Larry W. Martin, Petitioner-Appellant,
Arapahoe County Court; Honorable Christina Apostoli; and Honorable Bonnie Heather McLean, Respondents-Appellees.
County District Court No. 15CV30232 Honorable Kurt A. Horton,
Azizpour Donnelly, LLC, Katayoun A. Donnelly, Denver,
Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellant
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Sueanna P. Johnson,
Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for
1 Petitioner, Larry W. Martin, filed this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)
action in district court against respondents, the Arapahoe
County Court, Magistrate Christina Apostoli, and former
Magistrate Bonnie McLean, seeking review of a temporary civil
protection order entered against him in county court. The
district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We conclude that the district court correctly
dismissed the case because a civil protection order is not a
final decision reviewable under C.R.C.P. 106, and under the
circumstances in this case, Martin had other adequate
remedies provided by law. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal.
2 On November 26, 2014, Martin's business acquaintance,
L.O., filed a complaint for a civil protection order against
him in county court, claiming that Martin was stalking her.
The complaint alleged that Martin had sent L.O., her husband,
her brother, and her sister-in-law over seventy e-mails from
thirteen different e-mail addresses in which he professed his
love for her and falsely claimed she was divorcing her
husband and having an affair. L.O. also asserted that
Martin's e-mails described events he could have known
about only by observing her activities.
3 After an ex parte hearing the same day, the county court
entered a temporary civil protection order pursuant to
section 13-14-104.5, C.R.S. 2016. In its order, the county
court found, based on L.O.'s testimony, that Martin
constituted a credible threat, and that an imminent danger
existed to the life and health of L.O. The temporary order
required Martin to stay at least 150 yards away from L.O. and
her home. The county court set a hearing for December 10,
2014, to determine whether the temporary order should be made
permanent, and it issued a citation ordering Martin to appear
on that date.
4 Martin appeared with counsel on December 10 and requested a
continuance. The court reset the permanent order hearing for
December 30, 2014, and continued the temporary order. On the
morning of the December 30 hearing, Martin filed a motion to
vacate the temporary order and dismiss L.O.'s complaint,
arguing that (1) the statutory requirements for issuing a
temporary civil protection order were not met and (2) the
statutes governing temporary and permanent civil protection
orders were unconstitutional. At the hearing, the county
court denied the motion to vacate the temporary order, but,
at the urging of Martin, it continued the hearing on the
permanent order to allow briefing from the Attorney
General's office regarding the constitutionality of the
statutes. It extended the temporary order and reset the
permanent order hearing for February 26, 2015.
5 Before the February 26 hearing, however, Martin filed this
action in district court, naming as defendants the Arapahoe
County Court and judges of that court and seeking review of
the temporary protection order under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). In
his complaint, Martin alleged that the county court exceeded
its jurisdiction in issuing the temporary order because the
evidence before the county court did not demonstrate imminent
danger to L.O.'s life or health. The county court stayed the
protection order proceedings and extended the temporary order
pending the resolution of the C.R.C.P. 106 action.
6 The county court defendants then 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 a
permanent order if one was entered.
7 After briefing, the district court granted the motion to
dismiss "for the reasons argued by the ...