Phillip Lieurance, a 36-year-old man from Emporia, Kansas, will face one charge of second-degree murder and two charges of tampering with a dead body in the deaths of Linda Estrada, 44, and Amy Ford, 39, when he returns to Colorado, according to a Kiowa County arrest affidavit.

Lieurance is detained in the Lyons County Jail in Kansas on charges unrelated to the Colorado homicides, including vehicular assault and other traffic violations.

Kiowa County sheriff’s deputies issued an arrest warrant for Lieurance in connection with the deaths of the Kansas women after their remains were found by law enforcement in rural eastern Colorado on Sept. 20.

Lieurance told Kiowa County deputies that the two women had gotten into a fight in his vehicle while he was driving on Interstate 70, and he pulled off the road when it escalated to punches being thrown, the affidavit stated.

According to the affidavit, Lieurance told Kiowa County deputies that the two women got out of the truck and Ford picked up a rock and hit Estrada in the head with it. Lieurance claimed that he ran into Ford with his truck to try and break up the fight, hitting her with the front driver’s side of the vehicle.

Lieurance then moved the two bodies to a remote area to hide them from law enforcement, the arrest affidavit stated.

The two women were reported missing in Kansas on Sept. 11, and on Sept. 16, Kansas officials reached out to the Kiowa County Sheriff’s Office to open up a multi-state missing persons investigation.

Lieurance had been arrested returning to Emporia on Sept. 10 when he intentionally rammed into multiple cars on the road and was taken into custody by the Lyons County Sheriff’s Office in Kansas, according to the arrest affidavit.

When Emporia officers towed Lieurance’s car after his arrest, they noticed what looked like blood stains on the center console, passenger seat and rear area of the car, the arrest affidavit stated.

After finding knives, needles and two cellphones in the car, Kansas officials were worried Lieurance had dumped the women’s bodies and traced the phones’ movement back to Kiowa County using cellular data and security videos, according to the affidavit.

According to a search warrant from the Emporia Police Department, Ford called 911 from a gas station in Denver, claiming that Lieurance had made threats to kill her and Estrada, and threatened them with a knife. By the time Denver police arrived, Ford was gone.

Investigators from the Kiowa County Sheriff’s Office also noted a hang-up 911 call that the sheriff’s office received Sept. 10 in the arrest affidavit. During the initial call, dispatchers could hear a female voice saying something about 911 and screaming in distress.

According to the affidavit, when the phone call disconnected, a 911 dispatcher attempted to call the number back, but a male voice answered. He claimed everything was fine, but refused to give a name or address before hanging up. Dispatchers were unable to reach anyone at that number again.

Lieurance confessed to at least one homicide during a Sept. 18 interview with Kansas officers, telling police they would find the bodies southwest of Eads next to a cow pond, the arrest affidavit stated.

The following morning, Deputy Avery Snover with the Kiowa County Sheriff’s Office gathered a search party to begin looking for the two women in the area Lieurance described, but deputies were unable to find anything, according to the affidavit. Later that day, Lieurance told Emporia detectives that he wanted to voluntarily show Colorado law enforcement where the bodies were.

On Sept. 20, Lieurance arrived in Colorado under a police escort and led officers to the women’s bodies.

Lieurance has not been officially charged by the 15th Judicial District Attorney’s Office in Colorado as the case remains under investigation, a spokesperson for the department said Monday. He is awaiting a Jan. 19 sentencing hearing for his charges in Kansas.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

Susan Baffour, a 63-year-old woman from Denver, pleaded guilty to two counts of child abuse, a Class 2 Felony, on Oct. 16 — a plea deal that dropped the charge of first-degree murder from her case, according to the district court case file.

On Nov. 27, Denver District Judge Alex Myers sentenced Baffour to 36 years in prison, 5 years of mandatory parole and $1,928.50 in monetary fines. Myers could have sentenced Baffour to a maximum 48 years in prison.

“Dametrious Wilson’s death was a terrible tragedy for his family and friends and for the entire City of Denver,” District Attorney Beth McCann said in an emailed statement. “This sentence all but ensures that Susan Baffour will never be able to hurt anyone again. I want to thank the prosecutors and investigators in my office, as well as the detectives with the Denver Police Department, whose hard work on the case brought about this successful resolution.”

