The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Martin v. Arapahoe County Court on Thursday, October 20, 2016.
C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)—Temporary Civil Protection Order—Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
The county court entered a temporary civil protection order pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-14-104.5 against Martin based on L.O.’s complaint. Martin filed a motion to vacate the temporary order and dismiss L.O.’s complaint. The motion was denied, but the hearing on the permanent order was continued to allow briefing from the Attorney General’s office on the constitutionality of the statutes. Before the rescheduled hearing, Martin filed this action in district court, naming as defendants the Arapahoe County Court and magistrates of that court and seeking review of the temporary protection order under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4).
The county court defendants moved to dismiss the C.R.C.P. 106 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that (1) the temporary order was not a final decision reviewable under C.R.C.P. 106 and (2) Martin had other adequate remedies because he could challenge the temporary order at the permanent order hearing and appeal the permanent order if one was issued. The motion to dismiss was granted.
On appeal, Martin argued it was error for the trial court to find it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling on this as an issue of first impression. The court found that a temporary protection order issued under C.R.S. § 13-14-104.5 is not the county court’s final decision on a plaintiff’s request for a civil protection order and is therefore not subject to review in a C.R.C.P. 106 action. It also found that the permanent order hearing and ordinary appellate review procedures provide adequate alternative remedies for challenging a temporary restraining order.
The judgment was affirmed.
Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.