throbber
Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
`
`No. 20-1454
`
`JENNIFER ANN SMITH, a citizen and
`taxpayer of the State of Colorado,
`LIGGETT GROUP LLC, VECTOR
`TOBACCO INC., and XCALIBER
`INTERNATIONAL LTD., LLC,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
` v.
`STATE OF COLORADO, by and through
`JARED S. POLIS, in his official capacity
`as Governor of Colorado, PHILIP J.
`WEISER, in his official capacity as
`Attorney General of Colorado, and HEIDI
`HUMPHREYS, in her official capacity as
`Interim Executive Director of the Colorado
`Department of Revenue,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`For the District of Colorado
`The Honorable Raymond P. Moore, District Court Judge
`D.C. No. 1:20-cv-03107-RM-KLM
`MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL
`Maria Gorecki
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`1400 16th Street, Suite 400
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`720.932.8303
`
`Marc E. Kasowitz
`Paul J. Burgo
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`1633 Broadway
`New York, New York 10019
`212.506.1700
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 2
`
`Jon Anderson
`MAVEN LAW GROUP
`1800 Glenarm Place, Suite 950
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`303.218.7141
`Attorneys for Jennifer Ann Smith,
`Liggett Group LLC, Vector Tobacco,
`Inc., and Xcaliber International Ltd.,
`LLC
`
`E. Job Seese (admission pending)
`Katarzyna A. Parecki (admission
`pending)
`HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK,
`GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C.
`1600 Stout Street, Suite 1100
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`720.512.5820
`
`Attorneys for Xcaliber International
`Ltd., LLC
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 3
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, counsel for
`
`Appellants state the following:
`
`Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc. are wholly-owned subsidiaries
`
`of VGR Holding LLC, with the ultimate parent of these entities being Vector
`
`Group Ltd, which is a publicly traded company.
`
`Xcaliber International Ltd., LLC has no parent corporations, and no publicly
`
`held corporation owns more than 10% of it.
`
`s/ Maria Gorecki
`Maria Gorecki
`
`
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`Jennifer Ann Smith, Liggett Group
`LLC, Vector Tobacco, Inc., and
`Xcaliber International Ltd., LLC
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 4
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellants Jennifer Ann Smith (“Smith”) and Liggett Group LLC,
`
`Vector Tobacco Inc., and Xcaliber International Ltd., LLC (together, the
`
`“Manufacturers”) move pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 2 and 27
`
`and 10th Circuit Rule 2.1 for expedited briefing, oral argument, and consideration
`
`of the merits of this appeal.
`
`Upon conferral under 10th Circuit Rule 27.1, counsel for Defendants-
`
`Appellees State of Colorado, by and through Jared S. Polis, in his official capacity
`
`as Governor of Colorado, Philip J. Weiser, in his official capacity as Attorney
`
`General of Colorado, and Heidi Humphreys, in her official capacity as Interim
`
`Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Revenue, (collectively, the
`
`“State”) state that they oppose this appeal and any attempt to expedite it.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Smith, a Colorado citizen and voter, and Liggett Group LLC, Vector
`
`Tobacco Inc., and Xcaliber International Ltd., LLC, three discount cigarette
`
`manufacturers located outside Colorado, have appealed from the December 28,
`
`2020 order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denying their
`
`motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the State of Colorado from
`
`implementing and enforcing a recently enacted statutory provision.
`
`Colorado House Bill 20-1427 (the “Bill” or “Proposition EE”), a bill
`
`increasing taxes on cigarettes sold in Colorado, was put on the November 2020
`
`1
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 5
`
`ballot for Colorado voters as Proposition EE. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Bill, for
`
`the first time in Colorado history, Colorado will set a minimum retail price for
`
`cigarettes sold in the state.
`
`Smith and the Manufacturers brought this action in the U.S. District Court
`
`for the District of Colorado on October 15, 2020, seeking declaratory and
`
`injunctive relief on the grounds that enforcement of Section 10 would violate the
`
`Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by unduly burdening interstate
`
`commerce and favoring Colorado in-state economic interests over out-of-state
`
`discount manufacturers. (Compl., Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 1; Am. Compl., Dist. Ct. Dkt.
