The following are court filings in order of newest to oldest. Refer to dates at beginning of each pdf. file. Many motions include a summary of previous actions and submissions by attorneys for each side. At the bottom of the list are the AG Ken Salazar’s 2004 Formal Opinion referenced in the filings and relevant parts of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions (contract clauses).
- 2012-05-16 PERA DEFENDANTS ANSWER BRIEF
- 2012-05-16 State Defendants’ Answer Brief
- 2012 02-17 PERA AND STATE DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
- 2011-12-20 APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF
- 2011-07-25 Notice of Appeal
- 2011-06-29 JUDGE HYATT PERA 6.29.11.dismissal
- 2011-06-29 Swanson v. PERA.ord&mem.opinion.dismissing
- 2011-06-20 Case No- 2010CV1589 Justus et al v. St of Colo et al
- 2011-05-13 STATE DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
- 2011-05-06 PERA DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
- 2011-05-06Exhibits 1-3 to PERA’s Motion
- 2011-04-01 RESPONSE TO PERA DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PERA’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
- 2011-04-01 Affidavit of Gary Justus
- 2011-03-18 PERA DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
- 2011-03-11 MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO PERA’S FIRST REQUEST
- 2011-02-25 SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO SAVEPERACOLA
- 2011-02-23 Plaintiffs Revised Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint etc.
- 2010-12-13 State’s Joinder in PERA’s Motion for Extension to Respond to P’s Partial MSJ[1]
- 2010-12-13 PERA’s Motion for Extension to Respond to P’s Partial MSJ[1]
- 2010-12-06 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Modified Case Mgt Order[1]
- 2010-11-23 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
- 2010-11-23 Exhibits 1-9
- 2010-11-23 Exhibits 10-11
- 2010-09-14 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
- 2010-07-08 PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
- 2010-07-08 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
- 2010-06-23 State Defs Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss[1]
- 2010-06-23 PERA Defs Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss[1]
- 2010-05-28 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FINAL)[1]
- 2010-05-10 PERA DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
- 2010-05-10 STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
- PERA’s letter to Retirees – March 1, 2010
- Attorney General Ken Salazar’s Formal Opinion #04-4
- Colorado & U.S. Constitutions
- They Said It! Quotes about PERA COLA
There is nothing here since 12-13-2010. The Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne web case info page has not been updated since 11-2010. Where are we right now and what is the expected timeline?
What other employee groups in other states have been solicited for support in this lawsuit. Clearly if Colorado prevails other states too will make retirement revisions adversely affecting not just future retirees but those already retired. Colorado merely took the lead in taking back already earned benefits, one of which was the COLA.
If Colorado prevails in making SB1 stick it means all state and local government retirees nationwide lose and become at the mercy of their state. Without the COLA my benefit after 19 years retired which started out at 50% would have shrunk to much less than 25% of the current wage, while with the inflation adjustment it is now 40% and falling.