Brumfeil v. U.S. Bank et al | Colorado Dist. Court - Rule 120 in foreclosure proceedings—is unconstitutional on due process grounds

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02716-WJM LISA KAY BRUMFIEL, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK, LARRY CASTLE, in his individual and corporate capacity, and CASTLE STAWIARSKI, LLC, ROBERT J. HOPP, in his and corporate and individual capacities, CYNTHIA MARES, Public Trustee in her official capacity, MERS, a division of MERSCorp, and DOES 1-100, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INTERIM PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

EXCERPT:

3. The Public Interest

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show the issuance of the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Heideman, 348 F.3d at 1188. Here, again, this factor weighs strongly in favor of Plaintiff. The Amended Complaint is detailed in its allegations, and brings into question the role of state action and the interface between public and private players in the foreclosure process. (ECF No. 45.) Indeed, the Court considers these issues to be of significant public interest. The question of whether Colo. Rev. Stat. 38-38-101—a state statute which impacts many thousands of Colorado residents given the role of Rule 120 in foreclosure proceedings—is unconstitutional on due process grounds is manifestly a matter that would be in the public interest to determine after careful and deliberate consideration. Thus, the factor weights heavily in Plaintiff’s favor and the Court finds that she has satisfied this prong of the test for the purposes of temporary injunctive relief.

[...]