Just before 8:30 a.m. on June 3, 2022, Denver police officers responded to an apartment in the 1900 block of North Ulster Street, where 8-year-old Dametrious Wilson was found unconscious after Baffour beat him with a wooden back scrubber the night before.

According to the arrest affidavit, Baffour wanted to discipline Wilson for tearing part of her couch.

After taking him with her to Home Depot to get supplies, Baffour used duct tape to bind Wilson’s arms and legs together and cover his mouth before hitting him more than 40 times with the back scrubber, the affidavit stated.

Baffour told police she treated Wilson’s injuries before bed, and he drank a glass of water overnight, the affidavit stated. When she checked on him around 8 a.m., he would not wake up and she attempted to give CPR compressions.

At 8:41 a.m., paramedics pronounced Wilson dead at the scene.

Baffour had been awarded custody over Wilson and his now-11-year-old sister in 2017 because their mother was unable to care for them, according to the arrest affidavit.

Sign up to get crime news sent straight to your inbox each day.

The 35-year-old woman turned herself in for a charge of driving while ability impaired on Nov. 6 and was transferred to an off-site work release facility Nov. 15. She had a release date of Dec. 23, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office said in a Wednesday news release.

There were no indications of foul play, according to the news release.

The Lakewood Police Department is investigating, and the Jefferson County Coroner’s Office will determine the cause of death.

The arrests were the result of two law enforcement investigations conducted by the Denver District Attorney’s Office, Denver Police Department, Aurora Police Department, FBI, ATF, the Regional Anti-Violence Enforcement Network and the Violent Criminal Enterprise Task Force, according to a district attorney’s office news release.

“These arrests send an unmistakable message that law enforcement agencies throughout the Denver metro area are committed to working together to disrupt and disband dangerous criminal organizations. The streets of Denver are safer today because of these two investigations and I am grateful to the many law enforcement officers who have worked so hard on these cases to get us to this point,” McCann said.

About $780,000 of cash and property were stolen, and the members also now face charges of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, illegal possession of firearms and violating the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act.

Sign up to get crime news sent straight to your inbox each day.

The three staff members — identified by the 18th Judicial District Attorney’s Office as Principal Brett Michel, Assistant Principal Jeff Sparrow and school counselor Shannon Paxton — had been on administrative leave for nearly a month while law enforcement and the Elizabeth School District investigated the allegations, the district said in a news release Thursday.

The school district also announced it was ending the three staff members’ employment, pending approval by the Board of Education at its Monday meeting.

“While we recognize these individuals’ many positive, past contributions to the school community, we have high expectations that our staff will follow legal expectations and board policies in keeping our students safe and investigating any and all reports of concerning behavior,” district Superintendent Dan Snowberger said in a statement.

The teacher involved in the suspected child abuse, who has not been publicly identified or charged, remains on administrative leave during the 18th Judicial District’s criminal investigation of the allegations, the district said.

The specific allegations against the teacher have not been made public.

On Sept. 26, Snowberger received calls from both Elizabeth police Chief Jeff Engel and the 18th Judicial District Attorney’s Office about a complaint filed with law enforcement regarding a middle school teacher stemming from concerns the previous school year, according to the district.

Snowberger placed the teacher on leave the next morning, the district said.

Elizabeth School District officials say they had not been made aware of the concerns reported to administrators at the middle school — located about 40 miles southeast of Denver — before the law enforcement investigation.

Once law enforcement officials had finished their interviews, Snowberger began a district investigation and interviewed staff, students and parents.

Based on those interviews, the district said in a statement, Snowberger “found a number of concerns involving staff adherence to district policies and law regarding the mandatory reporting requirement when receiving allegations that involved a child.”

Colorado is a mandatory reporting state, and the punishment for not reporting could be a fine of $750 and/or imprisonment of up to six months. Michel, Sparrow and Paxton each are facing one count of failure to report suspected child abuse.

Superintendents are required to notify the Colorado Department of Education when local authorities “reasonably believe” that an incident of child abuse or neglect has occurred and a district employee is suspected, according to the agency’s website.

It’s unclear whether the case at Elizabeth Middle School has been reported to the department. Jeremy Meyer, a spokesman for the education department, declined to comment on an ongoing investigation.

