Aberkalns v. Blake

• Decision Date: 15 May 2009
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 08-cv-01080-CMA-KMT.
• Citation: 633 F.Supp.2d 1231
• Parties: Jonathan ABERKALNS, individually and on behalf of all Heirs and as surviving natural son of Oskars Aberkalns, Decedent, Plaintiff, v. Travis L. BLAKE, an individual and resident of Michigan, and Priority Transportation, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

633 F.Supp.2d 1231

Jonathan ABERKALNS, individually and on behalf of all Heirs and as surviving natural son of Oskars Aberkalns, Decedent, Plaintiff, v. Travis L. BLAKE, an individual and resident of Michigan, and Priority Transportation, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 08-cv-01080-CMA-KMT.

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

May 15, 2009.

Anthony Gary Bell, Jr., Robert J. Leonard, Bell & Pollock, P.C., Greenwood Village, CO, for Plaintiff.

Travis L. Blake, Hastings, MI, pro se.

Priority Transportation LLC, Chesteron, IN, pro se.

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 8). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death case, the facts of which are essentially undisputed. On February 11, 2005, Defendant Travis L. Blake parked the commercial semi-truck he was driving near the house of Oskars Aberkalns. At the time, Defendant Blake worked for Defendant Priority Transportation LLC, which also owned the truck.

Oskars Aberkalns heard the truck running and approached the rig to investigate a loud noise he heard. As he approached, Defendant Blake accelerated away from the parking spot at high speed. The truck hit Oskars Aberkalns, knocking him into the path of the truck's wheels, which ran over his head and body. The accident killed Oskars Aberkalns immediately.

On February 7, 2008, almost three years after the accident, Oskars Aberkalns' son, Plaintiff Jonathon Aberkalns filed this lawsuit in state court. Plaintiff stated in his complaint that "[t]his is an action for wrongful death." (Doc. # 1 at Ex. 1, ¶ 1.) He seeks damages for "all injuries, damages and losses he sustained due to . . . the death of his natural father, Oskars Aberkalns." (Id., ¶ 2.) Defendants timely removed the lawsuit to this Court (Doc. # 1) and filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 8). Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion (Doc. # 17), Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. # 20), and the Motion is now ripe.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's case is barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to wrongful death actions, codified at C.R.S. §§ 13-21-204 & 13-80-102(1)(d). Plaintiff responds that the three-year statute of limitations applicable to tort claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(n)(1), should apply to his claims instead. According to Plaintiff, the three-year motor vehicle statute of limitations should apply because: (1) Oskars Aberkalns' accident involved the use of a motor vehicle, and, therefore, the motor vehicle statute is more specific to the claims at issue; (2) the Colorado legislature adopted the motor vehicle statute of limitations after the wrongful death statute of limitations; and (3) the motor vehicle statute of limitations is the longer of the two applicable statutes of limitations.

As explained below, the Court agrees with Defendants that the two-year wrongful death statute of limitations should apply.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 12(c) motions serve a particularly useful purpose if the applicable statute of limitations would bar a party's claims and result in dismissal of the entire controversy as a matter of law. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Cunningham, 880 F.Supp. 1407, 1410 (D.Colo.1995) (citing 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1367 (1990)); see also EEOC v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 347 F.3d 1192, 1195 (10th Cir.2003) (noting that the "issue of the proper limitations period" is a legal question reviewable under Rule 12(c)).

However, judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is a drastic remedy that courts should otherwise use sparingly. See Power Motive Corp. v. Mannesmann Demag Corp., 617 F.Supp. 1048, 1049 (D.Colo.1985). Courts review a motion for judgment on the pleadings using the same standard as a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). See Ward v. Utah, 321 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.2003); Ramirez v. Department of Corr., 222 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir.2000). Thus, a court should determine whether a plaintiff has stated enough facts in the pleadings to raise a plausible claim for relief. See, e.g., Teigen v. Renfrow, 511 F.3d 1072, 1078 (10th Cir.2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) for the standard on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim). Like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court should accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff when deciding a Rule 12(c) motion. See Ward, 321 F.3d at 1266.

ANALYSIS

As shown below, Plaintiff sues under a right created by C.R.S. § 13-21-201, et seq. (the "Wrongful Death Act") and the Court finds no ambiguity in the plain language of the wrongful death statute of limitations. Thus, the Court need not resort to the interpretive tests cited by Plaintiff to determine which statute of limitations should apply in this case.

