DocketNumber： Supreme Court Case No. 21SC390
Citation Numbers： 521 P.3d 1014
Filed Date： 12/19/2022
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 7/29/2024
<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-06-12"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/929087179" data-vids="929087179" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">521 P.3d 1014
</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Marshall P. BROWN</span>, in his official capacity as <span class="ldml-role">Director of Water of the City of Aurora, Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">WALKER COMMERCIAL, INC.</span>, a <span class="ldml-role">Colorado corporation</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 21SC390</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">December 19, 2022</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="258" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="258" data-sentence-id="258" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Hamre, Rodriguez, Ostrander & Dingess, P.C.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Richard F. Rodriguez</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Joshua R. Kruger</span></span>, Denver, Colorado, <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Office of the City Attorney</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Julia A. Bannon</span></span>, Aurora, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="449" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="449" data-sentence-id="449" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Cambridge Law LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Reid J. Allred</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Jared M. Haynie</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="543" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="543" data-sentence-id="543" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amici Curiae</span> Colorado Departments of Corrections, Education, Higher Education, Regulatory Agencies, and Revenue; <span class="ldml-entity">Adams State University</span>; Auraria Higher Education Center; and Colorado Mesa University: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Philip J. Weiser</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Christopher J.L. Diedrich</span></span>, Senior Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="871" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="871" data-sentence-id="871" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> Colorado Municipal League: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Robert D. Sheesley</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Rachel Bender</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="977" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="977" data-sentence-id="977" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="984" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (MÁRQUEZ, BOATRIGHT, HOOD, GABRIEL, HART, SAMOUR, BERKENKOTTER, MÁRQUEZ)"><span data-paragraph-id="984" data-sentence-id="984" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MÁRQUEZ</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span>, in which CHIEF JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BOATRIGHT</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HOOD</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">GABRIEL</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HART</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">SAMOUR</span></span>, and JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BERKENKOTTER</span></span> joined</span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1163" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="1163" data-sentence-id="1163" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MÁRQUEZ</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span><span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_1214" data-val="1016"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1214" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1214" data-sentence-id="1215" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1215"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1215"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> provides for review of quasi-judicial decisions made by a governmental body or officer in a civil matter where the law otherwise provides no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1214" data-sentence-id="1438" class="ldml-sentence">An action under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1438"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> is commenced by filing a complaint in <span class="ldml-entity">district court</span> and is limited to a determination of whether the governmental body or officer exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1214" data-sentence-id="1652" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1438"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(I)</span>–<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(II)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1214" data-sentence-id="1680" class="ldml-sentence">Unless <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> establishes some other time limit for seeking review, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a complaint seeking review under <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1680"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> ]</span> shall be filed in <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> not later than 28 days after the final decision of the body or officer."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="1214" data-sentence-id="1914" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1680"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1214" data-sentence-id="1931" class="ldml-sentence">The question before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> is whether this twenty-eight-day deadline under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1931"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> for filing <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1931"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> action</span> may be extended for excusable neglect.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2087" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2087" data-sentence-id="2087" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2087"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> Walker Commercial, Inc.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-localname">Walker</span>"</span>)</span> filed a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2087"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaint seeking review of <span class="ldml-entity">the decision of <span class="ldml-entity">Marshall P. Brown</span></span>, the Director of Water of the <span class="ldml-entity">City of Aurora</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Director"</span>)</span>, to levy a storm drain development fee against Walker's real property.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2087" data-sentence-id="2339" class="ldml-sentence">Walker filed its <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2339"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaint in <span class="ldml-entity">district court</span> thirty days after the Director's final decision—two days past <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2339"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day filing deadline.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2508" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2508" data-sentence-id="2508" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2508"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> Walker contends that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> allows <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> to extend <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2508"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s filing deadline upon a showing of excusable neglect.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2508" data-sentence-id="2649" class="ldml-sentence">The Director disagrees, arguing that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2649"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> does not apply to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2649"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> because <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2649"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline establishes a limitation period that is jurisdictional and that must be strictly enforced.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2847" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2847" data-sentence-id="2847" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2847"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree with the Director and conclude that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2847"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> does not apply to extend <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2847"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day filing deadline.