Martin v. Arapahoe County Court
2016 COA 154
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- In Nov. 2014 L.O. filed for a civil protection order in Arapahoe County Court alleging Martin stalked her via dozens of emails; a same-day ex parte hearing produced a temporary civil protection order finding "imminent danger."
- The temporary order required Martin to stay 150 yards away and set a return (permanent-order) hearing; that hearing was continued multiple times after Martin sought to vacate and raised constitutional challenges.
- On Feb. 2015 Martin filed a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action in district court seeking review of the temporary order, alleging the county court lacked jurisdiction because the evidence did not show imminent danger.
- County court stayed the protection proceedings and extended the temporary order pending resolution of the C.R.C.P. 106 action; county defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed the C.R.C.P. 106 action; the court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) a temporary civil protection order under §13-14-104.5 is not a "final decision" for C.R.C.P. 106 review and (2) adequate alternative remedies exist (challenge at permanent hearing and appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a temporary civil protection order is a "final decision" under C.R.C.P. 106(b) | Martin: temporary order is reviewable because county court exceeded jurisdiction in finding "imminent danger." | County: temporary order is interlocutory, not final; C.R.C.P. 106 requires a final decision. | Held: Not final; C.R.C.P. 106(b) filing requirement is jurisdictional, so district court lacked jurisdiction. |
| Whether there is a "plain, speedy and adequate remedy" outside C.R.C.P. 106 | Martin: extraordinary relief necessary to challenge initial ex parte finding promptly. | County: permanent-order hearing and ordinary appeal provide adequate remedies. | Held: Adequate remedies exist (raise challenge at permanent hearing; appeal any permanent order). |
| Whether insufficient evidence of imminent danger deprives court of jurisdiction | Martin: lack of evidence meant county court lacked jurisdiction to issue temporary order. | County: lack of proof of a factual predicate does not strip the court of jurisdiction. | Held: Insufficient evidence is not jurisdictional; court had jurisdiction to enter the temporary order. |
| Applicability of prior cases allowing pre-judgment 106 review of TROs | Martin: relies on Stull and Intermountain (pre-C.R.C.P. 65(b) contexts) to justify early review. | County: those cases dealt with TROs under C.R.C.P. 65(b) and are inapposite to statutory protection-order scheme. | Held: Stull and Intermountain are inapposite because §13-14-104.5 provides prompt statutory procedures to address temporary orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens for Responsible Growth v. RCI Dev. Partners, Inc., 252 P.3d 1104 (Colo. 2011) (defines "final decision" for C.R.C.P. 106 review and confirms filing requirements are jurisdictional)
- State v. Dist. Court, 802 P.2d 473 (Colo. 1990) (extraordinary C.R.C.P. 106 review reserved where no adequate alternative remedy exists)
- Kirbens v. Martinez, 742 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1987) (same principle limiting extraordinary writs)
- Hills v. Westminster Mun. Court, 215 P.3d 1221 (Colo. App. 2009) (C.R.C.P. 106 may be appropriate pre-final judgment to protect certain rights)
- Byrd v. Stavely, 113 P.3d 1273 (Colo. App. 2005) (permitting pretrial C.R.C.P. 106 review of trial-court rulings in limited circumstances)
- Buck v. Park, 839 P.2d 498 (Colo. App. 1992) (timing/filing requirements for C.R.C.P. 106 challenges)
- Stull v. District Court, 308 P.2d 1006 (Colo. 1957) (review of TRO under prior rule where TRO lacked required procedural safeguards)
- Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass'n v. District Court, 414 P.2d 911 (Colo. 1966) (temporary restraining order invalid where entered without jurisdiction under C.R.C.P. 65(b))