Empiregas, Inc., of Pueblo v. County Court of Pueblo County, 84CA0976
| Decision Date | 19 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84CA0976,84CA0976 |
| Parties | EMPIREGAS, INC., OF PUEBLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The COUNTY COURT OF the COUNTY OF PUEBLO, The Honorable Gordon R. Cooper, County Court Judge, Respondent-Appellee. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Rector, Retherford, Mullen & Johnson, Michael R. Waters, Colorado Springs, for petitioner-appellant.
Edwin K. McMartin, P.C., Edwin K. McMartin, Pueblo, for respondent-appellee.
In this appeal of a judgment entered in a C.R.C.P. 106 proceeding, petitioner, Empiregas, Inc., of Pueblo, challenges the holding of the district court of Pueblo County that the respondent county court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for dismissal of its counterclaim. We reverse.
The events pertinent to this appeal are as follows. In January 1983, a county court summons and complaint was served upon petitioner by one Tilton. Petitioner filed an answer, a counterclaim for damages in the amount of $32,323.77, as well as a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 313(b)(1) to transfer the claim to the district court. Tilton objected to petitioner's counterclaim for any amounts in excess of $5,000, as well as the motion to transfer to the district court. He argued that petitioner had elected to accept the jurisdiction of the county court by the filing of its answer and counterclaim in the county court, and that by doing so, it had limited itself to a maximum judgment of $5,000, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 313(b)(2).
Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint against Tilton in the district court of Pueblo County. In May 1983, the district court refused to accept the transfer, and dismissed petitioner's district court complaint.
Petitioner subsequently initiated an appeal in this court, but later dismissed that appeal.
In September 1983, petitioner sought a notice of dismissal of its counterclaim, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 341. The notice of dismissal was filed by petitioner before a reply or answer to its counterclaim was filed by Tilton, and the notice requested dismissal without prejudice. Tilton did subsequently file a reply. After a hearing, the respondent county court refused to grant the dismissal on the grounds that Tilton had replied to the counterclaim.
In December 1983, petitioner filed a writ in the district court in the nature of mandamus and prohibition pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106, seeking relief from the county court's denial of the notice of dismissal. After a hearing, the district court refused to grant the petitioner's application for relief seeking dismissal of its counterclaim, and this appeal followed.
The respondent is incorrect in asserting that the issue presented for resolution is whether petitioner is estopped from proceeding under C.R.C.P. 313(b)(1) to transfer its action to the district court if it has already filed a counterclaim under C.R.C.P. 313(b)(2). That issue is not ripe for disposition. The issue that is before this court is whether the petitioner had the right to dismiss its counterclaim pursuant to C.R.C.P. 341. We hold that it did and therefore reverse.
In an appeal from a judgment entered in a C.R.C.P. 106 proceeding, this court is in the same position as the district court concerning the review of the county court proceeding. Zaharia v. County Court, 673 P.2d 378 (Colo.App.1983). Relief in the nature of prohibition or mandamus is appropriate where a court is proceeding without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or has abused its discretion. Tyler v. District Court, 193 Colo. 31, 561 P.2d 1260 (1977).
The stage at which a party in a civil action through the county court simplified procedure may be allowed voluntarily to dismiss its claim is covered by C.R.C.P. 341. The purpose of the rule is to facilitate voluntary dismissals. The rule provides for a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of his action without prejudice if the notice of dismissal is filed before the adverse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Givan v. City of Colorado Springs, 92CA1428
...decision was arbitrary and without evidentiary support and not the decision of the municipal judge. In Empiregas, Inc. of Pueblo v. County Court, 713 P.2d 937, 938 (Colo.App.1985), it was held that, when reviewing a district court judgment in C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) proceedings, the court of app......
-
City of Colorado Springs v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Eagle, s. 93CA0386
...the appellate court is in the same position as the trial court concerning review of the agency proceeding. Empiregas, Inc. v. County Court, 713 P.2d 937 (Colo.App.1985). And, our review of the record reflects ample evidence to support the Board's determination that the criteria in the two a......
-
J.S. v. Chambers
...no additional evidence, thus putting the appellate court in the same position as the district court. Empiregas, Inc., of Pueblo v. County Court, 713 P.2d 937, 939 (Colo.App.1985) ("same position as the district court"); see also Toland v. Strohl, 147 Colo. 577, 582, 364 P.2d 588, 591 (1961)......
-
DeLong v. Trujillo, 97CA1652.
...appeals is in the same position as the district court concerning review of the proceedings pursuant to this rule. Empiregas, Inc. v. County Court, 713 P.2d 937 (Colo.App.1985). A reviewing court may reverse a decision of the administrative agency if it applies an incorrect legal standard or......