`
`No. 11.)
`
`On November 3, 2020, Colorado voters approved Proposition EE. (See
`
`Order, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 73, at 1.) On November 18, 2020, Smith and the
`
`Manufacturers moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the State from
`
`implementing and enforcing Section 10. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 13.)
`
`The District Court expedited briefing and, on December 21, 2020, held a
`
`preliminary injunction hearing. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 19.)
`
`Smith and the Manufacturers offered evidence that unless enforcement of
`
`Section 10 were enjoined, the Manufacturers would lose millions of dollars of
`
`annual sales and profits of their discount cigarettes in Colorado, as well as
`
`customers, market share, and good will it took them years to establish, and Smith
`
`2
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 6
`
`would be forced to pay nearly double for cigarettes she purchases in Colorado, all
`
`of which they would be unable to recover even if they ultimately prevail in their
`
`lawsuit. (See, e.g., Dist. Ct. Dkt. Nos. 13-1, 13-2, 13-3.) The State did not contest
`
`the irreparable harm to Smith and the Manufacturers, for purposes of the
`
`preliminary injunction motion. (See Order, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 73, at 5.)
`
`On December 28, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
`
`(Hon. Raymond Moore) denied Smith and the Manufacturers’ motion for a
`
`preliminary injunction. (See Order, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 73.) The District Court
`
`assumed the irreparable harm requirement had been met because defendants did
`
`not challenge that the Manufacturers will suffer irreparable harm should an
`
`injunction not enter, but found that the Manufacturers failed to establish likelihood
`
`of success on the merits of their claim that Section 10 violates the Commerce
`
`Clause. (See id.)
`
`On December 31, 2020, Smith and the Manufacturers filed a Notice of
`
`Appeal. Their opening brief will show that the District Court made erroneous legal
`
`conclusions and otherwise abused its discretion in denying their motion for a
`
`preliminary injunction.
`
`Smith and the Manufacturers showed in the District Court – and the State
`
`did not contest – that the injury to Smith and the Manufacturers will be immediate
`
`and irreparable once Section 10 takes effect. Smith and the Manufacturers seek to
`
`3
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 7
`
`expedite their appeal because every day that passes after January 1, 2021, their
`
`undisputed irreparable harm will grow.
`
`Subject to the Court’s availability to hold oral argument, Smith and the
`
`Manufacturers respectfully move the Court to adopt the following expedited
`
`schedule in this case:
`
`Appellants’ opening brief:
`Joint appendix:
`
`Appellees’ brief:
`
`Appellants’ reply brief:
`Oral argument:
`
`
`
`
`January 11, 2021
`January 11, 2021
`January 25, 2021
`January 29, 2021
`As soon as Appellants may be heard
`
`ARGUMENT
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and Tenth Circuit Rule
`
`2.1, this Court has discretion to expedite an appeal, discretion it has exercised
`
`numerous times to expedite appeals that review the grant or denial of a preliminary
`
`injunction. See, e.g., S. Wind Women’s Ctr. LLC v. Stitt, 808 Fed. Appx. 677 (10th
`
`Cir. 2020) (expedited appeal of district court order granting temporary restraining
`
`order); Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013) (en
`
`banc) (expedited appeal of denial of preliminary injunction, in light of impending
`
`deadline to comply with Affordable Care Act); Salt Lake Tribune Publ’g Co. v.
`
`AT&T Corp., 320 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir. 2003) (expedited appeal of denial of
`
`preliminary injunction); Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Nos.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 8
`
`01-4216, 01-4217, 01-4220, 2001 WL 1739458 (10th Cir. Nov. 16, 2001)
`
`(expediting appeals to minimize damage caused by an injunction pending appeal).