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2847" data-sentence-id="2978" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reaffirm, consistent with nearly half a century of Colorado appellate <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span>, that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2978"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> establishes a limitation period for invoking <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s jurisdiction under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2978"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2847" data-sentence-id="3188" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Courts</span> may not extend <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3188"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s limitation period under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3188"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> on grounds of excusable neglect.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2847" data-sentence-id="3291" class="ldml-sentence">Applying that understanding of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3291"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> here, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> properly dismissed Walker's <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3291"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> amended complaint as untimely.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2847" data-sentence-id="3445" class="ldml-sentence">Because the original complaint was untimely, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> also properly dismissed Walker's additional Claim 3 raised in its amended complaint.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2847" data-sentence-id="3591" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-types="background" data-ordinal_end="1" data-confidences="very_high" data-specifier="I" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_3652" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" id="heading_3652"><span data-paragraph-id="3652" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="3652" data-sentence-id="3652" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3652" data-sentence-id="3655" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="3683" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3683" data-sentence-id="3683" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3683"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> Walker, a developer, submitted an application to the <span class="ldml-entity">Planning Commission for the City of Aurora</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"City"</span>)</span> to develop commercial property into a self-storage facility.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3683" data-sentence-id="3852" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">2017</span>, the City approved the development plan.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3683" data-sentence-id="3901" class="ldml-sentence">Thereafter, in <span class="ldml-entity">April 2019</span>, the City invoiced Walker for part of a storm drain development fee on the property.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3683" data-sentence-id="4012" class="ldml-sentence">Walker objected to the fee but made the partial <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_4060" data-val="1017"></span> payment under protest and petitioned the Director for an administrative hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3683" data-sentence-id="4142" class="ldml-sentence">The Director held a hearing on <span class="ldml-entity">July 15, 2019</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3683" data-sentence-id="4188" class="ldml-sentence">On <span class="ldml-entity">August 13</span>, the Director emailed Walker stating that the City would accept $74,140.32 as payment for the fee.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3683" data-sentence-id="4300" class="ldml-sentence">Walker's <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> called the City and learned that the <span class="ldml-entity">August 13</span> email was the Director's final decision.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="4405" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4405" data-sentence-id="4405" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4405"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">September 12</span>—thirty days after the Director's final decision—Walker filed a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4405"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaint in <span class="ldml-entity">district court</span> seeking review of the Director's decision.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4405" data-sentence-id="4573" class="ldml-sentence">The Director moved to dismiss under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that Walker's complaint was untimely under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4573"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day deadline for filing a complaint under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4573"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4806" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4806" data-sentence-id="4806" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4806"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> Instead of responding to the Director's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span>, Walker filed an amended complaint on <span class="ldml-entity">October 11</span>, reasserting its <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4806"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> claim</span> and adding two more claims.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4806" data-sentence-id="4982" class="ldml-sentence">As relevant here, Walker's additional Claim 3 sought a declaration that the Director's decision was not effective because Walker had commenced proceedings for review within thirty days, and under the <span class="ldml-entity">Aurora <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4982"><span class="ldml-cite">City Code</span></a></span></span>, the Director's final decision becomes effective thirty days after notice is mailed or served on <span class="ldml-entity">the petitioner</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"unless proceedings for review by <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> are commenced within that time."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4806" data-sentence-id="5397" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4982"><span class="ldml-refname">Aurora City Code</span> <span class="ldml-cite">138-398<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(d)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5425" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5425" data-sentence-id="5425" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5425"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> The Director moved to dismiss the amended complaint, reasserting that the action was time-barred.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5425" data-sentence-id="5526" class="ldml-sentence">Walker filed a response to the motion and separately moved for an extension of time under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5526"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>, arguing that its untimely filing of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5526"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaint was the result of excusable neglect.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5728" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5728" data-sentence-id="5728" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5728"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">December 20, 2019</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> issued two orders.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5728" data-sentence-id="5791" class="ldml-sentence">The first order denied Walker's <span class="ldml-entity">motion for an extension of time</span>, concluding that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5791"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> does not apply to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5791"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s jurisdictional deadline, and that regardless, Walker had not demonstrated excusable neglect.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5728" data-sentence-id="6007" class="ldml-sentence">The second order granted the Director's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss Walker's amended complaint</span>, concluding that it was untimely filed and therefore <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> lacked jurisdiction to hear it.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6186" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6186" data-sentence-id="6186" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6186"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">January 28, 2020</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> issued a third order, concluding that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> Walker's complaint was time-barred because <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6186"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day deadline was not preempted by the city ordinance's thirty-day deadline; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> Walker's reliance on the thirty-day deadline did not constitute excusable neglect; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6186"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day deadline did not violate Walker's due process rights.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6597" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6597" data-sentence-id="6597" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6597"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> Walker appealed, contending, in part, that the city ordinance's thirty-day deadline governed, and that applying <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6597"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day deadline violated Walker's due process rights.