School districts are also required to file a report with the Department of Education if an employee is fired or has resigned because they have been accused of unlawful behavior involving a child and the allegations are “supported by a preponderance of evidence.” Districts have to make the report within 10 business days of the employee’s dismissal, according to the state agency.

Michel, Sparrow and Paxton were placed on leave Nov. 8, and, following the announcement of the charges against them, will no longer be employed by the school district pending school board approval, according to the district’s Thursday news release.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

The seven justices peppered both the plaintiffs in the high-profile lawsuit and Trump’s legal team with questions, including if the siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters constituted an insurrection. They also probed the legal ability of the Colorado secretary of state to keep candidates off the ballot, the language of the 14th Amendment itself — which says insurrectionists can’t run for office — as well as whether Colorado can invoke that rule on its own.

The provision at issue in the Civil War-era 14th Amendment was aimed at keeping Confederates away from federal power after the nation reunited. But its language doesn’t explicitly bar insurrectionists from the highest office in the land, prompting the Colorado justices to prod both sides about what that means.

“If it was so important that the president be included, I come back to the question: Why not spell it out?” Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. asked the petitioners’ lawyers. “Why not include president and vice president in the way they spell out senator or representative?”

The attorneys hoping to keep Trump off Colorado’s ballot had argued that it would be “bizarre” and “counterintuitive” to read the amendment as barring rebels from most federal offices while leaving the presidency open to them.

Trump’s legal team argued the presidency was excluded on purpose, as a unique office. But would that mean, Justice Melissa Hart asked, that Jefferson Davis, the former president of the breakaway Confederacy, could have been elected U.S. president after the Civil War?

“That would be the rule of democracy at work,” replied Scott Gessler, a lead attorney for Trump and a former Colorado secretary of state.

The justices will sift through those answers and others in the weeks to come. They have no timeline to issue their ruling, though Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold in January must certify the ballots for the state’s March 5 presidential primaries.

After the hearing, Gessler said he viewed the justices’ close attention to the legal structure of Amendment 14’s Section 3 as “a positive.” That argument is what won for Trump in the lower court. He also didn’t want to read too much into their questioning and posture.

“I think the justices, in one form or another, expressed skepticism of everyone’s answers throughout the whole two hours,” Gessler said. “I don’t think you can really predict a whole lot from it.”

In a statement from the plaintiffs afterward, Lakewood attorney Mario Nicolais said: “Our oral argument today speaks for itself: Donald Trump took an oath to support our Constitution as an officer of the United States, violated that oath when he engaged in insurrection and consequently disqualified himself under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

The court’s coming ruling could open the case up to a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if the justices disqualify Trump. The Colorado ballot case is among several similar ballot-qualification lawsuits targeting Trump across the country, but so far all have failed.

As it stands, Trump will be on Colorado’s Republican ballot. A Denver District Court judge ruled last month that Trump must be included because the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to presidents — though Judge Sarah B. Wallace also declared in the findings of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection back in January 2021.

That ruling prompted an appeal from both Trump’s legal team and the group of Republican and unaffiliated voters suing to keep him off the ballot.

Trump’s team agreed with Wallace’s reading of the 14th Amendment but asked the state Supreme Court to strike the declaration that he engaged in insurrection.

The petitioners, who are working with the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sought a broader ruling, arguing that an insurrectionist can’t be allowed to seek the Oval Office.

There are similar heavy-hitting cases underway in Minnesota and Michigan, though courts in those states have halted the complaints. Minnesota’s Supreme Court did not rule on the merits but said political parties could nominate whomever they liked — leaving open the possibility of a 14th Amendment challenge before the general election there.

A Michigan court ruled it would be up to Congress to decide if the amendment bars Trump from the ballot there, and that state’s high court declined to expedite its review of the case.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

It’s the latest milestone in a lawsuit that alleges Trump engaged in insurrection surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the U.S. Capitol — and in doing so, disqualified himself from regaining the nation’s highest office under a Civil War-era amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The provision of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who swore an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

In November, a district court judge in Denver found Trump did engage in insurrection while also finding that the 14th Amendment restriction did not apply to the presidency the way it would to other federal offices.

Since then, lawyers for both sides as well as outside organizations and state officials across the country have weighed in on how Colorado’s justices should decide the matter. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the early afternoon.

Here’s a guide to the case and what’s at stake.

Why is the Colorado Supreme Court involved?

Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, after a weeklong trial this fall, that Trump can appear on Colorado’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot, despite her finding that he participated in an insurrection. This prompted both the petitioners and Trump’s legal team to appeal, though from opposite directions.

The state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last month.

Who is challenging Trump’s eligibility?

The lawsuit was brought by a group of unaffiliated and Republican Colorado voters who are working with the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Republican petitioners include Claudine Cmarda, a former Rhode Island congresswoman who now lives in Colorado; Norma Anderson, a former majority leader in both Colorado’s state House and state Senate; and Denver Post columnist Krista Kafer.

Republican-turned-unaffiliated voter Chris Castilian, who served as deputy chief of staff for Colorado’s last GOP governor, Bill Owens, is also involved in the suit. None of the voters involved are current Democrats.

What are the plaintiffs seeking from the higher court?

Wallace’s underlying ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection through his words and actions was seen by critics of the former president as a victory in its own right. But the plaintiffs are now asking the state’s justices to go where Wallace didn’t.

Her overall ruling that the president does not qualify as an officer of the United States — a key phrase in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — would “yield absurd results,” the petitioners argued.

“It would defy logic to prohibit insurrectionists from holding every federal or state office except for the highest and most powerful in the land,” their attorneys wrote in the appeal. The legal team includes former Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson.

Why did Trump appeal a ruling he won?

Trump’s legal team, which includes former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, agrees with Wallace’s ruling that the 14th Amendment shouldn’t apply to Trump. But his appeal argues she committed “multiple grave jurisdictional and legal errors” — including by finding he engaged in insurrection.

Trump’s speech near the White House on Jan. 6 didn’t call for violence, his attorneys argued, and still “the district court found that President Trump’s supposed intent, and the effect of his words upon certain listeners, sufficed to render his speech unprotected under the First Amendment.”

The appeal also questions whether the five-day trial that began in late October was a proper venue for constitutional litigation and the establishment of “new, unprecedented, and unsupported legal standards.”

How have challenges of Trump’s eligibility fared elsewhere?

Similar lawsuits challenging Trump’s eligibility have been filed in several states, with none succeeding so far. Among other cases with significant backing, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in November that Trump could remain on the ballot there because political parties have discretion over their primary ballots. And a Michigan judge has ruled that Congress should decide if Section 3 applies to Trump.

How will Colorado’s high court consider the case?

The Colorado Supreme Court doesn’t generally overturn a lower court’s findings of facts unless the judge made a clear error, meaning the justices likely will give some deference to Wallace’s finding that Trump did engage in insurrection. Instead, their eyes will focus more closely on how she applied the law and whether the 14th Amendment applies to Trump.

The court has no specific timeline for a ruling, but Secretary of State Jena Griswold must certify the primary ballot in January. That election is set for March 5.

What’s at stake?

In her ruling, Wallace wrote that she took the gravity of the case seriously: “To be clear, part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent” of 14th Amendment’s Section 3.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, called it “significant” that Wallace declared that Trump engaged in insurrection. He is the author of the upcoming book “The Law of Presidential Impeachment” and was the only expert called by both Republicans and Democrats in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

He said recent scholarship is supportive of the petitioners’ arguments that the 14th Amendment should apply to former presidents. But he didn’t have any predictions for the case — except that a ruling in the lawsuit plaintiffs’ favor would make it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would get involved, having the final say.

“It’s just speculation when and whether the U.S. Supreme Court will ever hear this case,” Gerhardt said. “But if somebody is being declared ineligible to run for the presidency, that could possibly make this a more pressing matter.”

What outside voices have weighed in?

The case has drawn interest from more than a dozen parties that have filed formal advisory briefs with the Colorado Supreme Court, expressing a range of opinions. Some briefs are outwardly partisan, including joint briefs submitted by more than a dozen state Republican parties; by 19 states with Republican leaders, spearheaded by the attorneys general of Indiana and West Virginia; by the Republican secretaries of state in Wyoming, Missouri and Ohio; and by the Republican National Committee.

“The Reconstruction Congress (after the Civil War) did not grant state officials sweeping authority to undermine the federal government,” attorneys for the national GOP wrote in a brief that argued the 14th Amendment provision shouldn’t be applied until after an election.

