Supplemental Notice Against Dismissal and in Support Emergency Injunctions — Joshua Abrams, Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR (Dkt. 48, D. Colo.)

Summary

A Supplemental Notice Against Dismissal and in support of Emergency Injunctions filed pro se by plaintiff Joshua Abrams on August 29, 2025 as Document 48 in Abrams v. Division of Unemployment Insurance, et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The memorandum opposes the defendant's motion to dismiss and relies on Exhibits A and B, which the plaintiff says show his North Carolina wages were improperly excluded and that a Notice dated March 31, 2023 cancelled an appeal after a reconsideration decision. It alleges retaliation, negligence and due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and claims the defendant pushes claimants onto the U.S. Bank ReliaCard. The plaintiff asks the court to deny dismissal and order release of owed benefits; a final page quotes a March 15, 2025 call and seeks sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 48       filed 08/29/25     USDC Colorado                  pg 1
                                             of 11

                                                                                                           1




     The United States District Court District of Colorado                        FILED
     901 19th St, Denver, CO 80294 | (303) 844-3433                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                                            DENVER, COLORADO
     Plaintiff: Joshua Abrams                                                     8:38 am, Aug 29, 2025

                                                                         JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
     v.
     Defendant(s): Division of Unemployment Insurance, et al

                                                                          ▲COURT USE ONLY▲
     Joshua Abrams, Pro Se | abramslive@gmail.com 720-910-4829           Case Number:
     P.O. Box 761 Loveland CO 80539                                             1:24-cv-03390
                                                                         Division:      Courtroom
           Supplemental Notice Against Dismissal and in support Emergency Injunctions

 ​

 Plaintiff respectfully submits this supplemental memorandum in opposition to Defendant's

 Motion to Dismiss, presenting newly discovered evidence, Exhibits A and B that directly

 undermines Defendant's assertions and bolsters Plaintiff's claims of reckless disregard,

 negligence, retaliation, and constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.


 1. Exhibit A, comprising four pages of correspondence from Defendant, explicitly acknowledges

 Plaintiff's out-of-state wages from North Carolina but improperly disqualifies them from

 inclusion in the alternative base period calculation, without any basis in Colorado law, federal

 regulations under the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages, or

 established administrative procedures.


 2. This disqualification was not only unsupported, contrary to Colorado's statutory mandate to

 consider all applicable wages within the relevant base period, including out-of-state earnings but

 also appears retaliatory and negligently executed, as subsequent 2023 phone calls with

 Defendant's managers confirmed the wages were improperly calculated, entitling Plaintiff to
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 48        filed 08/29/25      USDC Colorado         pg 2
                                             of 11

                                                                                                     2

 back pay that was never disbursed. Defendant's deliberate withholding of these phone call

 transcripts from discovery further evidence a pattern of fraud and bad faith, aimed at

 undermining Plaintiff's economic stability and access to due process, in violation of the

 Fourteenth Amendment.


 3. Moreover, Exhibit A reveals Defendant's coercive tactics in funneling Plaintiff into preselected

 appeal pathways, denying the right to contest the disqualification or underpayment directly and

 instead compelling an appeal solely to withdraw the application entirely a remedy Plaintiff

 expressly opposed. This manipulation constitutes a clear due process violation, as it deprived

 Plaintiff of meaningful administrative remedies and coerced abandonment of valid claims, all

 while misrepresenting that resubmission in a different quarter was the only avenue to utilize the

 out-of-state wages, a position now demonstrably false under applicable law.


 4. Such actions reflect not mere error but reckless disregard for Plaintiff's rights, exacerbating the

 harm through prolonged denial of benefits and forcing unnecessary procedural hurdles.Finally,

 Exhibit B, a Notice dated March 31, 2023, conclusively refutes Defendant's core defense that

 Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as it states the appeal was cancelled following

 issuance of a reconsideration decision indicating that remedies were pursued and resolved within

 the agency.