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6597" data-sentence-id="6791" class="ldml-sentence">In the alternative, Walker contended that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> should have allowed its late-filed complaint under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6791"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>, as Walker's two-day delay was due to excusable neglect.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6597" data-sentence-id="6967" class="ldml-sentence">A division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> reversed <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s orders.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7039" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="7039" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7039"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> The division rejected Walker's claim that the municipal ordinance's thirty-day deadline governed and instead concluded that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7039"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day deadline applied to Walker's <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7039"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> action</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="7250" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7039"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Walker Com., Inc. v. Brown</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2021 COA 60
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7039"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 26–27</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">492 P.3d 1045
, 1051</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895571312" data-vids="895571312" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Gold Star Sausage Co. v. Kempf</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">653 P.2d 397
, 400–01</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="7403" class="ldml-sentence">It also concluded that applying the twenty-eight-day deadline did not violate Walker's right to due process.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="7512" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7512"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7512"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 30–36</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7512"><span class="ldml-cite">492 P.3d at 1052</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="7547" class="ldml-sentence">However, the division went on to hold that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7547"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> allows <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span> to accept late-filed <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7547"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaints upon a showing of excusable neglect.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="7704" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7704"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7704"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 49</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7704"><span class="ldml-cite">492 P.3d at 1055</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="7735" class="ldml-sentence">It further held that the standard for determining whether excusable neglect exists under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7735"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> parallels the excusable neglect standard under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7735"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 60<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="7893" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7893"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7893"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 66</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7893"><span class="ldml-cite">492 P.3d at 1058</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="7924" class="ldml-sentence">The division remanded <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> for <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> reconsider Walker's <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_8005" data-val="1018"></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7924"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">motion for an extension of time</span>, applying the excusable neglect standard that the division outlined; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> articulate its reasoning for dismissing Walker's Claim 3 for declaratory relief, if it were to again dismiss the amended complaint on remand.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7039" data-sentence-id="8267" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8267"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8267"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 67</span></a></span>, 69, 71, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8267"><span class="ldml-cite">492 P.3d at 1058–59</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8309" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8309" data-sentence-id="8309" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8309"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then granted the Director's <span class="ldml-entity">petition for certiorari review of <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' decision</span></span>.<a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-value="II. Standard of Review" data-types="standardofreview" data-ordinal_end="2" data-confidences="very_high" data-specifier="II" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_8410" data-content-heading-label="II. Standard of Review" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" id="heading_8410"><span data-paragraph-id="8410" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="8410" data-sentence-id="8410" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8410" data-sentence-id="8414" class="ldml-sentence">Standard of Review</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="8432" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8432" data-sentence-id="8433" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8433"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> review <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">a district court</span>'s interpretation</span> of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8433"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span> de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8432" data-sentence-id="8531" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890109454" data-vids="890109454" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8433"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Schaden v. DIA Brewing Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 4M
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8433"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 32</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890109454" data-vids="890109454" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">478 P.3d 1264
, 1270</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8432" data-sentence-id="8598" class="ldml-sentence">To analyze the rules, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"settled principles of statutory construction,"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> interpret the rules according to their commonly understood and accepted meanings."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8432" data-sentence-id="8768" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890109454" data-vids="890109454" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8598"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8771" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8771" data-sentence-id="8772" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8772"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> In so doing, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> read the rules as a whole, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘giving consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[their]</span> parts and avoiding constructions that would render any words or phrases superfluous or lead to illogical or absurd results.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8771" data-sentence-id="9017" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8772"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">alteration in original</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:pineda-liberatovpeople,2017co95" data-prop-ids="sentence_8772"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pineda-Liberato v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2017 CO 95
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8772"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 22</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886756305" data-vids="886756305" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8772"><span class="ldml-cite">403 P.3d 160
, 164</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8771" data-sentence-id="9121" class="ldml-sentence">To that end, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> consider a rule's language, its purpose, and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"federal <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> construing the corresponding federal rule,"</span> if any.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8771" data-sentence-id="9249" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893461004" data-vids="893461004" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9121"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">DCP Midstream, LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2013 CO 36
