2016 COA 171
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2014 the Estate (Lisa Maldonado and Jacob Maldonado's estate) sued Dennis Pratt II (Pratt Jr.) for wrongful death arising from Pratt Jr.’s 2012 shooting of Jacob Maldonado; complaint filed Sept. 16, 2014 and served on Pratt Jr. in DOC.
- The two-year statute of limitations for a Premises Liability Act (PLA) negligence claim ran before the Estate learned who owned the land where the shooting occurred.
- On Apr. 1, 2015 the Estate filed an amended complaint adding Pratt Jr.’s parents (Dennis Pratt Sr. and Karon/Karen Pratt) as defendants under the PLA, alleging the Pratts owned the property.
- The Pratts moved for judgment on the pleadings/summary judgment arguing the PLA claim was time barred because the amendment did not relate back under C.R.C.P. 15(c).
- The district court granted judgment for the Pratts, finding they lacked timely notice required by Rule 15(c); the Estate appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Estate failed to show the Pratts received notice within the Rule 4(m) period and therefore the amendment did not relate back.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint adding new defendants after limitations ran relates back under C.R.C.P. 15(c) | Relation back applies because the PLA claim arises from same occurrence; amendment corrects ownership info discovered later | Relation back fails because new parties did not receive notice within Rule 4(m) period and lacked notice that they would have been named but for a pleading mistake | Relation back fails; claim time barred — Pratts lacked timely notice within required period |
| Whether notice to Pratt Jr. can be imputed to the Pratts (identity-of-interest) | Identity-of-interest (family ties, same name, visits) imputes notice from Pratt Jr. to his parents | No identity-of-interest: different residences, not represented by same counsel, separate insurance, distinct legal positions | Identity-of-interest not established; notice not imputed |
Key Cases Cited
- City & County of Broomfield v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 239 P.3d 1270 (Colo. 2010) (rule interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Currier v. Sutherland, 215 P.3d 1155 (Colo. App. 2009) (strict requirement of notice under Rule 15(c))
- Graves v. General Ins. Corp., 412 F.2d 583 (10th Cir. 1969) (adding parties who had no notice is not allowed)
- Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2007) (Rule 15(c) balances liberal amendment policy and repose from claims)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (relation-back principles when correcting identity of proper defendant)
- Spiker v. Hoogeboom, 628 P.2d 177 (Colo. App. 1981) (identity-of-interest doctrine explanation)