Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In consolidated cases for this opinion, plaintiffs filed separate actions against Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) in district court. In each case, Farmers moved the change venue, alleging that a change would promote "the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice." Farmers supported it motions with attorney affidavits that purported to demonstrate (based on Google Maps printouts) that the transferee court was more convenient for plaintiffs and their medical providers. The trial court granted the motions for transfer in all three cases. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's ruling, arguing that judges within the same district applied C.R.C.P. 98(f)(2) inconsistently, and that venue should have been transferred back to the initial district court. Recognizing a need to promote a uniform application of the venue rules, the Supreme Court issues rules to show cause. The Court held that the trial courts abused their discretion when they changed venue in all three cases. Consequently, the transferee courts were directed to return the cases to the original district court. View "In re Hagan v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

Lillian Malm filed suit against Marion Villegas by filing a complaint with the district court in 2005.The complaint alleged that Villegas caused Malm to suffer personal injuries in an automobile accident in 2002 (two years and eleven months earlier). It was undisputed that the complaint was filed approximately one month before expiration of the applicable three-year statute of limitations. In September 2006, having failed to find and personally serve Villegas, Malm moved for permission to establish quasi in rem jurisdiction by attaching Villegas's insurance policy and accomplishing service through publication. Although the court granted her motion and she demonstrated service by publication, in response to a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by Villegas's insurer, the court ultimately found quasi in rem jurisdiction to be an improper means of acquiring jurisdiction over Villegas's property. Nonetheless, the court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that additional time was warranted to allow Malm to attempt personal service. In September 2007, Malm filed a status report with the court, noting that she had been unable to locate and personally serve Villegas and requesting that the court take no further action at that time. No activity of record occurred for the next five years, but on June 27, 2013, Malm moved to reopen, alleging that "[i]n early 2013 investigators retained by Plaintiff's counsel got a 'lead' that Defendant Villegas was living in Germany," and as a result, Villegas was served in Germany "[i]n accordance with the Hague Convention . . . on May 24, 2013." The district court granted the motion in August 2013. Once the case was reopened, Villegas moved to reconsider, arguing that Malm's failure to make reasonable efforts after the case was closed in 2007 or to serve her within a reasonable time amounted to failure to prosecute. Villegas appealed the district court granting of Malm's motion to reopen her personal injury lawsuit. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that because service following commencement of the action by filing a complaint with the court was delayed for an unreasonable length of time, the district court abused its discretion in declining to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to prosecute. View "In re Malm v. Villegas" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on judicial enforcement of an administrative investigatory subpoena for documents of a corporation outside of Colorado, but was suspected of conducting business within the state in violation of state consumer protection statutes. Tulips Investments, LLC was a Delaware corporation that the State alleged was running a loan business in violation of the Colorado Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) and the Colorado Protection Act (CCPA). The State issued a subpoena requesting certain documents from Tulips, which Tulips failed to produce. The State then obtained a trial court order in an unsuccessful attempt to enforce the subpoena. The State then pursued a contempt citation against Tulips for failing to comply. Tulips responded by filing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision setting aside the trial court's grant of Tulips' motion to dismiss. View "Tulips Investments, LLC v. Colorado ex rel. Suthers" on Justia Law

In a case brought under the Colorado Supreme Court's origination jurisdiction, the issue presented centered on whether a default judgment could be set aside as void for lack of jurisdiction due to the existence of a contractual forum selection clause. The clause at issue here purported to divest Colorado courts of jurisdiction over the dispute. After the trial court set aside the default judgment, plaintiff Christopher Nickerson sought to have the default reinstated against defendant Network Solutions, LLC. and Web.com Group, Inc. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in setting aside the judgment "A forum selection clause . . . does not divest a court of jurisdiction but instead presents the question of whether it is reasonable for the trial court to exercise its jurisdiction in the particular circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded the default judgment was not void; the trial court was directed to reinstate the default judgment in favor of plaintiff. View "In re Nickerson v. Network Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Respondent-plaintiff Scott Simpson sought to obtain meeting minutes from two Cedar Springs Hospital quality management committees in his medical malpractice case. Cedar Springs refused to produce these documents, arguing they were protected by the quality management privilege in 25-3-109, C.R.S. (2014). Simpson argued at trial that Cedar Springs failed to show that the quality management program was "approved by" the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDHPE), and because Cedar Springs failed to adhere to the requirements of the CDHPE with regard to the program, the meeting minutes should have been produced. The trial court agreed with Simpson that simple licensure was insufficient to demonstrate that facilities "complied with what they are required to comply with" and no "authoritative" documentation was provided confirming the quality management plan was properly implemented. The Supreme Court reversed: "because a quality management program is required in order to be licensed by CDHPE, and because Cedar Springs was licensed by CDHPE during all relevant periods, its quality management program was necessarily "approved." Therefore the documents Simpson sought from Cedar Springs were privileged, and the trial court erred in ordering them produced. View "Simpson v. Cedar Springs Hosp., Inc." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Colorado Supreme Court was whether summary judgment was ever appropriate in dependency and neglect adjudications involving prospective harm. The Court of Appeals held a trial court could never grant summary judgment because reasonable minds could always draw differing inferences from the evidence. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that when the underlying material facts are undisputed, reasonable minds could reach one inference based on the specific facts of the case. Therefore, the Court held that trial courts must evaluate whether summary judgment is appropriate in a dependency and neglect adjudication involving prospective harm on a case-by-case basis. View "Colorado in Interest of S.N." on Justia Law

