Tag Archives: Rule Change

Proposed revisions to CRCP – Public Hearing April 30, 2015

[A message from the CBA Chair of the Litigation Section. A link to a Redline version of the proposed changes is provided below]

Dear Colleagues:

There are, pending before the Colorado Supreme Court, proposed changes to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Significant changes to Rules 16, 26, 34, 37 and 54 are proposed which raise lots of questions. Do you understand the meaning of “proportionality” as defined in proposed new Rule 26(b)(1)? Can you depose an expert in 3 hours as limited by proposed new Rule 26(b)(4)(A)? Do you agree with the limitations on discovery relative to an expert’s opinion as provided in proposed Rule 26(b)(4)(D)?

The public hearing concerning the proposed rule changes which will be held on April 30, 2015. The Supreme Court is presently seeking public comment about the proposed rules in advance of that hearing. April 17, 2015 is deadline for submission of written public comments.

The Litigation Section Council is working toward formulating comments on behalf of the Litigation Section membership to be submitted to the Supreme Court. If you have comments concerning the proposed rule changes that you would like to have considered by the Council, please submit your comments to Greg Martin the Section’s CBA staff liaison at gmartin@cobar.org no later than March 5, 2015.

A redlined version of the proposed revisions can be found as a link in the Winter, 2015 CBA Litigation Section Newsletter on the CBA website, and are attached to this e-mail. Thank you.

Peter R. Black
Chairperson, CBA Litigation Section Council

2015 proposed rule changes CRCP – redline

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Administrative, Proceedure

Amendments to CRCP 4: Time to Serve; New Form 1 – Summons – Effective Immediately

Effective September 5, 2013, Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (and a reference in Rule 15) has been amended to add a completely new section stating that a case may be dismissed if a defendant is not served within 63 days after the complaint is filed.  A copy of the text is below, as well as a link to the court’s official rule change.

Rule 4. Process
(a) through (k) [NO CHANGE]
(l) No Colorado Rule.
(m) TIME LIMIT FOR SERVICE. IF A DEFENDANT IS NOT SERVED WITHIN 63 DAYS (NINE WEEKS) AFTER THE COMPLAINT IS FILED, THE COURT–ON MOTION OR ON ITS OWN AFTER NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF–SHALL DISMISS THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT OR ORDER THAT SERVICE BE MADE WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME. BUT IF THE PLAINTIFF SHOWS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE, THE COURT SHALL EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE FOR AN APPROPRIATE PERIOD. THIS SUBDIVISION (m) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY UNDER RULE 4(d).

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Rule_Changes/2013/2013(12)%20redlined.pdf

Effective as of October 10, 2013, the form for a summons has also been changed to add specific language explaining the rules governing the next steps after a summons is served:

Form 1.  SUMMONS

Caption and body of the Summons form [NO CHANGE]

This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4, C.R.C.P., as amended. A copy of the Complaint must be served with this Summons. This form should not be used where service by publication is desired.

WARNING: A VALID SUMMONS MAY BE ISSUED BY A LAWYER AND IT NEED NOT CONTAIN A COURT CASE NUMBER, THE SIGNATURE OF A COURT OFFICER, OR A COURT SEAL. THE PLAINTIFF HAS 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE THIS SUMMONS WAS SERVED ON YOU TO FILE THE CASE WITH THE COURT. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING THE COURT TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE CASE HAS BEEN FILED AND OBTAIN THE CASE NUMBER. IF THE PLAINTIFF FILES THE CASE WITHIN THIS TIME, THEN YOU MUST RESPOND AS EXPLAINED IN THIS SUMMONS. IF THE PLAINTIFF FILES MORE THAN 14 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE SUMMONS WAS SERVED ON YOU, THE CASE MAY BE DISMISSED UPON MOTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SEEK ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM THE PLAINTIFF.

TO THE CLERK: If the summons is issued by the clerk of the court, the signature block for the clerk or deputy should be provided by stamp, or typewriter, in the space to the left of the attorney’s name.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Rule_Changes/2013/2013(15)%20redlined.pdf

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary, Proceedure

C.A.R. 5 Rule Change Permits Limited Representation of Pro Se Clients in a Civil Appellate Proceeding

The comments to the rule change are as follows:

“The purpose of C.A.R. 5(e) is to establish a procedure similar to that set forth in Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 121 Section 1-1(5). This procedure provides assurance that an attorney who makes a limited appearance for a pro se party in a specified appellate case proceeding(s), at the request of and with the consent of the pro se party, can withdraw from the case upon filing a notice of completion of the limited appearance, without leave of court. The purpose of C.A.R. 5(f) is to make clear that when an attorney appears for a party, whom he or she has not previously represented, in an appellate court and the proceedings in that court have concluded, the attorney is not obligated to represent the party in any other proceeding on remand or in any review of the appellate court’s decision by any other court. Nothing in this provision would prevent the attorney from entering a limited or general appearance on behalf of the party in another court (for example, on a writ of certiorari to the supreme court), if agreed to by the attorney and the party.”

(Credit to CBA-CLE Legal Connection for pointing out this change).

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Rule_Changes/2012/2012(15).pdf

1 Comment

Filed under Attorney Regulation, Commentary

Proposed Change to CRCP 45

The Colorado Supreme Court has proposed changes to rule CRCP 45. A copy of the proposed Rule and revised Subpoena Form may be found here: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Rule_Changes/Proposed/CRCP45.pdf

Please also see the CLR post on In re the Marriage of Wiggins, which directly addressed the application of Rule 45, and held that obtaining documents prior to providing all parties with notice and opportunity to object is a violation of the Rule and may subject violating attorneys to sanctions.

1 Comment

Filed under Commentary, Proceedure