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9121"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 26</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893461004" data-vids="893461004" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">303 P.3d 1187
, 1193</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8771" data-sentence-id="9335" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> also consider a rule's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"history, prior law, the consequences of a given construction of the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[rule]</span>, and the end to be achieved by the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[rule]</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8771" data-sentence-id="9481" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894655363" data-vids="894655363" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9335"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Martin v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">27 P.3d 846
, 851</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8771" data-sentence-id="9530" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"examine our prior <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span> interpreting the relevant Colorado rules."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8771" data-sentence-id="9613" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893619184" data-vids="893619184" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9530"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Antero Res. Corp. v. Strudley</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2015 CO 26
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9530"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 12</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893619184" data-vids="893619184" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">347 P.3d 149
, 153</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-value="III. Analysis" data-types="analysis" data-ordinal_end="3" data-confidences="very_high" data-specifier="III" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_9680" data-content-heading-label="III. Analysis" data-ordinal_start="3" data-parsed="true" id="heading_9680"><span data-paragraph-id="9680" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="9680" data-sentence-id="9680" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9680" data-sentence-id="9685" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="9693" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9693" data-sentence-id="9693" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9693"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> The division held, and Walker no longer appears to dispute, that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9693"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day filing deadline governs <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9693"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> action</span> here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9693" data-sentence-id="9849" class="ldml-sentence">The question is whether that twenty-eight-day filing deadline may be extended under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9849"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> for excusable neglect.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9693" data-sentence-id="9966" class="ldml-sentence">Until the division's decision here, no <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado appellate court</span> had directly addressed this issue.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9693" data-sentence-id="10065" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:adamsvsagee,2017coa133" data-prop-ids="sentence_9966"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Adams v. Sagee</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2017 COA 133
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9966"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 3</span></a></span></span> n.1, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895250044" data-vids="895250044" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_10139"><span class="ldml-cite">410 P.3d 800
, 802 n.1</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">leaving unreviewed <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s ruling</span> that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s excusable neglect standard does not apply to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s jurisdictional deadline</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10287" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10287" data-sentence-id="10288" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10288"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> To answer this question, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review the language, history, and purpose of <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10288"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10288"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span></span></span> and <span class="ldml-entity">the case law</span> interpreting these rules.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10287" data-sentence-id="10431" class="ldml-sentence">Our survey leads <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to conclude that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10431"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> does not apply to extend <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10431"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day filing deadline.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10287" data-sentence-id="10551" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, consistent with nearly half a century of our <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> hold that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10551"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> establishes a strict limitation period for invoking <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s jurisdiction under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10551"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10287" data-sentence-id="10739" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> may not use <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10739"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s excusable neglect standard to extend the filing deadline under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10739"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10851" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10851" data-sentence-id="10851" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10851"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> properly dismissed Walker's amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10851"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaint as untimely, and thus also properly dismissed Walker's additional Claim 3.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10851" data-sentence-id="11022" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-id="heading_11083" data-ordinal_end="1" data-specifier="A" data-value="A. Rule 6(b)" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="A. Rule 6(b)" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" id="heading_11083"><span data-paragraph-id="11083" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="11083" data-sentence-id="11083" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11083" data-sentence-id="11086" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11083"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="11095" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11095" data-sentence-id="11096" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11096"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19 Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> allows extensions of time for acts that <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> must take under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11096"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11095" data-sentence-id="11213" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11213"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"allows a <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[trial]</span> court to extend the time for accomplishing an act required or permitted by the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[civil]</span> rules or <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> order on, among other things, a showing of excusable neglect."</span></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_11420" data-val="1019"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11420" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11420" data-sentence-id="11421" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888952625" data-vids="888952625" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">P.H. v. People in Int. of S.H.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">814 P.2d 909
, 912 n.8</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1991</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:farmdeals,lllpvstate,2012coa6"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Farm Deals, LLLP v. State</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2012 COA 6