Petitioner and State Representative Debbie Benefield, and other current or former members of the Colorado House of Representatives, appealed the court of appeals' judgment which reversed the district court's order denying costs and attorney fees for the Colorado Republican Party. In 2006, the Party submitted an Open Records Act request to each petitioner seeking access to responses to a 2005 survey that contained various constituents' viewpoints on a variety of legal, political and social issues. When petitioners declined to make the surveys available, the Party sued to get access. The Party ultimately got 925 of 1584 surveys it requested. The Party then moved for costs and fees as the "prevailing applicant." The Supreme Court concluded that because section 24-72-204(5), "when properly construed," mandated an award in favor of any person who applied for and received a district court order requiring a custodian to permit inspection of a public record. Because the appellate court was correct in its interpretation, the Supreme Court affirmed its judgment. View "Benefield v. Colorado Republican Party" on Justia Law

The Colorado Supreme Court issues a rule to show cause to decide whether the district court in this case abused its discretion in holding that as a matter of law, section 12-36.5-104(10)(a), C.R.S. (2013) protected professional review committee records from subpoena or discovery and admissibility in "civil suits," but not administrative proceedings. Upon review, the Court held that the term "civil suit" included administrative proceedings of an adjudicatory nature. Accordingly, the Colorado Medical Board's records were protected from subpoena or discovery or were admissible in the administrative hearing in Dr. Polly Train's medical license. The Court reversed the district court's order requiring the Board produce the records in question. View "Colorado Medical Board v. Office of Administrative Courts" on Justia Law

Respondent Vasilios Haralampopoulos visited the emergency room with severe abdominal pain. After a CT scan revealed a large cystic mass in his liver, Petitioner Dr. Mauricio Waintrub examined Respondent, gave a differential diagnosis identifying four possible causes for his condition, and approved a fine-needle biopsy to determine the nature of the cyst. Petitioner Dr. Jason Kelly performed the procedure, during which Respondent suffered respiratory and cardiac arrest. Normal resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful, and it took over 30 minutes to revive Respondent's heart. Lack of oxygen to his brain left Respondent in a vegetative state. Ten days later, Respondent's family and friends met with doctors to determine why Respondent went into arrest and had such a poor reaction to resuscitation efforts. After the meeting, Respondent's then-roommate and ex-girlfriend Gulsans Akyol Hurd approached Dr. Kelly and asked him whether Respondent's prior cocaine use could have contributed to his injuries. Dr. Kelly responded that cocaine could have contributed to Respondent's resistance to normal resuscitation efforts, but he was not a cardiologist so he did not know. Respondent brought a medical malpractice suit against seven individuals, including Petitioners Dr. Kelly and Dr. Waintrub. Respondent filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude Hurd's statements to Dr. Kelly as inadmissible hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception. The trial court denied the motion in limine, finding that Hurd's statements were made for purposes of diagnosis and treatment under Rule 803(4), and that their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Colorado Rule of Evidence 403. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Respondent's cocaine use. The court held that Hurd's statements to Dr. Kelly were not admissible under Rule 803(4) because the statements were made after Respondent was in a vegetative state and treatment was no longer possible, they were not made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in limiting the scope of Rule 803(4) to statements made for the purpose of prospective treatment. The Rule's plain language applies to "diagnosis or treatment," and while the term "treatment" has a prospective focus, the term "diagnosis" does not. "Here, Hurd's statements were made for the purpose of discovering the cause of Respondent's resistance to normal resuscitation efforts, and were thus admissible under Rule 803(4)." The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Kelly v. Haralampopoulos" on Justia Law

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Teller filed a petition seeking the district court's review of the City of Woodland Park's annexation of certain real property. Upon review of the petition and the district court's order denying the City's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's order: the district court indeed did not have jurisdiction to review the County's petition under 31-12-116 C.R.S. (2013). View "County of Teller Bd. of County Comm'rs v. City of Woodland Park" on Justia Law