`
`Here, good cause exists to expedite Smith and the Manufacturers’ appeal
`
`because it is uncontroverted that they will suffer immediate and irreparable harm
`
`once Section 10 takes effect on January 1, 2021. Expediting the appeal on the
`
`schedule Smith and the Manufacturers propose would shorten the State’s time to
`
`file its brief from 30 days after Appellants’ Brief is filed to 14 days. However, this
`
`interlocutory appeal focuses on the narrow issue of whether Smith and the
`
`Manufacturers are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Section 10
`
`violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which the State
`
`already briefed in the District Court below. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 40.)
`
`To ensure prompt resolution of this narrow issue and to prevent the
`
`accumulation of irreparable harm to them, Smith and the Manufacturers request
`
`that the appeal be expedited to ensure prompt resolution.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Smith and the Manufacturers respectfully request
`
`that the Court grant their Motion to Expedite Appeal.
`
`Dated: January 1, 2021
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 9
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Maria Gorecki
`Maria Gorecki
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`1400 16th Street
`16 Market Square, Suite 400
`Denver, CO 80202
`Tel.: 720.932.8303
`Email: mgorecki@kasowitz.com
`
`Marc E. Kasowitz
`Daniel R. Benson
`Paul J. Burgo
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`1633 Broadway
`New York, New York 10019
`Tel.: 212.506.1700
`Email: mkasowitz@kasowitz.com
`
`-and-
`
`Jon Anderson
`MAVEN LAW GROUP
`1800 Glenarm Place, Suite 950
`Denver, CO 80202
`Phone: 303-218-7141
`Email: janderson@mavenlawgroup.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants Jennifer
`Ann Smith, Liggett Group LLC, Vector
`Tobacco, Inc., and Xcaliber International
`Ltd., LLC
`
`-and-
`
`6
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 10
`
`E. Job Seese (admission pending)
`Katarzyna A. Parecki (admission pending)
`HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE,
`GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C.
`1600 Stout Street, Suite 1100
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`720.512.5820
`jseese@hallestill.com
`
`Attorneys for Xcaliber International Ltd.,
`LLC
`
`7
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 11
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT,
`TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS
`
`1. This document complies with the word limit of Fed. R. App. P. 27(d) because,
`excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f):
`
`this document contains 1,058 words.
`
`2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
`32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because:
`
`this document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using
`Microsoft Word 2013 in 14-point Times New Roman.
`
`Date: January 1, 2021
`
`
`
`/s/ Maria Gorecki
`Maria Gorecki
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`1400 16th Street, Suite 400
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`Tel.: 720.932.8303
`Email: mgorecki@kasowitz.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 12
`
`CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION
`
`I hereby certify that with respect to the foregoing:
`
`(c)
`
`(a) all required privacy redactions have been made per 10th Cir. R. 25.5;
`(b)
`if required to file additional hard copies, that the ECF submission is
`an exact copy of those documents;
`the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the most
`recent version of a commercial virus scanning program, Symantec
`Endpoint Protection, version 14 (14.3), updated December 31, 2020,
`and according to the program are free of viruses; and
`this pleading complies with applicable type volume limits, as
`described in the Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limit.
`Date: January 1, 2021
`
`
`(d)
`
`/s/ Maria Gorecki
`Maria Gorecki
`
`9
`
`

`

`Appellate Case: 20-1454 Document: 010110458839 Date Filed: 01/01/2021 Page: 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on January 1, 2021, with the written consent of the
`
`recipients, I e-mailed the foregoing to the following to:
`
`Terry Gill, Acting Deputy Attorney General, terry.gill@coag.gov
`Russell Johnson, Assistant Solicitor General, russell.johnson@coag.gov
`Ben Kapnik, Assistant Attorney General, ben.kapnik@coag.gov
`Reed Morgan, Assistant Attorney General, reed.morgan@coag.gov
`and I caused to be served by U.S. mail a hard copy addressed to the following:
`Terry Gill, Acting Deputy Attorney General
`Office of the Attorney General, Revenue & Utilities Section
`Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
`1300 Broadway, 8th Floor
`Denver, Colorado 80203
`
`Date: January 1, 2021
`
`/s/ Maria Gorecki
`Maria Gorecki
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`1400 16th Street, Suite 400
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`Tel.: 720.932.8303
`Email: mgorecki@kasowitz.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`10
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket