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

Richard Paul Matsch

United States District Court for the District of Colorado district Retired 2019 · served 1974–2019 Appointed by Richard Nixon (Republican) 13 signed orders read

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

How Judge Matsch decides

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

What persuades

He denied summary judgment when liability depended on a fact-intensive examination of the parties' conduct and knowledge.

“This is a fact-intensive inquiry, not appropriate for determination on the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”

He preserved the distinction between direct fidelity losses and third-party liability when construing commercial crime coverage.

“The Plaintiffs proposed construction would eliminate the distinction between a direct loss and an indirect loss and would transform the policy into a liability policy.”

He invalidated a state ballot restriction that added qualifications beyond those stated in the Constitution.

“Colorado has by its statutes significantly limited the selection of congressional candidates by adding qualifications which effectively interfere with the right of voters to select their national representatives.”

Procedural preferences

He treated a church school's use of an existing church building as closely connected to the congregation's religious exercise.

“The conduct of a school within the church building is integrally related to the religious belief of the church membership.”

He imposed practical limits on post-trial document searches where the defense could not connect the requested material to a probable change in the result.

“There are reasonable limits to the search for possible leads to evidence and the defense requests exceed those limits.”

He relied on cross-examination and jury instructions to test testimony obtained through authorized cooperation agreements.

“the veracity of witnesses and their testimony is determined by a properly instructed jury after being tested by cross-examination.”

Cautions

He treated federal transportation law as limiting an interstate carrier's liability to predictable statutory damages.

“The purpose of the Carmack Amendment is to enable interstate carriers to assess their risks and predict their potential liability for damages.”

Signed rulings

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

Qwest Communications International, Inc. v. QBE Corporate Ltd.
· 2011-11-04
Summary judgment (defendant insurers) Granted

“ORDERED, that judgment will enter for the defendants, dismissing this civil action and awarding costs.”

Grace Church of Roaring Fork Valley v. Board of County Commissioners
· 2010-09-20
Summary judgment (Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission) Granted

“ORDERED that Defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Basalt’s renewed motion pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56 for summary judgment is granted”

Motion for summary judgment and to dismiss (Pitkin County) Granted

“FURTHER ORDERED that Pitkin County’s combined motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and motion to dismiss, in part, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) is granted”

Beidleman v. Random House, Inc.
· 2008-12-22
Summary judgment (defendant Random House) Denied

“ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied”

Motion for oral argument (plaintiff) Denied

“FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for Oral Argument [Doc. 28] is denied.”

Kaiser v. Bowlen
· 2002-01-09
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted in part

“ORDERED that the first claim for relief is dismissed and the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second, third, fourth and fifth claims for relief is denied.”

United States v. Nichols
· 2001-02-27
Motion to vacate sentence under 2255 (defendant Terry Nichols) Denied

“ORDERED that the motion to vacate sentence is denied and this civil action is dismissed.”

United States v. Nichols
· 1999-09-13
Motion for new trial (defendant Terry Nichols) Denied

“ORDERED that the motion for new trial is DENIED.”

Campbell v. Buckley
· 1999-05-03
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted

“ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted;”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

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

Request for injunction (plaintiffs) Denied

“FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs request for an injunction ordering the Secretary of State for the State of Colorado to place his name on the ballot as a candidate for the United States House of Representatives for the Second Congressional District of Colorado for the November 2000 election is denied;”

United States v. Dunlap
· 1998-08-12
Motion to suppress witness testimony (defendants) Denied

“ORDERED that the motions to suppress are denied.”

Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora
· 1996-07-23
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“ORDERED that to the extent that the Ordinance requires relocation of the plaintiffs business, it is a violation of the plaintiffs freedom of expression protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

United States v. Thibault
· 1995-06-13
Motion to vacate sentence under 2255 (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that the defendant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied and this civil action is dismissed.”

Alpine Christian Fellowship v. County Commissioners
· 1994-09-06
Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief is granted.”

Caveny v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
· 1992-11-30
Summary judgment (defendant CIBA-GEIGY) Granted

“ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted and a judgment of dismissal of this action will enter.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Among 20 enumerated late-tenure cases, seven involved insurance, four personal injury, two employment, two contract, two personal-property disputes, and one each involved real property, habeas, and labor-management relations. This limited 2018-2019 slice is not a career-wide caseload profile.

A historical record

Judge Matsch 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.