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 14</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887061166" data-vids="887061166" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_11564"><span class="ldml-cite">300 P.3d 921
, 923</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The phrase <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘these rules’</span> plainly refers to the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span>, of which <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 6</span></a></span> is a part."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11420" data-sentence-id="11681" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11681"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> has given <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> this discretion since the adoption of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11681"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span> in <span class="ldml-entity">1941</span>. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1941</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(published in <span class="ldml-entity">1941</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Replacement Volume</span> <span class="ldml-cite">1 CSA: Ch. 1, Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1935</span>)</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> for cause shown may, at any time in its discretion ... <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> upon motion permit <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span> to be done after the expiration of the specified period where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect ...."</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11420" data-sentence-id="12109" class="ldml-sentence">As relevant here, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12109"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> currently provides:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_12156" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="12156" class="ldml-sentence">When by these rules ... an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> for cause shown may, at any time in its discretion ... <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span> to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect ....</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="12474" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12474" data-sentence-id="12475" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2022</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12496" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12496" data-sentence-id="12497" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12497"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> Trial courts</span> have <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"broad latitude under the provisions of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ <span class="ldml-refname">Rule</span>]</span> <span class="ldml-cite">6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12496" data-sentence-id="12577" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889067484" data-vids="889067484" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12659,sentence_12497"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Farmer v. Norm <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Fair Trade"</span> Stamp, Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">164 Colo. 156
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">433 P.2d 490
, 491</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1967</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> did not abuse its discretion by entertaining a late <span class="ldml-entity">motion to alter</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">amend its <span class="ldml-opinionnote">order</span></span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890508724" data-vids="890508724" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12497"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. McBeath</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">709 P.2d 38
, 39</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892120607" data-vids="892120607" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12497"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Reap v. Reap</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">142 Colo. 354
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">350 P.2d 1063
, 1065</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1960</span>)</span></a></span> )</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"broad latitude"</span> under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12497"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> to allow untimely responsive filings)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12996" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="12996" data-sentence-id="12996" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12996"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21 Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> contains two express exclusions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12996" data-sentence-id="13043" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13043"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> states that <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"may not extend the time for taking any action under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13043"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 60<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> and may extend the time for taking any action under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13043"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 59</span></a></span> only as allowed by that rule."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12996" data-sentence-id="13244" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13043"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12996" data-sentence-id="13259" class="ldml-sentence">Both excluded rules relate to final judgments.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12996" data-sentence-id="13306" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_13326,sentence_13259"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 60<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">allowing <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"relieve <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> or <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[their]</span> legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding"</span> for specified reasons</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_13476,sentence_13259"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 59</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">governing motions for post-trial relief</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12996" data-sentence-id="13518" class="ldml-sentence">These exclusions first appeared in <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity">1951</span> <span class="ldml-entity">amendment</span></span> to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13518"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12996" data-sentence-id="13584" class="ldml-sentence">C.R.C.P. 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">1951</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(published in <span class="ldml-entity">1951</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Replacement Volume</span> <span class="ldml-cite">1 CSA: Ch. 1, Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1935</span>)</span></a></span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12996" data-sentence-id="13676" class="ldml-sentence">The committee note describing these exclusions focused on the need for finality of certain rulings, explaining that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"there should be a definite point where it can be said a judgment is final."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12996" data-sentence-id="13869" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13676"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-id="heading_13872" data-ordinal_end="2" data-specifier="B" data-value="B. Rule 106" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="B. Rule 106" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" id="heading_13872"><span data-paragraph-id="13872" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="13872" data-sentence-id="13872" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13872" data-sentence-id="13875" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13872"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="13883" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13883" data-sentence-id="13883" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13883"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22 Rule 106</span></a></span>, which has also existed since the <span class="ldml-entity">1941</span> adoption of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13883"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span>, abolished and replaced various special remedial writs.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13883" data-sentence-id="14041" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13883"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1941</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(published in <span class="ldml-entity">1941</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13883"><span class="ldml-refname">Replacement Volume</span> <span class="ldml-cite">1 CSA: Ch. 15, Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1935</span>)</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Special forms of pleadings and writs in habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, scire facias, and proceedings for the issuance of other remedial writs, as heretofore known, are hereby abolished."