Trump’s team also has received backing from Treniss Jewell Evans III — a Texan who pleaded guilty last year to misdemeanor charges related to storming the Capitol on Jan. 6; he admitted to drinking a shot of Fireball whiskey in a conference room that other rioters told him belonged to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In his brief, Evans, who said he’d been defamed by the petitioners, disputed characterizations of that day, arguing that “there was no competent evidence … to support that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection or that there was any insurrection.”

What about on the other side?

Several law professors as well as Colorado Common Cause and the Constitutional Accountability Center, which advocates for a progressive reading of the founding document, urged the state’s justices to bar Trump from the state’s ballot.

Nine law professors countered Trump’s First Amendment defense in a joint brief, arguing it doesn’t protect speech that incites lawless action or constitutes a threat — and that disqualification wouldn’t infringe on protected speech, anyway. The filing from Common Cause, a left-leaning government watchdog group, called it “a great credit to prior generations of American political leaders” that the disqualification clause of the Constitution had so rarely been invoked — but argued this case rose to that standard.

“The fact that the Disqualification Clause is so clearly implicated at this hour, then, is a proportionally great discredit to Mr. Trump himself, who allowed a lust for power to supersede his own Oath of Office and over two centuries of American political precedent,” the filing reads.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Markesha Futrell-Smith alleges in the suit filed in the U.S. District of Colorado against Chili’s parent company Brinker International that the restaurant discriminated against her because she is Black. None of the other customers who were not Black had to provide upfront payment during the April 2022 incident, and the restaurant manager accused her, without proof, of skipping out on meals in the past.

The lawsuit, filed Nov. 28, wants the court to declare the restaurant’s actions described in the complaint are in violation of federal and state law and seeks “compensatory damages to the maximum extent permitted by law.” It also seeks nominal damages and punitive, economic and consequential damages as determined at trial and attorney’s fees and costs.

Futrell-Smith filed a discrimination charge against Chili’s with the Colorado Civil Rights Division which in June issued a for-cause finding that Chili’s violated a state discrimination law.

On April 30, 2022, Futrell-Smith, her husband and their two children went to Chili’s at 3625 S. Monaco Parkway, of which Futrell-Smith was a regular, to celebrate her birthday.

After a hostess led them to their seats, they waited about 10 minutes before a manager came to their table and “demanded that Ms. Futrell-Smith provide a valid form of payment upfront prior to taking her order if she wished to dine at the restaurant,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit states Futrell-Smith’s family members were the only Black patrons in the restaurant and no one else was required to pay upfront.

The manager accused Futrell-Smith of not paying for meals in the past but provided no proof of such incidents.

“Futrell-Smith was frustrated, angry, embarrassed, and humiliated in front of her family and the other patrons of the restaurant because of Chili’s false accusations,” the lawsuit states.

Chili’s also does not have a policy that requires upfront payment from people suspected of skipping out on meals in the past, according to the lawsuit.

Futrell-Smith then went to a waiter who had served her several times before to ask if he had reported her for walking out on bills, and he confirmed he had not reported her and that she and her family were “frequent, loyal customers at Chili’s who always paid their bills,” according to the lawsuit.

Futrell-Smith and her family eventually left the restaurant without dining.

A man sitting at the restaurant bar as they were leaving expressed his “condolences for how unfairly” she was treated and said he would file a corporate complaint about the incident.

“The incident has caused Ms. Futrell-Smith immense anxiety and fear that when she enters a store or restaurant, she will be falsely accused of shoplifting or thievery, solely due to her African American race,” the lawsuit states. “Futrell-Smith is genuinely fearful that similar discrimination will occur to her and her children in the future based on their African-American race.”

The lawsuit also states Chili’s, as of the case’s filing, had not provided Futrell-Smith a “legitimate non-discriminatory reason” for the denial of service.

Jake Young, a spokesperson for Chili’s, acknowledged the lawsuit but said the company could not comment on pending litigation.

“We value every Chili’s Guest and take the responsibility of fostering an inclusive environment for all very seriously,” Young said. “We do not condone or tolerate discrimination of any kind, as the safety and wellbeing of our Team Members and Guests is a top priority.”

Futrell-Smith is seeking a jury trial. She is represented by Kontnik Cohen LLC in Denver.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

Through the settlement, Frontier will allow pilots to pump breastmilk in the cockpit during noncritical phases of a flight and will update or comply with existing policies that impact pregnant and lactating employees.

