Goderstad v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 97CA1222
| Decision Date | 10 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97CA1222,97CA1222 |
| Citation | 971 P.2d 693 |
| Parties | 98 CJ C.A.R. 6104 Joan V. GODERSTAD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DILLON COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a King Soopers, Inc., a Kansas corporation, Defendant-Appellant. . IV |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Kenneth E. Peck, Bette K. Bushell, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Long & Jaudon, P.C., Frederick W. Long, David H. Yun, Denver, Colorado for Defendant-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge NEY.
Defendant, Dillon Companies, Inc., appeals a default on liability entered by a magistrate in favor of the plaintiff, Joan Goderstad, as a sanction against the defendant for discovery violations. We reverse and remand.
This case arose from injuries sustained by plaintiff in a slip and fall in the parking lot of defendant's supermarket. A district court magistrate presided over several pre-trial hearings, some of which concerned discovery issues.
Five days prior to the trial date, the magistrate entered a default on the issue of liability, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 37, as a sanction for defendant's failure to comply with a discovery order.
The defendant moved for a continuance to permit the district court to review the magistrate's order pursuant to C.R.M. 6(e) prior to the commencement of the trial. The district court denied the motion for the continuance, concluding that if the defendant filed the motion to review the magistrate's ruling, the trial would nonetheless proceed. The court reasoned that the unavailability of the hearing transcripts would prevent immediate review of the magistrate's order. The court also noted that a continuance would reward the defendant in this situation because the plaintiff was ready and wished to proceed on the issue of damages, aware that the magistrate's order could be reviewed.
The jury awarded plaintiff damages. After trial, defendant filed a timely motion to review the magistrate's default, pursuant to C.R.M. 6(e), which defendant considered moot because judgment had entered. This appeal followed.
The threshold issue is whether a magistrate has authority to enter a default as a C.R.C.P. 37 discovery violation sanction. Under the facts here, we conclude that the magistrate does not have that authority.
Section 13-5-201(3), C.R.S.1998, provides that a magistrate has authority only to hear those matters authorized by the supreme court as provided by the Colorado Rules for Magistrates.
A magistrate may conduct specified proceedings without consent of the parties, including settlement conferences, hearings on temporary orders in domestic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Petition of RGB, No. 03CA1428.
...officer who acts with limited authority. People in Interest of S.S.T., 38 Colo.App. 110, 553 P.2d 82 (1976); see also Goderstad v. Dillon Cos., 971 P.2d 693 (Colo.App.1998). As pertinent here, § 19-1-108(3)(a), C.R.S.2003, During the initial advisement of the rights of any party, the magist......
-
IN RE APH
...parental responsibilities. See People in Interest of J.B., supra; People in Interest of Baby Girl D., supra; cf. Goderstad v. Dillon Cos., 971 P.2d 693 (Colo.App.1998)(magistrate lacked authority to conduct proceedings concerning discovery when parties did not consent to have case tried to ......
-
Proposed Magistrate Rules: Crucial to Civil Litigators
...Art VI, § 10 (3). 5. Telephone call to the State Court Administrators Office, June 23, 1999. 6. Goderstad v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 971 P.2d 693 (Colo.App. 1998) (C.R.M. does not grant authority magistrates to rule on discovery matters). 7. "Colorado Rules for Magistrates," 27 The Colorado......