*1 of the cross-claims could well resolution stipu- individual defendants. amount that not, however, against the counter result in an offset affect lation did ultimate, judg- Evans. final require which will and cross-claims claims less than the be for an amount ment to may, after ren- an arbitration party A to Thus, permit entry arbitrator’s award. award, commence dition of an arbitrator’s por- judgment on the arbitration of a final seeking con- district court action in the an suit, doing so tion of the combined entry of a award and firmation of such prior to resolution allow execution conformity therewith. 13- judgment §§ parties, would de- claims between other (1979 13-22-216, 22-213 and C.R.S. discourage the rules to ability feat of court in which such ac- Cum.Supp.). The litigation. We therefore multiplicity of brought shall confirm the tion trial court erred in enter- conclude that the grounds for final award unless arbitrator’s arbitrator’s judgment final on the ing a correcting the modifying, or vacating, of the issues prior award to determination 13-22- asserted. Section timely award are cross-claims. raised an (1979 Cum.Supp.). Once C.R.S. confirmed, a award has been arbitration reversed, and the cause judgment enter in conformi- or decree shall judgment for the trial is remanded with directions enforced as and can be with the award pending judgment of stay entry court 13- judgment or decree. Section any other remaining to be resolution of the issues 22-216, (1979 Cum.Supp.). C.R.S. in the Evans and Judd determined between Compa- brought by Ace Tile original action of provisions ny- 13-22-213 and §§ to re (1979 Cum.Supp.), were not intended KELLY, JJ., concur. COYTE and court to confirm an arbitrator’s quire a or decree judgment award and enter which have award when other issues
that proceeding for confir part
become a or decree entry
mation and appropriate unresolved. Absent
remain order, can a all the when fewer than not be entered Jones, on and Barbara Robert JONES v. Em Levine have been resolved. claims of their and on behalf their own behalf Ass’n, & Loan pire Savings Minor, Jones, daughter, aff’d, Gretchen 189 Colo. Plaintiffs-Appellants, permit confirma (1975). To judgment or decree entry tion impermissi- would issues remain unresolved INC., COMPANY, HARDING GLASS and re litigation bly encourage piecemeal Stephens Bill Missouri v. Twin Lakes Reser view of cases. Hamm Defendants-Appellees. Young, Everett 447, 373 voir & Canal 150 Colo. bar, proceed at once the In the case Court of entry for confirmation and ing was consolidated arbitrator’s award on the 3, 1980. July brought by Ace existing 31, 1980. Tile, Ace Tile includ the issues in the Judd, against ing the cross-claims of Evans Granted Nov. Certiorari entry of a final to be resolved before had will Although Judd in the case. awarded the be entitled to be ultimately arbitrator, to be due
amount found *2 Denver, plaintiffs- for Vigil, E.
Russell appellants. Schaefer,
Cooke, Elwyn Gilíes F. & DeMoulin, Schaefer, Anderson, Denver and Miller, Laugesen, J. Kent Den- Campbell ver, for COYTE, Judge. judgment of the
Plaintiffs from a judgment in granting trial court dismissing plain- favor of defendants and punitive damages. We re- tiffs’ claim and remand the cause trial verse court. injured minor in an damages was complaint
accident. Her more than after the accident year one exemplary and included a claim for dam- prayer complaint also ages. The requested award for ages. answer includes the
Defendants’ amended that the defense statute limita- year is barred one tions, 13-80-104, Based C.R.S.1973. § statute, filed motion for this judgment. The court held that dispute any material fact there was no as to plaintiffs’ relief and that second claim exemplary damages was statute limitations. limitations year
The one
statute of
con-
C.R.S.1973,
13-80-104
reads as
tained
§
follows:
any
penalty
“All actions and suits for
statute,
any penal
brought
forfeiture
whom
person
state or
any
this
given, in whole or
penalty or forfeiture is
within one
part,
shall be commenced
committed and
after the offense is
after that
not
time.”
this action was
it is admitted that
Since
year after the
commenced within one
not
accident, the
C.R.S.1973,
When the trial court
upon whether the ac-
dismissed the
depends
enforce a
brought
is one
tion involved
claim for
it entered a
forfeiture.
considering
In
wheth
54(b) order could be
er the C.R.C.P.
entered
order
in this
i. e. whether the
consti
is based
*3
purpose
tuted a final
of this
provides
which
as follows:
given
legal
appeal, attention must be
damages
in
are
“In all civil actions which
Empire
effect of the order. See Levine
wrong
for a
done to
by
jury
assessed
188,
192
tort claim.
KIRSHBAUM, J., concurs.
(C.D.
F.Supp. 136
Mutual Life Ins.
CISE, J.,
VAN
dissents.
Cal.1975):
right sued
“The nature of the
upon, not the form of action or the relief
CISE, Judge, dissenting:
VAN
demanded,
determines the
personal
is a
in which
injury
Thus, plain
the statute of limitations.”
asking
compensatory
are
plaintiffs
not a
tiffs’ claim for
is
liability
punitive damages. The issues of
forfeiture,
suit or action for a
compensatory damages
have not been
13-80-104, C.R.S.1973,
inapplicable
is
and §
decided; however,
motion for
defendants’
Dorney v.
as a bar to that claim. See
judgment denying plaintiffs any
Harris,
(D.Colo.1980).
F.Supp.
damages
punitive
entitlement
Defendants’
reliance
Carlson v.
30, 1979, the trial
granted. On November
391,
(1977)
McCoy, 193 Colo.
54(b)
Plain-
court entered C.R.C.P.
There,
present-
misplaced.
is
the court was
summary judgment.
appeal
tiffs
question
ed with the
of whether the one
in its deci-
majority
disagree
I
13-80-104, C.R.S.1973,
year limitation in §
regard Carlson v.
sion on the merits.
I
damages
an action for
treble
Ball v. Peter Airlines
(1979); see Trans Central Associates, Inc., McBreen (1972),
should be dismissed. *4 GARRETT, Plaintiff,
Delmar C. MILLER, Gregory, William and
Carl Weber, duly as the constituted
Charles
Board of Lake Coun Commissioners Colorado, Defendants Third-Par
ty Plaintiffs-Appellants, CO., Dela
CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM Amax, Inc., New
ware Club, Corporation, The
York Cloud association,
unincorporated Silvia Ball Schneider, Roy
trip, Doty H. Kirk
McDowell, Third-Party Defendants-Ap
pellees. Court Aug. 1980.
Certiorari Denied Nov. 1980. C., Bremer,
Watson, P. How- Nathan & Bremer, Denver, for ard W. plaintiffs-appellants. third-party Hazlitt, Friedrich, Weller, Hickisch & Barrows, Denver, third-par- H. Thomas