Cox v. Sage Hospitality Res., LLC
Decision Date | 04 May 2017 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 16CA0766 |
Citation | 413 P.3d 302 |
Parties | John COX, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SAGE HOSPITALITY RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant–Appellee. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Killian, Davis, Richter & Mayle, P.C., J. Keith Killian, Andrew S. Petroski, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Waltz|Reeves, Richard A. Waltz, Christopher R. Reeves, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee
Opinion by JUDGE FOX
¶ 1 Plaintiff, John Cox, appeals the Denver District Court's dismissal of his complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. We conclude that potential double recovery—where a resident plaintiff is simultaneously suing different defendants in Colorado and another state for the same damages—does not constitute "most unusual circumstances" under forum non conveniens as articulated in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Lohn , 192 Colo. 200, 557 P.2d 373 (1976). We therefore reverse and remand the case with directions.
¶ 2 In May 2013, Cox, a Colorado resident, was staying at the Hilton San Diego/Del Mar Hotel (the hotel) in California. Cox was walking from his room on an outdoor path toward the breakfast area of the hotel when he lost his footing and fell, suffering a spiral fracture to his femur.
¶ 3 Defendant, Sage Hospitality Resources, LLC (Sage), owns the hotel property. Sage's members are Colorado residents, and its principal place of business is in Denver, Colorado. WS HDM, LLC (WS HDM), incorporated in Delaware and licensed to do business in California, owns and operates the hotel.
¶ 4 Cox simultaneously filed actions against both Sage and WS HDM in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Cox voluntarily dismissed his Colorado action after learning that the federal court lacked diversity jurisdiction because Cox and Sage shared Colorado citizenship. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California later dismissed Cox's action against Sage and WS HDM for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
¶ 5 In November 2015, Cox sued Sage in Denver District Court and WS HDM in California state court. Sage moved to dismiss the action in Denver District Court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Sage's motion asserted that two unusual circumstances warranted dismissing Cox's claim: (1) the incident occurred in California, and evidence and witnesses were principally located there; and (2) Cox was pursuing a civil action in California state court, creating a risk of double recovery for the same damages related to his fall.
¶ 6 In March 2016, the Denver District Court, in a five-page order, granted Sage's motion to dismiss, noting that judicial economy concerns and the potential for double recovery allowed for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Despite the Denver District Court's reasoned order, we reverse based on the Colorado Constitution, article II, section 5 ; the Colorado Citizens' Access to Colorado Courts Act, §§ 13-20-1001 to - 1004, C.R.S. 2016; and Colorado Supreme Court precedent.
¶ 7 Cox argues that the Denver District Court erred in granting Sage's motion to dismiss because there were no unusual circumstances sufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of Colorado courts hearing cases brought by Colorado residents. We agree.
¶ 8 Cox properly preserved this issue for appeal.
¶ 9 A district court generally has discretion to dismiss an action if it concludes that a more appropriate forum lies elsewhere. PMI Mortg. Ins. Co. v. Deseret Fed. Sav. & Loan , 757 P.2d 1156, 1158 (Colo. App. 1988) ; see also UIH-SFCC Holdings, L.P. v. Brigato , 51 P.3d 1076, 1078 (Colo. App. 2002). However, a strong presumption in favor of a plaintiff's choice of forum exists in Colorado; accordingly, Colorado courts have extremely limited discretion under this doctrine to dismiss an action filed by a resident plaintiff. McDonnell-Douglas , 192 Colo. at 201, 557 P.2d at 374 ; see also § 13-20-1002(1)(b), C.R.S. 2016 (); § 13-20-1002(2)(a) ().
¶ 10 The Colorado Supreme Court has made clear that "the doctrine of [f]orum non conveniens has only the most limited application in Colorado courts." McDonnell-Douglas , 192 Colo. at 201, 557 P.2d at 374 ; see also Colo. Const. art. II, § 6 ( ).1 Under the Colorado Citizens' Access to Courts Act, courts must dismiss an action on forum non conveniens grounds only if:
§ 13-20-1004(1) (emphasis added).
¶ 11 Thus, except in "most unusual circumstances," the choice of a Colorado forum by a resident plaintiff will not be disturbed. McDonnell-Douglas , 192 Colo. at 201, 557 P.2d at 374 ( ); see also Kelce v. Touche Ross & Co. , 192 Colo. 202, 203-04, 557 P.2d 374, 375 (1976) ( ); Casey v. Truss , 720 P.2d 985, 986 (Colo. App. 1986) ( ).2
¶ 12 For the following reasons, the Denver District Court erred in dismissing Cox's action on forum non conveniens grounds based on judicial inefficiency and risk of double recovery.
¶ 13 While judicial economy often factors into a court's forum non conveniens analysis, this factor alone does not outweigh a resident plaintiff's constitutionally based interest in having his action heard by Colorado state courts. See McDonnell-Douglas , 192 Colo. at 201, 557 P.2d at 374 ; see also Firelock Inc. v. Dist. Court , 776 P.2d 1090, 1101 (Colo. 1989) (Lohr, J., dissenting) () (footnote omitted). Cox is a Colorado resident and claims to prefer to sue Sage in Colorado. Even though Cox filed a related suit in California state court, the existence of that lawsuit does not trump Cox's choice of forum in his home state. See Brigato , 51 P.3d at 1079-80 ( ); see also Kelce , 192 Colo. at 203-04, 557 P.2d at 375 ; Casey , 720 P.2d at 986. The California state court suit is against a different defendant, and the record does not indicate that the joinder of Sage in Cox's California state court suit is mandatory.
¶ 14 Nor does the risk of double recovery overcome the presumption in favor of Colorado courts hearing suits filed by Colorado resident plaintiffs. We are unaware of any Colorado case—and the parties cite none—that included potential double recovery as a factor courts must consider when deciding whether to dismiss an action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, or that identified potential double recovery as a "most unusual circumstance" sufficient to oust a resident plaintiff from his chosen forum. See McDonnell-Douglas , 192 Colo. at 201, 557 P.2d at 374 ; see also Brigato , 51 P.3d at 1079-80.
¶ 15 Sage argues that Crane ex rel. Cook v. Mekelburg , 691 P.2d 756, 760 (Colo. App. 1984), shows that Colorado courts include potential double recovery in their forum non conveniens considerations. We disagree. That division discussed potential double recovery only after it concluded its forum non conveniens analysis. See id. at 759. Further, it discussed potential double recovery and "splitting" cases in the specific context of interpreting a state's wrongful death statute, not the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Id. at 759-60.
¶ 16 The parties agree that California law governs Cox's claims. The legal framework controlling the calculation of damages is substantive law. See Target Corp. v. Prestige Maint. USA, Ltd. , 2013 COA 12, ¶ 18, 351 P.3d 493 ( ); see also Marine Midland Bank v. Kilbane , 573 F.Supp. 469, 470 (D. Md. 1983) ( ). Thus, California law applies to Cox's claims and any damages award, even if his case is tried in Colorado. And California law, like Colorado law, see Quist v. Specialties Supply Co. , 12 P.3d 863, 866 (Colo. App. 2000), does not allow double recovery for the same injury.3 See Tavaglionev. Billings , 4 Cal.4th 1150, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 608, 847 P.2d 574, 580 (1993). Colorado courts may employ various approaches to enforce this...
To continue reading
Request your trial