Marshall P. BROWN, in his official capacity as Director of Water of the City of Aurora, Colorado v. WALKER COMMERCIAL, INC., a Colorado corporation, 2022 CO 57

Background

Walker Commercial sought review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) of the City of Aurora Director of Water’s August 13, 2019 final decision assessing a storm-drain development fee; Walker filed in district court 30 days after the decision (2 days late under Rule 106(b)).
Walker paid part of the fee under protest, requested an administrative hearing, learned the August 13 email was the Director’s final decision, and then filed suit on September 12 (30 days later).
The Director moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), arguing Rule 106(b)’s 28-day deadline is jurisdictional and non-extendable.
Walker sought relief under C.R.C.P. 6(b) (extension for excusable neglect) and, after the Director’s motion, filed an amended complaint adding a declaratory Claim 3 based on a 30-day municipal ordinance provision.
The district court denied Walker’s Rule 6(b) motion and dismissed the amended complaint as untimely; the court of appeals reversed, holding Rule 6(b) can extend Rule 106(b)’s deadline for excusable neglect and remanding for application of an excusable-neglect standard.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether Rule 6(b) may extend Rule 106(b)’s filing deadline and whether Claim 3 could stand given the untimely Rule 106 claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Walker)	Defendant's Argument (Brown/Director)	Held
Whether C.R.C.P. 6(b) may extend the 28‑day filing deadline in C.R.C.P. 106(b) for excusable neglect	Rule 6(b)’s broad authority to extend times for acts under the civil rules permits extension for excusable neglect	Rule 106(b)’s deadline is a jurisdictional limitation that precludes Rule 6(b) extensions	No — Rule 6(b) does not apply; Rule 106(b) is a strict, jurisdictional limitation
Whether Rule 106(b)’s deadline is akin to a non‑claim statute (not subject to equitable tolling) or a tolled claim statute	Walker argued equitable or excusable‑neglect relief should apply; municipal 30‑day notice tied to effectiveness of decision also relevant	Director argued deadline functions as a jurisdictional, non‑claim limitation for invoking district court jurisdiction	The deadline is a non‑claim, jurisdictional limitation and not subject to equitable tolling or excusable‑neglect extensions
Whether the court of appeals correctly articulated the standard for excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) as paralleling Rule 60(b)	Walker supported applying a flexible excusable‑neglect standard similar to Rule 60(b)	Director opposed applying Rule 60(b) standard because Rule 6(b) does not reach Rule 106(b) deadlines	Court did not reach the applicable excusable‑neglect standard because Rule 106(b) cannot be extended; therefore the court of appeals was reversed on this point
Whether Walker could add Claim 3 (declaratory relief based on 30‑day municipal provision) after filing an untimely Rule 106 action	Walker argued the city code’s 30‑day provision and the amended complaint justify keeping Claim 3	Director argued the underlying Rule 106 claim was untimely so additional claims could not be joined	Dismissal of the untimely Rule 106 claim precluded joining the additional claims; Claim 3 properly dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Hidden Lake Dev. Co. v. Dist. Ct., 515 P.2d 632 (Colo. 1973) (treating Rule 106(b) filing deadline as controlling and reversing allowance of untimely amendments)
Danielson v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 807 P.2d 541 (Colo. 1990) (affirming dismissal where Rule 106 complaint was filed one day late; deadline is jurisdictional)
Auxier v. McDonald, 363 P.3d 747 (Colo. App. 2015) (Rule 106(b) limitations period is jurisdictional and cannot be tolled or waived)
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P.2d 1094 (Colo. 1996) (discussing purpose and narrow application of equitable tolling for statutes of limitation)
UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Ass'n, 408 P.3d 836 (Colo. 2017) (distinguishing statutes of limitations from non‑claim statutes and explaining equitable‑tolling standard)