August 25, 2019

Archives for September 26, 2016

Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 9/26/2016

On Monday, September 26, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court issued eight published opinions.

Griffith v. SSC Pueblo Belmont Operating Co.

Meeks v. SSC Colorado Springs Colonial Columns Operating Co.

Department of Transportation v. Amerco Real Estate Co.

People v. Hoskin

Pulte Home Corp. v. Countryside Community Association, Inc.

Ryan Ranch Community Association, Inc. v. Kelley

People v. Chavez-Barragan

In re Marriage of Johnson

Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Order Declaratory Relief Because Ordinances Were Not Final Actions

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Public Service Co. of Colorado v. City of Boulder on Thursday, September 22, 2016.

At the November 2011 election, Boulder residents approved an amendment to the Boulder Home Rule Charter to authorize the creation of a new light and power utility if the Council could demonstrate that the new utility could acquire the existing utility and charge rates that do not exceed those charged by Xcel Energy by more than 25%. In August 2013, the Council approved an ordinance to carry out the legislation (the first ordinance). In May 2014, the Council approved another ordinance to establish the utility (the second ordinance). Twenty-eight days later, Xcel filed a complaint with respect to the second ordinance, seeking declaratory judgment under C.R.C.P. 57 or, alternatively, judicial review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). The City filed a motion to dismiss Xcel’s complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), arguing Xcel’s complaint attempted to challenge the first ordinance by challenging the second ordinance. The trial court granted the City’s motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to time bar.

On appeal, Xcel argued the trial court wrongly dismissed its complaint for lack of jurisdiction with respect to the 28-day limit in C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Xcel argued the first ordinance was not final and was legislative, not quasi-judicial, which made C.R.C.P. 106 inapplicable. The Colorado Court of Appeals first addressed finality. As to the first ordinance, the court found it was not final because (1) it did not establish the utility, (2) it referenced additional revisions to be made in planning the utility, and (3) the City made those additional revisions after the ordinance was passed.

The court evaluated Rule 106 and found that it governed “final decisions of the body or officer.” The court determined that neither the first nor the second ordinance was final for purposes of Rule 106 appeal. Because neither ordinance was final, judicial review under Rule 106 was premature. The court of appeals disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that Xcel’s complaint was time-barred, finding instead that it was premature.

The court also found that the district court could not enter a declaratory judgment under C.R.C.P. 57(b). The court noted that the lack of finality for the Rule 106 review also applied to declaratory judgments under Rule 57, and therefore it was premature for a declaratory judgment to issue.

The court declined to address whether the claims were quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial, and vacated the judgment of the district court.