DISTRICT COURT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO 

Court Address: PO Box 192/307 Moffat Avenue 

 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 

Phone: (970) 725-3357

Plaintiff: 

DEBRA A. TURNER 

vs. 

Defendants: 

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF 

THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO; 

and 

RODNEY D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as 

Sheriff of Grand County, also known as the Grand 

County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff’s Office 

 

 • COURT USE ONLY •

 Case Number: 2009CV378 

 Courtroom: 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

DISMISSAL ORDERS 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of 

Dismissal Orders. The Court finds and rules as follows: 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 22, 2010, this Court granted Defendant Sheriff Rodney D. Johnson’s 

(“Defendant Johnson”) partial motion to dismiss. On August 23, 2010, this Court granted 

Defendant the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Grand, State of Colorado’s 

(“Defendant BOCC”) motion to dismiss. On September 7, 2010, within fifteen days of entry 

of judgment by this Court, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Orders. 

Plaintiff filed this motion as a post-trial motion pursuant to Colorado Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59. On September 27, 2010, Defendant Johnson and Defendant BOCC file their 

response to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s motion became ripe on 

October 17, 2011, when Plaintiff filed her reply brief. 

EFILED Document 

CO Grand County District Court 14th JD 

Filing Date: Sep 6 2011 11:33AM MDT 

Filing ID: 39659140 

Review Clerk: Julie Faulkner

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 11 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

On October 22, 2010, Defendants removed this matter to Federal Court and this 

Court closed its case. 

In her Plaintiff’s Showing Of Cause About Why There Should Not Be A 

Dismissal, filed April 26, 2011, Plaintiff claims that, after removal, this Court issued an 

order of denial concerning the Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Orders and Motion 

to Amend Complaint. This judge, however, has no record of such an order in the electronic 

file in this case, nor does this judge have any recollection of signing such an order, nor does 

such an order exist in this judge’s word processing program, where this judge keeps a copy 

of all issued orders. It is this Court’s position that the Court did not rule on Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration because this Court lost jurisdiction over this matter when the 

Defendants removed it to Federal Court. 

This Court received the remand for the Federal Court on April 6, 2011, and, 

following the Federal Court’s order, noted there were no pending motions currently before 

the Court. 

The Court still finds the Federal Court denied all pending motions without 

prejudice. That is very clear in the Court’s order. To this Court, that means the parties can 

re-file their motions in State Court. Plaintiff cites the portion of the Federal Court’s order 

where the Federal Court highlighted the Federal Magistrate’s recommendation that the 

“plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied without prejudice and ‘be presented (along with the 

other motions pending in this case) to the state court for review and adjudication.’” 

Unfortunately, all the Federal Court did was to deny the motions. This Court interprets that 

to mean that the motions are denied and need to be re-filed in State Court. 

The Court Deems Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Denied Pursuant to 

C.R.C.P. 59(j)

The Court deems Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration denied pursuant to 

Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (“C.R.C.P.”) 59(j). 

C.R.C.P. 59(j) states: “the court shall determine any post-trial motion with 60 

days of the date of the filing of the motion . . . any post-trial motion that has not been 

decided within the 60-day determination period shall, without further action by the court, be 

deemed denied for all purposes . . . “ 

Although no trial per se took place in this matter, clearly, Plaintiff filed a posttrial motion. No matter how the Court runs the numbers, over sixty days have passed since 

Plaintiff filed her motion for reconsideration, so, Plaintiff’s motion is deemed denied for all 

purposes pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59(j). There are only two scenarios pursuant to which the 

Court can run the time. First, if the motions in state court still survive the Federal Court’s 

dismissal, the time has run: forty-five days ran before the Defendants removed the case and 

more than fifteen days have passed since the remand. Second, if Plaintiff renewed her 

motion on April 26, 2011, she is outside the fifteen day requirement found in C.R.C.P. 59(a) 

to file a motion for reconsideration. 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 11 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

This Court finds Plaintiff’s Renewal and Notice of Renewal of Pending Motions 

does not re-start the sixty day deadline for this Court to decide her C.R.C.P. 59 motion. 

Plaintiff’s Showing Of Cause About Why There Should Not Be A Dismissal

Regarding Plaintiff’s Showing Of Cause About Why There Should Not Be A 

Dismissal, this Court will maintain this action. Plaintiff has shown progress. 

Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal 

Orders

When the Plaintiff renewed her motions on April 26, 2011, one of the motions she 

renewed by Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal 

Orders. The Court can find no such motion in the file and, therefore, cannot rule on it. 

Dated this 6th day of September, 2011. 

BY THE COURT: 

 __________________________________ 

 Mary C. Hoak 

 District Court Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 11 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3