Mitchell v. District Court In and For Eighth Judicial Dist., 83SA244
| Decision Date | 05 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83SA244,83SA244 |
| Citation | 672 P.2d 997 |
| Parties | Robert D. MITCHELL and Helen E. Mitchell, Petitioners, v. DISTRICT COURT In and For the EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, and Arnaud Newton, Judge Thereof, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Joseph P. Jenkins, P.C., Joseph P. Jenkins, Estes Park, for petitioners.
Fischer & Wilmarth, Steven G. Francis, Fort Collins, for respondents.
Petitioners, Robert and Helen Mitchell, filed a petition for relief in the nature of prohibition pursuant to C.A.R. 21(a) seeking extraordinary relief to review various actions of the respondent trial court. Petitioners specifically requested this court to require the trial court to permit them to amend their complaint to join additional parties under C.R.C.P. 19(a); to vacate a trial date; and to postpone the taking of certain depositions. A rule to show cause why such relief should not be granted was issued, together with an order staying all proceedings, on the basis of this petition. We now discharge the rule and vacate our stay order.
This case arises out of a dispute concerning use of a mobile home park which adjoins petitioners' property. Petitioners initially filed suit against the then owner of the mobile home park, Leroy Cox, seeking monetary damages and requesting injunctive relief to abate a nuisance. Cox prevailed at the trial of that suit; however, the judgment was reversed by the Colorado Court of Appeals. Mitchell v. LeRoy Cox, d/b/a Spruce Lake Recreational Vehicle Park (Colo.App. No. 80CA0455, Dec. 31, 1981) (not selected for official publication). On November 26, 1980, while the appeal was pending, the park was sold by Cox to Spruce Lake Recreational Vehicle Park, a corporation. Plaintiffs successfully sought to amend their complaint to join Spruce Lake as a party defendant, and the matter was set for re-trial.
During preparations for re-trial, petitioners discovered that on April 1, 1983, Spruce Lake had conveyed the park to "William D. Rogers, Trustee." Petitioners then filed a "Motion to Vacate Trial Setting and for Leave to Amend" with the trial court, requesting permission to amend their complaint "to add William D. Rogers, Trustee ... as an additional party defendant" and asking that the June 27 trial date be vacated. Petitioners' petition for extraordinary relief was filed after the trial court's ruling on that motion.
That petition contained the following allegation:
On the basis of these allegations, we issued a rule to show cause. 1
As respondents note in their answer to the show cause order, any suggestion that the trial court denied petitioners' motion to join the trustee as a third party defendant is directly contradicted by the transcript of the hearing on petitioners' motion. 2 A petitioner seeking prohibition has the responsibility of providing this court with a record that will substantiate the request for extraordinary relief. People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass'n, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com'n of State of Colo., COLORADO-UTE
... ... Nos. 86SA244, 86SA246 ... Supreme Court of Colorado, ... July 11, 1988 ... Rehearing ... a judgment of the Montrose County District Court which set aside orders promulgated by the ... judicial review in the Montrose County District Court ... Working with this data, Mitchell, a staff witness, testified that during February ... ...
-
White v. District Court In and For Fourth Judicial Dist., 84SA189
...responsibility of providing this court with a record sufficient to substantiate the request for extraordinary relief. Mitchell v. District Court, 672 P.2d 997 (Colo.1983). In support of the assertion that respondent acted in excess of its jurisdiction, petitioner merely asserts in his petit......
-
People ex rel. Iuppa v. District Court of El Paso County, 86SA344
...sufficient to substantiate the request for extraordinary relief. White v. District Court, 695 P.2d 1133 (Colo.1984); Mitchell v. District Court, 672 P.2d 997 (Colo.1983). While we do not have the transcript of the August 25 proceeding, the petitioner did provide us with a sufficient record ......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...court with a record that will substantiate the request for extraordinary relief. Mitchell v. District Court ex rel. Eighth Judicial Dist., 672 P.2d 997 (Colo. 1983). In the absence of a compelling need, this rule may not serve as a substitute for an adequate appellate remedy that a party si......
-
Rule 19 JOINDER OF PERSONS NEEDED FOR JUST ADJUDICATION.
...App. 1981); Creditor's Serv., Inc. v. Shaffer, 659 P.2d 694 (Colo. App. 1982); Mitchell v. District Court ex rel. Eighth Judicial Dist., 672 P.2d 997 (Colo. 1983); Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge v. Wolf, 2013 COA 118, 411 P.3d 793. II. JOINED IF FEASIBLE. A. In General. Section (a) is man......