Lawsuits

Cherry Creek Mortgage chairman resigned, policy changes made after same-sex benefits lawsuit filed

DENVER – Not only did Cherry Creek Mortgage change its policy on benefits for same-sex couples a day after a lawsuit claimed the company had been denying a California couple coverage—the Greenwood Village-based company’s chairman resigned from the company and its board of directors.

Denver7 reported on the federal lawsuit filed by Judith Dominguez and Patricia Martinez, who sued the company and claimed they were denied health care benefits because they are a lesbian couple, last Thursday. Continue reading

Battle of the Burgers: Denver-based Smashburger sued by In-N-Out over ‘Triple Double’

DENVER – In-N-Out Burger is suing Denver-based Smashburger for copyright infringement and other trademark-related claims over its use of the term “Triple Double” to describe and advertise one of its cheeseburgers.

The California-based burger chain filed the claim Monday in U.S. Central District Court of California.

In the lawsuit, In-N-Out claims that Smashburger knowingly started using the moniker for its new burger in July despite opposition being raised by In-N-Out about trademark filings made by Smashburger late last year.

In-N-Out has long-existing national and state of California trademarks on the “Double-Double, Triple Triple, and Quad Quad” burgers, and some similar trademarks like “2 x 2” and “3 x 3”.

The chain claims that Smashburger—which was founded in 2007 and has since opened more than 300 franchises nationwide, including 36 in California—is actively harming In-N-Out’s reputation by selling the “Triple Double” burger and “diluting” In-N-Out’s trademarks.

In-N-Out has a “Not-So-Secret Menu” that customers can use to customize their burgers and which can, according to the lawsuit, result in “Triple Double” or “3 x 2” orders.

In-N-Out claims that after Smashburger filed its trademark claims for its burger late last year, In-N-Out filed a notice of opposition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in June 2.

But after that, according to the suit, Smashburger then started using the “Triple Double” term.

“In-N-Out is informed and believes…that Smashburger…chose to adopt and use the Triple Double and Smashburger Triple Double marks to trade on the goodwill associated with In-N-Out’s Registered Marks,” the lawsuit says.

It goes on to say that by using the “Triple Double” moniker, Smashburger “creates a likelihood of consumer confusion because actual and prospective customers are likely to believe that In-N-Out has approved or licensed Smashburger’s use of its marks, or that In-N-Out is somehow affiliated or connected with Smasburger or its services.”

Smasburger’s use of In-N-Out’s famous trademarks implies that the quality of the goods and services offered by Smashburger is the same as that of In-N-Out,” it says.

The lawsuit claims that Smashburger’s use of “Triple Double” causes In-N-Out’s customers “confusion, mistake or deception” and that it has suffered damages and “irreparable injuries to its reputation and goodwill.”

Among the claims In-N-Out makes, it says that Smashburger has intentionally created unfair competition contrary to California law:

“The actions of Smashburger…were taken with substantial certainty that such acts would cause harm to In-N-Out, in conscious disregard for the rights of In-N-Out and by conduct that was done with malice and ill-will and intent to harm In-N-Out, such as to constitute oppression, fraud, malice, and despicable conduct…entitling In-N-Out to exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Smashburger.”

In-N-Out asks the federal judge to permanently enjoin Smasburger from using either of its “Triple Double” terms, as well as issue preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Smashburger’s use of the terms.

Among other things, In-N-Out is also seeking compensatory damages, and treble damages—which could triple the amount of compensatory damages awarded in the case, if there are any.

A Smashburger spokeswoman sent the following statement Tuesday afternoon:

Smashburger’s new Triple Double Burger, launched in June, was developed to celebrate the chain’s 10-year anniversary.

“We wanted to create the best cheeseburger for the next generation of burger lovers. With two Smashburger patties and three layers of melted cheese, we named it the Smashburger Triple Double, which has really resonated with consumers,” said Smashburger Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Tom Ryan.

“Frankly, we are flattered by the attention In-N-Out has given our Smashburger Triple Double. To date, Smashburger’s Triple Double is posting double-digit traffic and sales increases for the 10-year-old Smashburger brand. The Triple Double burger is clearly popular with our customers and is not comparable to any In-N-Out menu offering,” added Ryan.

“We invite all burger lovers to taste the Smashburger Triple Double and decide for themselves.”

CDOT selects Kiewit Meridiam Partners to oversee $1.2B Central 70 highway construction project

DENVER – Kiewit Meridiam Partners has been selected to lead the development and reconstruction of much of I-70 in the Denver area that will be the largest infrastructure development in Colorado Department of Transportation history.

CDOT says that KMP was selected because its proposal came in on-budget and could cut 6 months off of construction, which is expected to take around 4 years to complete under the KMP proposed schedule. The project is expected to cost around $1.2 billion. Continue reading

Colorado-based Cherry Creek Mortgage sued by same-sex couple over alleged health benefit denials

DENVER – Colorado-based Cherry Creek Mortgage faces a federal discrimination lawsuit filed by a California couple who say they were denied health benefits by the company because of their same-sex marriage—one of them who was just a year out from suffering two heart attacks.

Judith Dominguez, 59, and her wife, 55-year-old Patricia Martinez, filed the suit against Cherry Creek Mortgage Company and two health insurance companies it used—UnitedHealth Group and UnitedHealthcare Services—last week in U.S. District Court of Central California. Continue reading

Ex-DJ David Mueller on Taylor Swift groping: ‘I didn’t do what they say I did’

DENVER – A day after a federal jury in Denver found he had assaulted and battered pop star Taylor Swift when he groped her before a 2013 concert, former KYGO DJ David Mueller maintained that he never touched Swift’s rear end.

“What I’m saying is that I didn’t do what they say I did,” Mueller told ABC’s Good Morning America. “I didn’t do it. I never grabbed her. I never had my hand under her skirt, and I can pass a polygraph.”


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Mueller spoke exclusively to Clayton Sandell of ABC News after the trial, in which he also lost out on a claim that he was wrongfully fired because Swift’s mother, Andrea, and manager Frank Bell forced his general manager at KYGO to fire him over the allegations.

By the end of the six-day trial, which started early last week, Mueller was seeking a couple hundred thousand dollars—the remainder of his contract and endorsements at KYGO after his firing.

The U.S. District Court of Colorado judge presiding over the case, William J. Martinez, had tossed four other claims against Andrea Swift and Bell, and had thrown out all claims against the singer herself.

But Swift’s counterclaim against Mueller, in which she alleged he assaulted and battered her when he allegedly groped her during the photo shoot ahead of the June 2, 2013 concert, persisted and went to the jury. Swift sought only $1 in nominal damages in her counterclaim; her attorney said that was because she simply wanted Mueller to be held accountable for his actions.

Still Tuesday, however, Mueller denied ever touching her inappropriately.

“I wasn’t ready. I wasn’t invited to be in the photo, so I just moved into the shot the best I could,” he told ABC’s Sandell.

Mueller also told ABC that he had sought “something in writing” from Swift’s team “which stated there was a misunderstanding.” He said such a note would have helped “possibly convince someone to hire” him.

He also said he was “maybe” thinking about filing an appeal in the case—something that ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams scoffed at.

“He’d be crazy to appeal. Not because he doesn’t have a shot, but because this is a civil case about money. This isn’t a criminal case,” Abrams said. “In a civil case about money you have to decide how much is it going to cost me to appeal. An appeal would be very expensive and the chances of him winning an appeal are very, very small.”

Mueller’s attorney in the case, M. Gabriel McFarland, didn’t mention an appeal when he sent a statement to Denver7 late Monday.

“I’m disappointed for Mr. Mueller, but I respect the jury’s decision,” McFarland said.

In a statement Monday, Swift thanked her supporters, Judge Martinez and team of attorneys for “fighting for” her.

“I want to thank Judge William J. Martinez and the jury for their careful consideration, my attorneys Doug Baldridge, Danielle Foley, Jay Schaudies and Katie Wright for fighting for me and anyone who feels silenced by a sexual assault, and especially anyone who offered their support throughout this four-year ordeal and two-year long trial process,” she said.

She also said she’d be making donations “in the near future” to organizations “that help sexual assault victims defend themselves.”

“My hope is to help those whose voices should also be heard,” Swift said.

Want to read back through all of our coverage of the case? Click on the headlines below:

Jury finds Taylor Swift was assaulted and battered by former Denver DJ, awards her $1

DENVER – A federal jury in Denver on Monday found that Taylor Swift was assaulted and battered by former Denver DJ David Mueller when he groped her at a photo-shoot ahead of a June 2013 concert, and found that Andrea Swift and Frank Bell did not interfere with Mueller’s employment.

The jury also awarded Swift the $1 she had sought in her counterclaim in the suit. Mueller was awarded nothing because the jury found against him. Continue reading

Taylor Swift groping trial goes to jury after impassioned closing arguments

UPDATE: The jury found that David Mueller assaulted and battered Taylor Swift when he grabbed her rear end during a photo shoot before a 2013 concert in Denver, and awarded her the $1 she was seeking. The jury ruled that Andrea Swift and Frank Bell weren’t responsible for Mueller’s firing. Read the story here.

—-

DENVER – A federal jury in Denver is now deciding whether a former Denver radio DJ groped Taylor Swift at a photo-shoot before a June 2013 concert, and whether Swift’s mother and manager influenced the decision by the DJ’s company to fire him because of the allegations. Continue reading

Taylor Swift groping case: Live updates from Day 6 in Denver federal court

DENVER – A federal jury in Denver on Monday found that Taylor Swift was assaulted and battered by former Denver DJ David Mueller when he groped her at a photo-shoot ahead of a June 2013 concert, and found that Andrea Swift and Frank Bell did not interfere with Mueller’s employment.

The jury’s decision came after about 4 1/2 hours of deliberations, which followed closing arguments made Monday morning. Continue reading

Claims against Taylor Swift dismissed in trial, but some proceed against mom and manager

DENVER – A judge in federal court in Denver on Friday dismissed all claims a former radio DJ accused of groping Taylor Swift made against her, but one of the claims still stands against her mother and her manager. A counterclaim she filed against the former DJ, David Mueller, will also go to the jury.

Judge William J. Martinez ordered the jury in the trial back to court at the U.S. District Court of Colorado Monday at 9:30 a.m. for further instructions, and the closing statements will be made afterward. Continue reading