2019 COA 58
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- JBC Agricultural Management contracted to buy cattle from Southern Cross Ranches and Ranch Management, then sell them to Crystal River Meat; sellers sued JBC for breach for nonpayment beginning October 15, 2015.
- JBC counterclaimed, alleging sellers breached first by failing to certify, source, feed, and care for the cattle and sought summary judgment on its counterclaim supported by an affidavit from JBC’s principal.
- The trial court initially denied JBC’s summary judgment motion, finding genuine disputes about who breached first and about adequate assurances.
- Later, while buyers (JBC/Crystal River) lacked counsel, sellers moved for and tendered unopposed summary judgment orders; the court signed orders granting summary judgment for sellers and dismissing JBC’s counterclaims.
- New counsel for buyers moved under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) to vacate; the court denied relief, and buyers appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the court erred by (1) failing to review the entire record when buyers did not oppose, (2) accepting conclusory affidavits, and (3) issuing inconsistent summary-judgment rulings without explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sellers) | Defendant's Argument (Buyers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether a trial court must review the entire record when the nonmoving party fails to oppose a summary-judgment motion | Sellers: Court may decide based on materials cited in motion and need not scour the full record | Buyers: Rule 56(c) requires the court to examine all pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits on file | Held: Court need not review the entire record beyond materials cited in the motion and any opposition; nonmoving party must identify record evidence to create an issue |
| 2. Whether sellers’ affidavits were conclusory and insufficient to meet moving-party burden | Sellers: Affidavits were admissible, based on personal knowledge, and established JBC made no payments | Buyers: Affidavits were conclusory as to ultimate fact of breach and insufficient without supporting detail | Held: Sellers’ affidavits were adequate where uncontradicted and properly based on personal knowledge; moving-party burden satisfied as to nonpayment breach |
| 3. Whether the trial court’s prior denial of JBC’s motion created law of the case preventing later grant of summary judgment to sellers | Sellers: Prior denial does not bind later consideration; law-of-the-case applies to legal rulings, not preliminary factual rulings | Buyers: Earlier denial (finding genuine disputes) should have prevented later, inconsistent grant without explanation | Held: Law-of-the-case did not bar reconsideration, but the court abused discretion by issuing an unexplained, inconsistent ruling and failing to show it consciously revisited prior ruling |
| 4. Whether buyers’ lack of counsel required special treatment (court should have reviewed full record) | Sellers: No special treatment; pro se civil litigants are held to same rules as represented parties | Buyers: Their unrepresented status meant the court should have examined the whole record before entering judgment | Held: No special civil-rule treatment for unrepresented parties; court not required to search record because a party is unrepresented |
Key Cases Cited
- Cont’l Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1987) (moving party must identify record portions showing absence of genuine issue)
- Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Pinder, 812 P.2d 645 (Colo. 1991) (uncontradicted specific facts in affidavits establish absence of factual dispute)
- McDaniels v. Laub, 186 P.3d 86 (Colo. App. 2008) (summary-judgment affidavit to which no counteraffidavit is filed may be accepted as true)
- Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1996) (court need not scour the record; nonmoving party must identify evidence creating issue)
- Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trustees, 980 F.2d 399 (6th Cir. 1992) (rejecting duty of trial court to probe record; discourages passive nonresponses)