Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01141/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Walter Gerash
Appellee
Karen Ann Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

I 

i 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

KAREN ANN SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

P - :ao 

Unit d St~Ut~ t9\Irf , f Appeals 

Tenth CLeult 

JAN 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

WALTER GERASH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1141 

(D.C. No. 89-B-2157) 

(District of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

In this diversity action, appellant Karen Ann Smith appeals 

the district court's dismissal of her complaint against Walter 

Gerash, a licensed attorney practicing in the State of Colorado. 

This matter is before the court on appellant's motion for leave to 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purp~ses of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1141 Document: 010110069682 Date Filed: 01/09/1991 Page: 1 
proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. See 28 

u.s.c. § 1915(a). We grant appellant's motion and proceed to the 

merits of the appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 

(1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

Colorado law requires that: 

(1) In every action for damages or indemnity based 

upon the alleged professional negligence of a licensed 

professional, the plaintiff's or complainant's attorney 

shall file with the court a certificate of review, for 

each licensed professional named as a party, as specified in subsection (3) of this section, within sixty 

days after the service of the complaint ... against 

such licensed professional unless the court determines 

that a longer period is necessary for good cause shown. 

(2) In the event of failure to file a certificate 

of review in accordance with this section and if the 

licensed professional defending the claim believes that 

an expert is necessary to prove the claim of professional negligence, the defense may move the court for an 

order requiring filing of such a certificate. The court 

shall give priority to deciding such a motion, and in no 

event shall the court allow the case to be set for trial 

without a decision on such motion. 

* * * 

(4) The failure to file a certificate of review in 

accordance with this section shall result in the dismissal of the complaint .... 

Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 13-20-602 (1989 Supp.). 

Appellant filed her prose complaint on December 12, 1989. 

Appellee's answer to the complaint, filed on January 29, 1990, 

included an affirmative defense that plaintiff did not file the 

required certificate of review. Then on April 10, 1990, appellee 

filed a motion requesting that the court issue an order requiring 

appellant to file a certificate of review pursuant to section 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1141 Document: 010110069682 Date Filed: 01/09/1991 Page: 2 
13-20-602. The court granted appellee's motion that same day and 

set a deadline of April 16, 1990, for the submission of the certificate. Appellant filed an objection and requested an extension 

of time to file the certificate of review. The district court 

denied appellant's motion for an extension of time on April 16, 

1990. On May 1, 1990, appellee then filed a motion to dismiss the 

action for failure to file a certificate of review. Pursuant to 

appellee's motion, the district court dismissed appellant's complaint without prejudice. 

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing the 

case for failure to file a certificate of review as required by 

Colorado law. We confine our analysis to this claim only. 

The parties do not dispute the applicability of section 

13-20-602 to this case. Nor does plaintiff contest her failure to 

file a certificate of review in the district court. Appellant 

nevertheless argues here that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed her action. Appellant claims that the 

district court's order requiring her to file a certificate of 

review by April 16, 1990, did not allow her sufficient time to 

obtain the certificate or otherwise respond to the court's order. 

She alleges that the nearest Colorado statutes available for her 

use were in excess of 200 miles away. She also points to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6(e) and argues that the district court was required to 

extend by three days the prescribed period of time in which she 

was to file the certificate of review pursuant to its order of 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1141 Document: 010110069682 Date Filed: 01/09/1991 Page: 3 
April 10, 1990. In any event, appellant argues, the court's dismissal of her complaint on the same day that appellee submitted 

his motion to dismiss denied appellant the opportunity to respond 

to the motion. Appellant finally alleges that she did not receive 

a copy of appellee's motion to dismiss until the district court 

had already granted the motion. 

We do not believe that the district court abused its discretion. Section 13-20-602 requires that in every action based upon 

alleged professional negligence of a licensed professional, the 

party shall file with the court a certificate of review within 

sixty days after the service of the complaint. That requirement 

was not met here. Appellant was put on notice that appellee would 

rely on this provision when it asserted her failure to file the 

certificate as a defense in his answer to appellant's complaint. 

Appellee went even further, moreover, by filing a motion requesting the court to order appellant to file the required certificate. 

The court then allowed appellant an additional six days, until 

April 16, 1990, to file the long overdue certificate of review. 

After denying appellant's motion for an extension of time, the 

district court finally granted appellee's motion to dismiss on 

May 1, 1990. 

Although the Colorado provision permits an extension of time 

to file the certificate upon a showing of good cause, Colo. Rev. 

Stat.§ 13-20-602(1} (1989 Supp.), we are not persuaded that the 

district court abused its discretion when denying appellant's 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1141 Document: 010110069682 Date Filed: 01/09/1991 Page: 4 
request. At the time appellant made her request, the certificate 

was already overdue. Appellant's reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) 

to argue that the district court should have allowed her additional time to file the certificate is misplaced. Appellant did 

not submit a certificate of review within three days after the 

deadline prescribed by the district court's order of April 10, 

1990. Consequently, Rule 6(e) is not relevant to the action. 

Moreover, appellant gave no indication of when she would consult 

an attorney or prepare the required certificate in her motion 

requesting an extension of time. 

Although we note that appellant's complaint was filed prose, 

appellant was given sufficient notice of the statute's requirement. We therefore believe that, given the facts before us, the 

district court correctly complied with both the wording and intent 

of the Colorado provision. 

Because we find that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion when it dismissed appellant's complaint without prejudice, we deny appellant's motion for an extension of time in order 

to request a transfer and consolidation of cases. There is no 

longer a case before the district court which it could transfer or 

consolidate. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1141 Document: 010110069682 Date Filed: 01/09/1991 Page: 5