Said v. Magdy
2024 COA 109
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2024Background
- Plaintiff, Said M. Said, filed a defamation suit against Mohamed Magdy, his wife's ex-husband, alleging false accusations of criminal conduct.
- Magdy responded by filing a special motion to dismiss under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute, section 13-20-1101, which aims to protect First Amendment activity.
- The district court denied Magdy’s special motion to dismiss on December 29, 2023.
- Fourteen days later, Magdy filed a motion for reconsideration; the court also denied this motion.
- Magdy then filed a notice of appeal within forty-nine days of the denial of his motion for reconsideration, seeking review of the denial of the special motion to dismiss.
- Said moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that it was untimely because it was not filed within forty-nine days of the denial of the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a motion for reconsideration toll the appeal deadline? | Motion was not a Rule 59 motion; does not toll time. | Motion for reconsideration should be construed as a Rule 59 motion and toll the time. | Yes, it is properly construed as Rule 59 and tolls the appeal time. |
| Can a Rule 59 motion apply to non-final but appealable orders? | Rule 59 is limited to post-trial, final judgments. | Rule 59 applies to any appealable order. | Rule 59 can apply to appealable, non-final orders. |
| Was Magdy’s notice of appeal timely? | Notice was late, as the original order deadline was missed. | Notice was within forty-nine days after reconsideration was denied. | Notice of appeal is timely. |
| Does excusable neglect justify late appeal? | N/A | Excusable neglect would permit late filing if necessary. | Not addressed due to timeliness holding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salazar v. Pub. Tr. Inst., 2022 COA 109M (anti-SLAPP overview, noting early dismissal for claims on protected conduct)
- Cuevas v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 2023 COA 64M (motions for reconsideration need not cite Rule 59 to be treated as such)
- Spiremedia Inc. v. Wozniak, 2020 COA 10 (a motion for reconsideration can be a Rule 59 motion even if filed on non-final orders)
- Bowlen v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 815 P.2d 1013 (Colo. App. 1991) (motion to reconsider summary judgment can be a Rule 59 motion)
- Feigin v. Alexa Grp., Ltd., 19 P.3d 23 (Colo. 2001) (non-final, appealable orders can be subject to appellate review)