 5. Defendant's failure to disclose this document despite its possession in agency records, amounts

 to deliberate concealment and supports Plaintiff's allegations of fraud upon the Court.


 6. In further support of Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff

 concurrently files additional exhibits and a Motion to Supplement the Complaint, which detail

 Defendant's bad faith conduct and an alleged illegal kickback and skimming scheme involving
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 48        filed 08/29/25      USDC Colorado            pg 3
                                             of 11

                                                                                                       3

 third-party financial institutions. Specifically, these submissions reveal how Defendant

 systematically funnels claimants into using the U.S. Bank ReliaCarda prepaid debit card laden

 with outrageous fees for transactions such as out-of-network ATM withdrawals, balance

 inquiries, and international use by rejecting valid direct deposit requests without justification,

 often citing unverifiable bank accounts even for established financial institutions.


 7. This coercive practice forces claimants, including Plaintiff, to accept the ReliaCard under

 duress, with threats of claim denials, processing delays, or outright benefit withholding if they do

 not comply, thereby enriching U.S. Bank through fee revenue while Defendant benefits from

 undisclosed contractual incentives or reduced administrative costs. Such tactics prioritize profits

 over claimants' rights, constituting reckless disregard and negligence, and potentially violating

 federal laws against unfair trade practices and due process under the multiple constitutional

 protections, as they exploit vulnerable unemployed individuals for financial gain.


 In Conclusion, Plaintiff respectfully implores this Honorable Court to consider the compelling

 evidence submitted in Exhibits A and B, alongside the concurrently filed exhibits and Motion to

 Supplement the Complaint, which collectively expose the frivolous and reckless nature of

 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Exhibit B, a Notice dated March 31, 2023, unequivocally

 confirms that Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies through a reconsideration decision,

 directly refuting Defendant’s baseless claim of non-exhaustion and rendering their motion

 meritless. Exhibit A further demonstrates Defendant’s bad faith in improperly disqualifying

 Plaintiff’s North Carolina wages without legal basis, coercing Plaintiff into unfavorable appeal

 options, and withholding critical evidence, such as 2023 phone call transcripts admitting

 miscalculations and owed back pay.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 48          filed 08/29/25      USDC Colorado        pg 4
                                             of 11

                                                                                                       4

 The Court must also consider Plaintiff’s dire circumstances, as outlined in prior notices of

 impending evictions, which Defendant and the Court have unilaterally ignored. For over two

 years, entering a third, Plaintiff has been wrongfully denied timely and full disbursement of

 unemployment benefits, a right critical to economic stability. This prolonged deprivation has

 precipitated predictable financial collapse, necessitating immediate relief. Plaintiff therefore

 urges the Court to deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, permit the case to proceed to discovery

 and trial, and grant an emergency injunction to compel the prompt release of all owed benefits,

 including back pay, to avert further irreparable harm and restore Plaintiff’s rightful economic

 protections under federal and Colorado law.​

 ​      ​       ​       ​       ​       ​       ​      ​        ​         Respectfully submitted,


                                                      ________________________________________

                                                                    Date: 08-28-2025 | ❑Petitioner/Plaintiff

                                                                                     Joshua Abrams, Pro Se

                                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I certify that on 08-28-2025 a true and accurate copy of the Defendant was served on the other
 party by: X_E-filed, lauren.davison@coag.gov & Stephen.woolsey@coag.gov
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR   Document 48    filed 08/29/25   USDC Colorado   pg 5

                             Exhibit A
                                    of 11
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR   Document 48    filed 08/29/25   USDC Colorado   pg 6
                                    of 11
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR   Document 48    filed 08/29/25   USDC Colorado   pg 7
                                    of 11
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR   Document 48    filed 08/29/25   USDC Colorado   pg 8
                                    of 11
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR   Document 48    filed 08/29/25   USDC Colorado   pg 9
                                    of 11

                             Exhibit B
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR           Document 48 filed 08/29/25              USDC Colorado          pg 10
                                            of 11




 Plaintiff submits this filing together with his Motion for Leave and the attached Supplemental

 Complaint, which explain these matters in full. Plaintiff further incorporates these materials for

 use in connection with his Supplemental Notice. Exhibits A and B referenced here relate

 specifically to the Supplemental Complaint and should not be confused with Exhibits A and B

 previously attached to the Supplemental Notice.


