” Stuart, 271 F.3d at 1225 (quoting 13B Wright, supra, § 3602). Because the parties had conceded that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy for the plaintiffs injuries under Colorado law, it was undisputed that the plaintiffs claim was not cognizable in Colorado state court. Thus, because federal courts will not exercise diversity jurisdiction over non-cognizable state claims, dismissal of the case was the obvious' and necessary outcome. In contrast, the parties here have disputed the factual basis supporting the exclusivity defense throughout the proceedings. Under Colorado law, the defendant bears the burden of proving as a waivable, affirmative defense that workers’ compensation is a plaintiffs exclusive remedy. See Popovich v. Irlando, 811 P.2d 379, 385 (Colo.1991) (<HOLDING>); Lancaster v. C.F. & I. Steel Corp., 190 Colo.
holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review holding that a defendant bears the burden of establishing affirmative defenses under the wprkers compensation statute holding that appellant bears burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence holding defendant bears burden of establishing affirmative defense of official immunity recognizing that the defendant bears the burden of establishing that plain error was prejudicial