I. APPLICABLE LAW

A. The Nature of the Right Sued Upon Determines the Applicable Statute of Limitations.

Under Colorado law, the nature of the right sued upon determines the applicable statute of limitations. See San Juan Basin Consortium, Ltd. v. EnerVest San Juan Acquisition Ltd. P'Ship, 67 F.Supp.2d 1213, 1224 (D.Colo.1999) (holding that nature of the right sued upon determines applicable statute of limitations); Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Aspen Alps Condominium Assoc., 915 F.Supp. 1122, 1125 (D.Colo.1996) (same). When determining the nature of the action, the substance of the right infringed, not the specific legal theory of recovery determines the nature of the action. See Pitkin County v. Timroth, 87 P.3d 102, 105 (Colo. 2004).

The Colorado Supreme Court has adopted multiple interpretive tests to determine which statute of limitations a court should apply if the nature of the right sued upon leads to the potential application of more than one statute of limitations. See, e.g., Hersh Cos. Inc. v. Highline Village Assocs., 30 P.3d 221, 223-24 (Colo.2001); Regional Transp. Dist. v. Voss, 890 P.2d 663, 668 (Colo.1995); Dawson v. Reider, 872 P.2d 212, 214 (Colo.1994). However, a court should only turn to the rules of statutory interpretation if it cannot determine the legislative intent behind the statute from a reading of the statute's plain language. See People v. Luther, 58 P.3d 1013, 1015 (Colo.2002) ("[T]he court must begin with the plain language of the statute. If the statute is unambiguous and does not conflict with other statutory provisions, we need look no further.") (citation omitted); Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218, 221 (Colo.1992) ("When the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to interpretive rules and statutory construction."); cf. Dawson, 872 P.2d at 213-14 (court resorted to interpretive rules because "the statutes are not clear as to which is controlling").

B. The Colorado Wrongful Death Act

The Wrongful Death Act allows a decedent's heirs to recover damages from a tortfeasor whose tortious activity caused the decedent's death. See C.R.S. §§ 13-21-201 & 202; Jones v. Hildebrant, 432 U.S. 183, 185, 97 S.Ct. 2283, 53 L.Ed.2d 209 (1977) (citing Fish v. Liley, 120 Colo. 156, 208 P.2d 930, 933 (1949)). As described by the Colorado Supreme Court in Fish, the Wrongful Death Act:

contemplates a living tortfeasor and provides a compensatory remedy to the beneficiaries named and therein authorized to sue. . . . Properly considered, however, the [Wrongful] Death Act is not a survival statute. This is true for the reason that the cause of action created by the statute is separate and distinct from the action which the deceased would have for personal injuries had he survived.

Fish, 208 P.2d at 932. See also C.R.S. § 13-21-201.

Colorado first enacted a wrongful death statute in the late 1800s. See Taylor v. Welle, 143 Colo. 37, 352 P.2d 106, 108 (1960). Wrongful death claims did not exist at common law and even today are considered creatures of statute and subject to the limitations imposed in the Wrongful Death Act. See, e.g., Taylor, 352 P.2d at 108-09 (noting that prior to enactment of the Wrongful Death Act, "there was no common law right of recovery against one who tortiously caused the death of another"); DeCicco v. Trinidad Area Health Assoc., 40 Colo.App. 63, 573 P.2d 559, 561-62 (1977) ("The wrongful death action is a statutory one, enacted in derogation of the common law.").

Critically for purposes of this case, the Wrongful Death Act contains its own statute of limitations, C.R.S. § 13-21-204. That statute incorporates by reference C.R.S. § 13-80-102, Colorado's two-year statute of limitations. Subsection (1)(d) of § 13-80-102 contains the provision applicable to wrongful death claims: "The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: (d) All actions for wrongful death . . ." (emphasis added). The Colorado legislature has fixed the time of accrual for wrongful death claims at the time of death; there is no "discovery rule" or other means to toll the running of the statute in this case. See C.R.S. § 13-80-108(2). Thus, to survive a dispositive motion based on the statute of limitations, an heir must commence a wrongful death action within two years of the date of death.

II. THE TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES

Initially, the Court notes that the parties do not dispute the relevant facts. As such, the determination of Defendants' Motion is a purely legal question the Court can readily answer at this point in the litigation.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's wrongful death claims are time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations specified at C.R.S. §§...