 On March 15, 2025, Plaintiff called Defendant’s designated line at 303-318-9000, enduring a

 20-minute hold before connecting with an agent identified as Ed. The call, spanning 50 minutes,

 is documented in Exhibit A, an audio recording titled “Exhibit_A_Call_03-2025.m4a,” and

 Exhibit B, a certified transcript titled “Exhibit_B_Call_Transcript.txt.”


 Representative Ed: “Well, you may have selected direct deposit, but because our banking
 institution third-party validating service could not verify it … I’m verifying that you have now the
 debit card because that’s how it’s being directed to you at this point.”

 Plaintiff Joshua Abrams: “No, this is the first I’ve heard of it. That’s not what I selected … I
 never got any notification that there was an issue with my bank.”

 Representative Ed: “… if you’re not able to use the banking institution that you’re trying to
 utilize we ask you to use a different banking institution or the U.S. Bank ReliaCard … That’s the
 only way you can actually get the claim filed.”

 Plaintiff Joshua Abrams: “I never selected a ReliaCard. I do not at any point want a ReliaCard
 and I have other institutions that I’d like to reattempt to select direct deposit to.”

 Representative Ed: “… You would have either had to request that it would be a banking
 institution that could be validated by our third-party validation system or use a U.S. Bank
 ReliaCard … You can’t move forward when processing the claim unless you have banking
 information that can be validated … It appears that you chose the U.S. Bank ReliaCard. And I’m
 just validating that that is the case.”

 These excerpts show Defendant’s representative misrepresenting Plaintiff’s lawful direct deposit

 election, falsely claiming that his bank account could not be verified, and coercing him into
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 48 filed 08/29/25             USDC Colorado         pg 11
                                             of 11




 ReliaCard enrollment by insisting that it was “the only way you can actually get the claim filed.”

 Plaintiff explicitly denied ever selecting or agreeing to ReliaCard, yet the representative

 persisted, falsely stating that he “chose” the card and that the claim could not proceed without it.

 This conduct is unlawful because it conditions access to a federally funded program on the

 acceptance of a fee-bearing financial product, restricts benefits through deception, and denies

 meaningful access to claimants with disabilities who cannot navigate Defendant’s inaccessible

 telephone-only system to contest such misrepresentations.


 Defendant’s egregious practices, coupled with its intentional suppression of critical call

 recordings and policies electronically stored information subject to Federal Rule of Civil

 Procedure 37reveal a calculated pattern of systemic fraud, coercion, and deliberate indifference

 to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the

 Rehabilitation Act. Defendant’s own admissions in its answer confirm it tracked Plaintiff’s

 numerous calls, demonstrating its possession of and access to detailed records of those

 interactions, including the content exchanged. Yet, Defendant willfully withheld these

 recordings, strategically concealing evidence of its misrepresentations and coercive tactics, such

 as forcing Plaintiff into the fee-laden U.S. Bank ReliaCard under false pretenses. This deliberate

 concealment not only obstructs justice by defrauding this Court and depriving Plaintiff of vital

 evidence but also perpetuates a predatory campaign to skim benefits from vulnerable claimants

 through exorbitant fees, likely amassing thousands, if not millions, of dollars in illicit gains at the

 expense of the unemployed. Should the Court find intentional spoliation of these records,

 Plaintiff requests sanctions, including an adverse inference, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.239393.48.0.pdf

Size

5,011,236 bytes

SHA-256

7c9321cab03313505d3dadb41e0341702b365d7b0f4a6de1933bbf66afc5b2e2

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.239393.48.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)