It is one of the first airlines to allow pilots to pump during flights, according to a Monday news release from the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Colorado, Denver-based legal nonprofit Towards Justice and the firm Holwell Shuster & Goldberg.

Settling the lawsuit filed in December 2019 “does not admit any liability” by Frontier, according to the news release.

In a statement, ACLU Center for Liberty staff attorney Aditi Fruitwala said the organization is proud to come to an agreement that will benefit pregnant and lactating workers now and in the future.

“This settlement should serve as a strong message to employers — especially airline employers — that reasonable accommodations such as those agreed to by Frontier are good for workers, good for families, good for business and required by the law,” Fruitwala said. “We’re hopeful this will inspire more change and stronger protections for workers across the airline industry.”

Two lawsuits filed by Colorado-based pilots and flight attendants in December 2019 alleged the airline’s policies and practices were discriminatory, including forbidding women from pumping while in uniform and disciplining them for seeking breastfeeding-related accommodations. All of the women flew out of Denver International Airport.

The lawsuits also alleged that Frontier forced employees onto unpaid leave during their pregnancies and did not allow them to seek accommodations that could have kept them on the job.

According to the news release, Frontier Airlines has agreed to:

• Comply with an existing union agreement that allows pregnant pilots to fly with medical certification;
• Clarify that pilots who cannot fly due to pregnancy or lactation will be accommodated on the same terms as pilots with other medical conditions that prevent them from flying;
• Continue to allow pilots who are breastfeeding to drop to 50 hours of flight time per month; and
• Maintain a list of airport lactation facilities that is published on an internal website and updated every six months.

The lawsuit filed by the flight attendants was settled in April 2022 under similar terms, according to the ACLU.

In a statement, Frontier’s Vice President of Labor Relations Jacalyn Peter said the company is proud to be at the forefront of accommodating the needs of pregnant and breastfeeding mothers in the airline industry.

“Thanks in part to advances in wearable lactation technology, the parties were able to reach an amicable resolution of this case that also maintains our commitment to the highest safety standards,” Peter said.

Representatives for Frontier Airlines, the ACLU and ACLU of Colorado declined to comment on the settlement beyond statements included in the news release. A copy of the settlement was not immediately available Monday evening.

Get more business news by signing up for our Economy Now newsletter.

The lawsuit comes two weeks after Joyride, 5217 W. 25th Ave. in Edgewater, announced that it had filed for bankruptcy protection. In that announcement, Joyride president and co-founder Dave Bergen said the move was the result of “malfeasance” by a former general manager.

On Monday, Joyride identified that general manager as Grant Babb, who opened Joyride with Bergen in 2014. Babb, who ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Edgewater in 2017, is also part owner of famed South Broadway music venue Herman’s Hideaway, the suit said, and of Live Slow Brewing. Live Slow has been planning to open for two years now in Gold’s Marketplace in Wheat Ridge.

“Beginning in 2022 through the date of his termination, Babb wrote hundreds of thousands of dollars in unapproved and unauthorized checks to himself, Live Slow, and Hermans from Joyride accounts,” reads the lawsuit. It was filed by Joyride’s parent company, GDB Holdings, on Dec. 1 in Jefferson County District Court against Babb and Hermans Legacy, LLC.

Babb also “made hundreds of thousands of dollars in unapproved and unauthorized Venmo, PayPal, credit/debit card, and other cash transactions from Joyride accounts for his and/or Live Slow’s and Hermans benefit,” the document continues. “In all, Defendant caused Joyride to enter into hundreds of thousands of dollars of unneeded and unapproved debts while systematically draining Joyride’s accounts of at least $1,000,000 since 2022.”

The lawsuit claims that Herman’s was aware that the money it was receiving was coming from Joyride and that the company has since “refused to return the funds.”

Babb and Bergen each own 20% of Joyride, while the remaining 60% is owned by seven other investors, according to bankruptcy documents.

Neither Babb nor Bergen immediately returned messages seeking comment on Monday.

Bergen, who serves as president of the Colorado Brewers Guild, previously stated that Joyride would remain open while it reorganized. The business is known for its rooftop patio overlooking Sloan’s Lake and for its Ice Cutter Kölsch, which has won several beer awards.

Subscribe to our new food newsletter, Stuffed, to get Denver food and drink news sent straight to your inbox.