2019 COA 163
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Murray filed negligence claims Nov 8, 2016; district court issued a Civil Procedure Order requiring proof of service within 63 days per C.R.C.P. 4(m).
- Counsel did not file proof of service; the court dismissed the case without prejudice on Jan 13, 2017.
- The statute of limitations expired 12 days after dismissal.
- Murray moved to reinstate the case on Sept 13, 2017 (243 days after dismissal); the court granted the motion the same day, citing excusable neglect, without allowing Kim to respond.
- Kim moved to dismiss as time-barred; the court denied the motion, the case proceeded to trial, and a jury awarded Murray $39,906.18.
- On appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding Rule 60(b) relief was unavailable and remanding with directions to dismiss with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could vacate its Rule 4(m) dismissal under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) (excusable neglect) | Murray argued counsel’s oversight was excusable neglect justifying reinstatement | Kim argued relief under (b)(1) is time-barred because the motion was filed well after the 182-day limit | Held: (b)(1) unavailable — motion was filed after 182 days, so court lacked authority to grant relief under (b)(1) |
| Whether the dismissal was void for lack of notice such that C.R.C.P. 60(b)(3) applies | Murray argued dismissal was void for insufficient notice under Rule 121 / Rule 41(b)(2) | Kim argued any procedural defect doesn’t implicate jurisdiction and thus the judgment is voidable, not void | Held: (b)(3) inapplicable — dismissal did not implicate subject-matter or personal jurisdiction and so was at most voidable |
| Whether the residuary provision C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) permits relief (extraordinary circumstances) | Murray urged equitable policy favoring resolution on the merits and claimed inequity if case not reinstated | Kim argued facts show only counsel’s neglect, not the extraordinary circumstances required for (b)(5) | Held: (b)(5) inapplicable — (b)(5) is narrow and reserved for very rare, extraordinary cases; counsel’s neglect is not enough |
| Whether failure to comply with Rule 4(m) procedures could make dismissal void | Murray suggested procedural noncompliance with dismissal notice might render order invalid | Kim maintained procedural defects do not affect jurisdictional power to dismiss under Rule 4(m) | Held: Procedural noncompliance (if any) would render the dismissal voidable, not void; Rule 4(m) dismissal does not create a jurisdictional defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman Assocs., LLC v. WP Mountain Props., LLC, 222 P.3d 310 (Colo. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) relief)
- In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1981) (judgment is void only if jurisdictional defect exists)
- Cavanaugh v. State, Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 644 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1982) (182‑day time limit for Rule 60(b)(1) relief)
- Atlas Constr. Co. v. Dist. Court, 589 P.2d 953 (Colo. 1979) (strict adherence to Rule 60(b)(1) time limit)
- Love v. Rocky Mountain Kennel Club, 514 P.2d 336 (Colo. App. 1973) (court without authority to reinstate after statutory time limit expires)
- First Nat’l Bank of Telluride v. Fleisher, 2 P.3d 706 (Colo. 2000) (lack of procedural notice does not render a judgment void)
- Davidson v. McClellan, 16 P.3d 233 (Colo. 2001) (residuary Rule 60(b) relief is limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- Todd v. Bear Valley Vill. Apartments, 980 P.2d 973 (Colo. 1999) (policy favoring decisions on the merits does not override Rule 60(b) limits)