🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

James R. Carrigan

United States District Court for the District of Colorado district Retired 1995 · served 1979–1995 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 18 signed orders read

Judge Carrigan no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Carrigan decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He independently evaluated out-of-circuit authority and declined to follow it when its reasoning conflicted with the governing regulatory text.

“After a close reading of Mendes, however, I am not persuaded by its reasoning and decline the invitation to follow its course.”

He favored the line of environmental cases preserving federal citizen suits in states with authorized hazardous-waste programs.

“After reviewing the cases, I conclude that the better reasoned position is that citizen suits can be brought under RCRA in states, such as Colorado, that have EPA authorized hazardous waste programs.”

He rejected a monopoly-leveraging instruction that did not require threatened or actual monopoly in the second market.

“a plaintiff asserting a monopoly leveraging claim must prove ‘threatened or actual monopoly in the leveraged market.’”

Procedural preferences

He construed service rules to preserve adjudication on the merits where a defendant had actual notice and obscured his whereabouts.

“The rules governing service of process are not designed to create an obstacle course for plaintiffs to navigate, or a cat-and-mouse game for defendants who are otherwise subject to the court’s jurisdiction.”

He treated a more-definite-statement motion as addressing unintelligibility, not merely a lack of factual detail.

“Rule 12(e) is ‘designed to *118strike at unintelligibility rather than want of detail.’”

He declined supplemental jurisdiction after the sole federal claim was resolved and state-law questions would predominate.

“Because only state law claims remain, state law issues would obviously predominate.”

Cautions

He criticized litigation tactics that concealed a correctable party-identification issue until the eve of trial.

“This is the very kind of litigation by technicality the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted to preclude.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Conway v. United States
· 1995-08-18
Summary judgment (plaintiff William Conway) Granted

“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted;”

Request for attorney fees (plaintiff William Conway) Denied

“Plaintiffs request for attorney fees is denied;”

Request for determination (plaintiff William Conway) Moot / procedural

“The court declines to rule on the plaintiffs request for a determination that any re-assessment of liability under § 6672 would be barred by § 6601 of the Code.”

Slater v. King Soopers, Inc.
· 1992-12-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant King Soopers) Granted

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted;”

Summary judgment (defendant King Soopers) Denied

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied;”

Berger v. Watrous & Ehlers, P.C. (In re Kirk E. Douglas, Inc.)
· 1994-07-19
Motion to reopen (bankruptcy trustee) Granted

“The trustee’s motion to reopen the above-captioned case is granted;”

Motion to withdraw reference (Watrous & Ehlers defendants) Granted in part

“motion for withdrawal of the reference will be granted, but only if, when the case is ready for trial, there remain issues as to which the parties have a right to trial by jury;”

Sierra Club v. Chemical Handling Corp.
· 1991-08-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant Chemical Handling Corporation) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is denied;”

Motions to strike (plaintiff Sierra Club) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied as moot;”

Spruce Oil Corp. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
· 1994-12-09
Motion for new trial (plaintiff Spruce Oil) Denied

“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Spruce’s motion for a new trial based on the court’s failure to instruct the jury on its monopoly leveraging theory is denied.”

Oja v. Howmedica, Inc.
· 1994-04-01
Motion for reconsideration (defendant Howmedica) Granted

“Howmedica’s motion for reconsideration is granted;”

Summary judgment (defendant Howmedica) Denied

“Upon reconsideration, Howmediea’s motion for summary judgment again is denied.”

Miles v. Martin Marietta Corp.
· 1994-08-15
Motion for partial summary judgment (defendant Martin Marietta) Granted

“Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted;”

Dunlap v. Schrader Oil Co.
· 1991-03-04
Summary judgment (defendant Schrader Oil) Granted

“As to the plaintiffs’ first claim, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted;”

Kirby v. Largo
· 1992-03-31
Summary judgment (defendant Richard Largo) Granted

“Defendant Richard Largo’s motion for summary judgment is granted;”

Echostar Satellite Corp. v. General Electric Co.
· 1992-08-26
Motion to stay pending arbitration (defendant General Electric) Granted

“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for stay of proceedings pending arbitration is granted.”

Wiley v. Supreme Court of Colorado
· 1992-08-31
Motions to dismiss (state-court defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted;”

Shih v. Commercial Ass'n for Security & Health
· 1992-12-29
Motion to dismiss state law claims (defendant Merrill Bostrom Associates) Granted

“Plaintiffs’ state law claims and those claims asserted on behalf of Sue E. Shih are dismissed.”

Motion to dismiss party claims (defendant Merrill Bostrom Associates) Granted
Motion to strike damages (defendant Merrill Bostrom Associates) Granted

“Plaintiffs’ requests for extra-contractual compensatory and punitive damages and for a jury trial are stricken;”

Motion to strike jury demand (defendant Merrill Bostrom Associates) Granted

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Among 20 enumerated archival cases filed from 1982 through July 1986, five involved securities, two environmental matters, two employment civil-rights claims, and two other personal-liability matters; the remaining case types appeared once each. This historical slice is not a career-wide caseload profile.

A historical record

Judge Carrigan no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.