The Colorado Supreme Court recently intervened in two ongoing Denver cases, potentially to decide whether a negligence lawsuit can proceed against a dating app provider while an appeal simultaneously unfolds and whether an attempted murder prosecution is barred by double jeopardy.
At least four of the court’s seven members must agree to hear a case outside of the ordinary appeals process.
Recommended Stories▶
In the first case, Miranda Gordon of Denver used the dating app Bumble, which describes its 2014 founding as having “flipped dating norms and (given) women the first move.” The app later “expanded our policies to protect women.” Gordon sued Bumble, Inc. in 2025 after a man she met through the app allegedly poisoned her with fentanyl and sexually assaulted her on their date.
Among other things, Gordon alleged the company knew of “thousands of incidents” of sexual assault and harassment, yet negligently failed to ensure its users’ safety and concealed the injuries it knew about.
Bumble moved to take the case to arbitration, pursuant to terms and conditions applying to “any dispute or claim” arising from use of the app. However, District Court Judge Mark T. Bailey rejected the request, citing the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. The law invalidated forced-arbitration provisions for any claim that “relates to” a sexual assault.
“As alleged by Plaintiff, Defendants suggested Plaintiff’s assailant as a ‘match’ for her on the Bumble platform. Plaintiff went on a date with the assailant, who then drugged and sexually assaulted her. This is conduct constituting a sexual assault dispute,” wrote Bailey in June.
The Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center in downtown Denver houses the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. (Photo by Michael Karlik/Colorado Politics)
Bumble immediately turned to the Court of Appeals to challenge his order. It asked to pause, or stay, the underlying proceedings until the appeal was resolved. On Aug. 11, District Court Judge Angela Boykins, who took over the case from Bailey, denied the request, reasoning that “no new evidence has been provided” to change Bailey’s conclusion.
Bumble filed the same request with the Court of Appeals, which a three-judge panel rejected in a brief Sept. 4 order. Bumble asked for reconsideration, arguing that an appeal requires trial judges to discontinue proceedings. The panel again denied the motion on Sept. 25 without elaboration.
Finally, the company turned to the Supreme Court, arguing the justices had never decided whether an immediate appeal of a decision denying arbitration triggers an automatic stay of the proceedings.
“Bumble’s pending appeal asks whether this dispute may be litigated in district court at all. Yet while that question remains unresolved, Bumble is required to participate in the very litigation it contends should have ceased,” wrote the company’s lawyers.
They added that Boykins and the Court of Appeals are allowing evidence and testimony to proceed on a scale an arbitrator could find unwarranted. But if the Court of Appeals eventually finds arbitration is proper, “the parties cannot un-take their testimony.”
The Supreme Court directed Gordon to explain why it should not halt the proceedings until the appellate court resolves Bumble’s appeal.
The case is Gordon v. Bumble, Inc. et al.
Colorado law requires that, if prosecutors know about multiple offenses a defendant has committed in the jurisdiction at the time the prosecution starts, those charges “must be” part of a single prosecution when the offenses relate to a single act or the “same criminal episode.”
Denver prosecutors charged Lizeth Iturbe-Chacon with multiple counts of child abuse for her alleged conduct between late July and mid-August 2025. Redacted descriptions of the incident in the court filings indicated that Iturbe-Chacon allegedly stabbed a woman on Aug. 11, and at least one child witnessed it.
Separately, prosecutors filed attempted murder and assault charges against her.
The Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver. (Photo by Michael Karlik/Colorado Politics)
In April 2026, Iturbe-Chacon pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor child abuse charges.
“I do recall this is the case involving the stabbing,” said County Court Judge Andrea Eddy.
Correct, the prosecutor confirmed.
Before sentencing, Iturbe-Chacon’s lawyer cited the law requiring prosecutors to bring known charges from the same episode in a single proceeding, and noted that she “would object to any failure to join charges and any additional prosecution.”
Months later, Iturbe-Chacon’s lawyer moved to dismiss the attempted murder and assault case, noting it arose from the same circumstances as the child abuse case.
District Court Judge Michael W.V. Angel denied the request. In a Sept. 3 order, he reasoned that the defense’s objection during the county court hearing had not “properly alerted the Court and the District Attorney to a specific objection as to a failure to join these cases.”
Angel added that Iturbe-Chacon participated in several hearings in both cases and had not asked to join them together.
Iturbe-Chacon turned to the Supreme Court and argued that proceeding with the attempted murder case would violate her constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.
“That single act resulted in one prosecution for child abuse and another for attempted murder. The facts in each case are identical,” wrote public defender Anthony Vigil-Martinez. “The Court should further conclude that the government had adequate notice of its own pending cases by virtue of having filed them and by virtue of acknowledging their existence at plea and sentencing.”
The Supreme Court ordered a response to the defense’s petition.
The case is People v. Iturbe-Chacon.