Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:17-cv-02853_de193> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02853_de193 RegisterActionDate "2019-05-15" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02853_de193 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER denying 189 Motion for Reconsideration. MOTION for Reconsideration re 182 Order on Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-90-805(4) applies to the internal affairs of an organization, and this lawsuit concerns an external dispute. Plaintiffs cite no authority to support its interpretation of the provision. The Court did not engage in a rigorous choice-of-law analysis in its most recent order [ECF No. 182] because neither party raised this issue previously in the various motions to dismiss and accompanying responses. See ECF Nos. 57, 85, 90, 98. Instead, both parties applied Colorado law in their economic loss rule analyses. Nonetheless, after reviewing the relevant factors detailed in Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 145, I am confident that Colorado, not Delaware, has the most significant relationship to the business dispute in this case. See AE, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 168 P.3d 507, 50910 (Colo. 2007) (noting that Colorado follows the most significant relationship test embodied in the Second Restatement). By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 5/15/19. Text Only Entry(rbjsec. ) (Entered: 05/15/2019)" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02853_de193 AdministrativeID "194" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02853_de193 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02853_de193 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-02853_de181 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-02853_de193 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-02853_de188 @default.