported by the evidence in the
case given that the table published by the Federal Reserve Board will not be entered into
evidence”; and the like. The defendant’s conduct in this regard is contrary to the purpose of
submitting disputed jury instructions and objections to instructions proposed by the plaintiff. It
also provides no guidance as to the instructions which the defendant contends should be given.
IT IS ORDERED that on or before 12:00 noon on May 2, 2012, the defendant shall
submit proposed jury instructions containing the elements it contends the plaintiff must establish
to prove its claims and a more thorough statement of why it asserts the plaintiff’s proposed
instructions are improper, including citations to specific authority.

2

Dated April 29, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3