Town of Grand Lake v. District Court

Supreme Court of Colorado

Town of Grand Lake v. District Court

504 P.2d 666, 180 Colo. 272, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 692

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedDecember 26, 1972

DocketNo. 25647

StatusPublished

This text of 504 P.2d 666 (Town of Grand Lake v. District Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Town of Grand Lake v. District Court, 504 P.2d 666, 180 Colo. 272, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 692 (Colo. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE DAY

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an original proceeding seeking to prohibit the district court in Denver and one of the judges thereof from proceeding to trial in an action in which the court denied a motion for change of venue. We issued an order to show cause, and after examining the response find the rule was improvidently granted.

The action filed in Denver involves a claim for damages against the Town of Grand Lake and the members of the town council. The complaint alleges the Town and the city officials unlawfully leased public property of the Town of Grand Lake and unlawfully conspired and agreed to deprive plaintiff, Mountain Amusement Corporation, of profits and to assist plaintiffs competitor.

Service of the summons and complaint was made in Grand Lake on September 4, 1971, on all defendants except three. Defendant Negri was served on September 13, the only one served in Denver. Two of the defendants, Gary and Freddie Glick, the alleged lessees of the property, were never served. The Town of Grand Lake filed a motion for change of venue on the basis of C.R.C.P. 98(b)(2) on September 30, 1971 — six days after the time permitted under C.R.C.P. 98(e)(1). Defendant Negri filed a motion for change of venue on October 6, 1971 — three days late. All other defendants failed to file motions for change of venue, but attempted to join in and consent to the granting of the motion filed by Town of Grand Lake at a hearing in March of 1972. The court denied the request for the change. The ruling was correct. By failing to file their motions for change of venue within 20 days after service of the summons and complaint as required by the rule, and not having obtained enlargement of [274]*274the time from the court, the right to file over objection is lost. Fisher v. First National Bank of Omaha, 338 F. Supp. 525; Granger v. Kemm, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 644; Nelson v. Victory Electric Works, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 954.

Petitioners present herein a second matter for consideration concerning the motion for change of judge. This also was denied. The allegations for change show no ground for disqualifying the judge.

The rule is discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MR. JUSTICE DAY

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an original proceeding seeking to prohibit the district court in Denver and one of the judges thereof from proceeding to trial in an action in which the court denied a motion for change of venue. We issued an order to show cause, and after examining the response find the rule was improvidently granted.

The action filed in Denver involves a claim for damages against the Town of Grand Lake and the members of the town council. The complaint alleges the Town and the city officials unlawfully leased public property of the Town of Grand Lake and unlawfully conspired and agreed to deprive plaintiff, Mountain Amusement Corporation, of profits and to assist plaintiffs competitor.

Service of the summons and complaint was made in Grand Lake on September 4, 1971, on all defendants except three. Defendant Negri was served on September 13, the only one served in Denver. Two of the defendants, Gary and Freddie Glick, the alleged lessees of the property, were never served. The Town of Grand Lake filed a motion for change of venue on the basis of C.R.C.P. 98(b)(2) on September 30, 1971 — six days after the time permitted under C.R.C.P. 98(e)(1). Defendant Negri filed a motion for change of venue on October 6, 1971 — three days late. All other defendants failed to file motions for change of venue, but attempted to join in and consent to the granting of the motion filed by Town of Grand Lake at a hearing in March of 1972. The court denied the request for the change. The ruling was correct. By failing to file their motions for change of venue within 20 days after service of the summons and complaint as required by the rule, and not having obtained enlargement of [274]*274the time from the court, the right to file over objection is lost. Fisher v. First National Bank of Omaha, 338 F. Supp. 525; Granger v. Kemm, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 644; Nelson v. Victory Electric Works, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 954.

Petitioners present herein a second matter for consideration concerning the motion for change of judge. This also was denied. The allegations for change show no ground for disqualifying the judge.

The rule is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 P.2d 666, 180 Colo. 272, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-grand-lake-v-district-court-colo-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack