Richland Development Co., L.L.C. v. East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation Dist.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95CA0525,95CA0525 |
| Citation | 899 P.2d 371 |
| Parties | RICHLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., a Colorado limited liability corporation, as successor in interest to Spring Creek Meadows Development Company, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EAST CHERRY CREEK VALLEY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellant. . C |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Downey & Knickrehm, P.C., Kate E. Knickrehm, Melinda M. Kelly, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Tallmadge, Wallace, Hahn, Smith & Walsh, P.C., David J. Hahn, Cynthia A. Calkins, Steven J. Hahn, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Opinion by Judge ROY.
Plaintiff, Richland Development Company, L.L.C., as successor in interest to Spring Creek Meadows Development Company, Inc. (Richland), moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the order denying the motion to dismiss filed by defendant, East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District (District), was not a final order and there is no C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification. We deny the motion.
Plaintiff's motion presents an issue that has arisen a number of times in various proceedings following the 1992 amendments to the Governmental Immunity Act, § 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10A). Its context here is as follows.
Richland initiated this action alleging three claims for relief. All of the claims related to the number of water taps available for use on property owned by it, namely: (1) negligent misrepresentation; (2) estoppel; and (3) mandamus. The District filed a motion to dismiss in the trial court, asserting that the first two claims were actions in tort, or actions which could be in tort, and were, thus, barred by governmental immunity that was not waived by the Governmental Immunity Act. The third claim, the District argued, should be dismissed because it had no duty enforceable through mandamus.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The District brought this appeal challenging the trial court's conclusion that Richland's claims were not barred by governmental immunity. It asserts that jurisdiction in this court is available under § 24-10-108, C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.).
Richland contends in its motion to dismiss that, because there is an additional claim with respect to which no defense of governmental immunity has been asserted, the District must obtain a C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification from the trial court before it can pursue this appeal. We disagree.
Generally, this court has jurisdiction to review only final judgments. See C.A.R. 1(a)(1); § 13-4-102(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A). Furthermore, an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint is not a final judgment because it leaves issues to be resolved by the trial court. See Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123 (Colo.1982). However, as amended in 1992, § 24-10-108 now expressly provides:
Except as provided in sections 24-10-104 to 24-10-106, sovereign immunity shall be a bar to any action against a public entity for injury which lies in tort or could lie in tort regardless of whether that may be the type of action or the form of relief chosen by a claimant. If a public entity raises the issue of sovereign immunity prior to or after the commencement of discovery, the court shall suspend discovery, except any discovery necessary to decide the issue of sovereign immunity, and shall decide such issue on motion. The court's decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gallegos
... ... recently interpreted this language in Richland Development Co. v. East Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation District, 899 P.2d 371 (Colo.App.1995). The ... ...
-
Dempsey v. Denver Police Dep't
... ... See Richland Dev. Co. v. E. Cherry Creek Valley Water & tion Dist., 899 P.2d 371, 37273 (Colo.App.1995).353 P.3d ... only client, not attorney); Turkey Creek, LLC v. Rosania, 953 P.2d 1306, 1308 (Colo.App.1998) ... ...
-
Podboy v. Fraternal Order of Police, 03CA0862.
... ... See Padilla v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 25 P.3d 1176 (Colo.2001); Springer v ... Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Walter, 812 P.2d 1168 (Colo.1991). If the ... Richland Dev. Co. v. E. Cherry Creek Valley Water & ... ...
-
Christel v. Eb Engineering, Inc., 03CA1716.
... ... 54(b). Walton v. State, supra; Richland Dev. Co. v. E. Cherry Creek Valley Water & tion Dist., 899 P.2d 371 (Colo.App.1995) (no C.R.C.P. 54(b) ... ...
-
Civil Interlocutory Appeals in Colorado State Courts
...at 924. [26] Walton v. State, 968 P.2d 636, 640 (Colo. 1998). [27] Richland Dev Co. v. East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation Dist, 899 P.2d 371, 372-73 (Colo.App. 1995). [28] See, e.g., City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231, 245 (Colo. 1996). [29] Id.; Richardson ex rel. Richardso......
-
Recent Developments in Governmental Immunity: Post-trinity Broadcasting
...supra, note 34 at 1124-25. 39. CRS § 24-10-108. 40. Richland Dev. Co., LLC v. East Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation Dist., 899 P.2d 371, 373 (Colo.App. 1995). 41. Willer v. City of Thornton, 817 P.2d 514, 520-21 (Colo. 1991). 42. Smith, supra, note 14. 43. Id. Column Eds.: Victoria M.......
-
Interpreting the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
...after July 1, 1992) (but see Brace, supra, note 11); Richland Development Co. v. East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District, 899 P.2d 371 (Colo.App. 1995). 34. Brace, supra, note 11; Fogg, supra, note 18; Trinity Broadcasting, supra, note 32. 35. Brace, supra, note 11. 36. Johns......
-
Trinity Hearings: Understanding Colorado Governmental Immunity Act Motions to Dismiss
...is contrary to Buckles v. State, 9952 P.2d 855 (Colo.App. 1998). 61. Richland Dev. Co. v. E. Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation Dist., 899 P.2d 371 (Colo.App. 62. Longmont v. Henry-Hobbs, 50 P.3d 906, 908 (Colo. 2002). See also Walton, supra, note 60 at 643. 63. Henry-Hobbs, supra, note......