2020 COA 122
Colo. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Wilson and Wilson Law Ltd.) sued five defendants for publishing allegedly false statements, asserting ten claims across the defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss in part under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5); the trial court dismissed five claims with prejudice and part of another.
- Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice under C.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A) and the trial court closed the case.
- Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the partial 12(b)(5) dismissal; defendants moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals adopted the federal "Ryan rule," holding that a plaintiff may not create appellate finality by voluntarily dismissing remaining claims without prejudice to evade final-judgment requirements.
- The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction, but stayed dismissal 35 days to allow plaintiffs to obtain C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification or to dismiss the remaining claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of remaining claims without prejudice rendered the case final for appeal after some claims were dismissed with prejudice. | Voluntary dismissal of the remaining claims, together with the prior prejudicial dismissals, produced a final judgment and allowed immediate appeal. | A dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment and cannot be used to manufacture appellate jurisdiction. | Adopted bright-line rule: voluntary non‑prejudicial dismissal of remaining claims does not create finality; appeal lacks jurisdiction. |
| Whether recognized exceptions (e.g., inability to reassert claims, court approval, lack of manipulative intent) allow appeal despite non‑prejudicial dismissal. | Pointed to exceptions and argued this case fit an exception (trial-court action + closure of case). | Exceptions are limited; only apply where claims cannot be reasserted (statute of limitations, lack of personal jurisdiction) or other narrow circumstances. | Court recognized narrow exceptions (claims cannot be reasserted, etc.) but found none here; plaintiffs must use 54(b), C.A.R. 4.2, C.A.R. 21, or dismiss with prejudice to obtain review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brody v. Bock, 897 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1995) (a final judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite; dismissal without prejudice generally not final)
- Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123 (Colo. 1982) (definition of a final judgment for appeal)
- Foothills Meadow v. Myers, 832 P.2d 1097 (Colo. App. 1992) (dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment)
- Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1978) (origin of the rule prohibiting voluntary non‑prejudicial dismissals to manufacture appellate finality)
- Cook v. Rocky Mountain Bank Note Co., 974 F.2d 147 (10th Cir. 1992) (when plaintiff dismisses remaining claims without prejudice to appeal an adverse prejudicial dismissal, the order is not final)
- Heimann v. Snead, 133 F.3d 767 (10th Cir. 1998) (Tenth Circuit follows the Ryan rule)
- Blue v. D.C. Pub. Schs., 764 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (voluntary non‑prejudicial dismissals generally insufficient to render earlier partial rulings final)
- Arrow Gear Co. v. Downers Grove Sanitary Dist., 629 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2010) (same; permitting such maneuvering would promote piecemeal appeals)
- United States v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U.S. 793 (1949) (Supreme Court allowed appeal where dismissal without prejudice effectively ended suit because claim could not proceed without essential discovery)