United States District Court, D. Colorado
FRANKLYN A. JENKINS, Plaintiff,
DUFFY CRANE AND HAULING, INC., a Colorado corporation, DUFFY HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, DUFFY CRANE, INC., a Colorado corporation, and IMMEDIA, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND VACATING DOC. # 180, PREVIOUS ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT IMMEDIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. # 260) of the Court's previous
Order Granting Defendant Immedia's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 180). Because the Court inadvertently did
not consider an applicable statutory provision,
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is granted.
case arises from injuries Plaintiff Franklyn A. Jenkins
sustained on February 12, 2010, when he was unloading a heavy
printing press from his truck. Plaintiff is an experienced
commercial truck driver and was hired to transport part of
the press from Colorado to Minnesota.
Immedia, Inc. (“Defendant Immedia”) purchased the
large printing press from a seller in Colorado in late 2009.
Defendant Duffy Crane and Hauling, Inc. (“Defendant
Duffy”) loaded the equipment onto Plaintiff's truck
at the seller's facility on February 10, 2010. Plaintiff
then drove the load from Colorado to Minnesota, stopping
twice to add additional securement devices to the load. When
Plaintiff arrived at Defendant Immedia's Minnesota
facility on February 12, 2010, the third party whom Defendant
Immedia had hired to unload the truck directed Plaintiff to
remove the securement devices from the load. As Plaintiff
released the straps and chains, a steel cart rolled off the
truck's top deck and injured Plaintiff. See
(Doc. # 134.)
2011, Plaintiff filed suit in Minnesota state court against
Defendant Immedia, Defendant Duffy, and other defendants,
alleging negligence and negligence per se. The state
trial court dismissed Defendant Duffy for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The state trial court later denied Defendant
Immedia's motion for summary judgment because it
determined Defendant Immedia, as the owner of the property
being unloaded from Plaintiff's truck, owed Plaintiff the
duty to use reasonable care for Plaintiff's safety. (Doc.
filed suit in this Court against Defendant Duffy on February
6, 2013. (Doc. # 1.) On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff moved to
join Defendant Immedia as a defendant. (Doc. # 94.) On
October 27, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L.
Mix granted this motion because she concluded joinder was
proper pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 20. (Doc. # 119.) Relevant
here, Defendant Duffy had attempted to argue that
Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Immedia were barred
by the statute of limitations and collateral estoppel.
(Id.) Magistrate Judge Mix stated that Defendant
Immedia, not Defendant Duffy, would be the proper defendant
to raise these affirmative defenses. (Id.) Plaintiff
filed his Amended Complaint, naming Defendant Immedia as an
additional defendant, on November 19, 2015. (Doc. # 120.)
Immedia moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's
claims against it on August 11, 2016. (Doc. # 161.) Defendant
made four arguments: (1) Plaintiff's claims were barred
by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) Plaintiff was
engaging in improper forum shopping, in violation of the
Colorado River doctrine; (3) Plaintiff's claims
were precluded by collateral estoppel; and (4) Plaintiff was
solely responsible for securing the load on his truck as a
matter of law. (Id.)
Court granted Defendant Immedia's Motion for Summary
Judgment on October 17, 2016, concluding that Plaintiff's
claims against Defendant Immedia were barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. # 180.) The Court
first addressed the parties' disagreement regarding which
statute of limitations Colorado law would apply to the case.
(Id.) It agreed with Defendant Immedia that Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(k) was the appropriate statute
of limitations. (Id.) Because Minnesota (where the
action accrued) would apply a six-year statute of
limitations-longer than Colorado's three-year statute of
limitations-section 13-80-101(1)(k) applied and required that
the action be brought within three years of its accrual.
Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that Colorado's
borrowing statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. §
13-8-110, required that Minnesota's six-year
statute of limitation apply. (Doc. # 180.) The Court
disagreed with Plaintiff's reliance on Jenkins v.
Panama Canal R.R., 208 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2009), and
determined that the borrowing statute was inapplicable where
a party seeks to “borrow” a longer statute of
limitation from another jurisdiction. (Id.) The
Court also rejected Plaintiff's assertions that his claim
against Defendant Immedia did not accrue until 2014 and that
the doctrine of equitable tolling should save his claim.
(Id.) For these reasons, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Immedia.
September 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. # 260.) Defendant Immedia opposed the
motion on October 9, 2017. (Doc. # 266.) Plaintiff replied on
October 19, 2017. (Doc. # 267.)
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly authorize
a motion for reconsideration. However, the Rules allow a
litigant who was subject to an adverse judgment to file a
motion to change the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) or a
motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule
60(b). Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241,
1243 (10th Cir. 1991). In this case, Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration was not served within ten days of the
Court's previous order. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion
must be construed as one pursuant to Rule 60(b). Id.
under Rule 60(b) “is extraordinary and may only be
granted in exceptional circumstances.” Bud Brooks
Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., Inc., 909
F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990). A litigant shows
exceptional circumstances by satisfying one or more of Rule
60(b)'s six ...