Case Activity (35509)

1. Order | Filed: September 23, 2026 | Entered: September 23, 2026 Bell v. Citadel Mall Realty, LLC et al

   P.I.: Other | Colorado

   Order on Motion to Strike

   MINUTE ORDER: Previously, the Court partially granted Plaintiff's 174 Motion to Strike Defendants' Untimely Designation of Nonparties at Fault ("Motion to Strike") as to the originally named Defendants. As to the newly named Defendants, the Court held the motion in abeyance. (See ECF 196 .) Thereafter, the parties submitted the 199 Joint Dispute Statement to provide the Court with additional information. Plaintiff has offered no persuasive basis for striking the newly named Namco Defendants nonparty at fault designation. Accordingly, the remaining portion of the 174 Motion to Strike is DENIED, and the nonparty at fault designation at ECF 173 shall remain as to the newly named Namco Realty Defendants. For avoidance of all doubt, nothing in this Order shall be construed as permitting a broad nonparty at fault designation that inures to the benefit of all Defendants. The parties are ORDERED to include in their proposed final pretrial order, a proposal for how trial procedures, jury instructions, motions in limine, and/or other devices may be used to ensure the nonparty at fault designation remains limited in scope. It will be for the presiding judge to decide how that will occur at trial. Moreover, the Court notes that its 197 Recommendation recommends "that the presiding judge issue sanctions in the form of evidence preclusion, adverse inference(s), and/or other non-monetary sanctions, to be determined ahead of, during, or after trial, as he sees fit." (See ECF 197 at 16.) If the presiding judge accepts that recommendation, he may determine that a further limitation, or an altogether striking, of the remaining nonparty at fault designation is an appropriate sanction, given the relationship between the parties and the overlap in principals and counsel. Thus, the Court's partial denial of the 174 Motion to Strike is without prejudice and nothing in this Order is intended to disturb this Courts prior recommendation or the presiding judge's discretion to fashion an appropriate sanction. By Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell on 9/23/2026. Text Only Entry(mdblc1)

2. Response | Filed: September 23, 2026 | Entered: September 23, 2026 Pulte Homes of New Mexico, Inc. et al v. Cincinnati Insurance Company et al

   Insurance | New Mexico

   Response (when not to a motion)

   Defendant Hudson Insurance Company RESPONSE re 90 Order to Show Cause filed by Hudson Insurance Company. (Santos, Alicia)

3. 35507 additional result(s)