</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13883" data-sentence-id="14361" class="ldml-sentence">Prior to the adoption of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14361"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span>, our former <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14361"><span class="ldml-cite">Code of Civil Procedure</span></a></span> included provisions governing the procedures for these special forms of pleadings.<a href="#note-fr3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr3">3</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13883" data-sentence-id="14514" class="ldml-sentence">The purpose of abolishing the former procedure of the special writs was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to simplify pleadings and to eliminate delay."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13883" data-sentence-id="14634" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885956770" data-vids="885956770" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14514"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Berryman v. Berryman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">115 Colo. 281
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">172 P.2d 446
, 447</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1946</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14696" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="14696" data-sentence-id="14696" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14696"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23 Rule 106</span></a></span> nevertheless retained the substantive forms of relief available under those special remedial writs.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14696" data-sentence-id="14809" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:leonhartvthedistrictcourtofthethirteenthjudicialdistrictno18429329p2d781,138colo1july7,1958" data-prop-ids="sentence_14696"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Leonhart v. Dist. Ct. of Thirteenth Jud. Dist.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">138 Colo. 1
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">329 P.2d 781
, 783</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1958</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889250474" data-vids="889250474" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14696"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">N. Poudre Irr. Co. v. Hinderlider</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">112 Colo. 467
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">150 P.2d 304
, 308</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1944</span>)</span></a></span> )</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Even under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14696"><span class="ldml-cite">Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span> the substantive aspects of remedial writs are preserved, and relief of the same nature as was formerly provided in such proceedings may be granted in accordance with precedents established under the old practice."</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14696" data-sentence-id="15238" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15238"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> addresses relief previously covered by writs of certiorari and prohibition, whereas relief previously covered by writs of habeas corpus, <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_15407" data-val="1020"></span> mandamus, quo warranto, and scire facias are now covered by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15238"><span class="ldml-cite">subsections <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span>, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span>, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span></span></a></span>, respectively.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14696" data-sentence-id="15530" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15238"><span class="ldml-refname">Address</span> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 16</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Guy K. Brewster</span>, Appendix D <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(published in <span class="ldml-entity">1941</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Replacement Volume</span> <span class="ldml-cite">1 CSA: pp. 526–27</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1935</span>)</span></a></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">13 Debra Knapp, <i class="ldml-italics">Civ. Proc. Forms & Comment.</i></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 106:1 <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3d ed. 2022)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15709" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15709" data-sentence-id="15709" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15709"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> While <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15709"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> has always been part of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15709"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span>, for many years there was no deadline for seeking relief under that provision.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15709" data-sentence-id="15875" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">July 1970</span>, however, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15875"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> to include a thirty-day filing deadline for <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a <span class="ldml-entity">petition for certiorari or other writ</span> seeking to review <span class="ldml-entity">the acts</span> of any lower tribunal"</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(that is, for the relief contemplated by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15875"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> )</span> unless <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> provided a different timeline.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15709" data-sentence-id="16162" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15875"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1971</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(published in C.R.S. <span class="ldml-entity">1973</span> Cum. Supp.: <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15875"><span class="ldml-cite">Ch. 17, Rule 106</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1963</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15709" data-sentence-id="16249" class="ldml-sentence">Notably, <span class="ldml-entity">this amendment</span> adding a filing deadline for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16249"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> actions</span> came nearly two decades after <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity">1951</span> <span class="ldml-entity">amendment</span></span> to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16249"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> that carved out exceptions for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16249"><span class="ldml-cite">Rules 59</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16249"><span class="ldml-cite">60<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15709" data-sentence-id="16438" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16249"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1951</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(published in <span class="ldml-entity">1951</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16249"><span class="ldml-refname">Replacement Volume</span> <span class="ldml-cite">1 CSA: Ch. 1, Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1935</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><p data-paragraph-id="16533" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="16533" data-sentence-id="16533" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16533"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> adopted further <span class="ldml-entity">amendments</span> to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16533"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> in <span class="ldml-entity">1985</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">effective <span class="ldml-entity">January 1, 1986</span></span>)</span> to update and simplify the language, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"while at the same time effecting a reasonable resolution to interpretive problems that ha<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[d]</span> troubled <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> and litigants for a number of years."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16533" data-sentence-id="16800" class="ldml-sentence">Letter from <span class="ldml-entity">Richard W. Laugesen</span>, Chairman, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">Supreme Court</span> Civil Rules Committee</span>, to <span class="ldml-entity">Hon. Luis D. Rovira</span>, Justice, <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Supreme Court</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">Mar. 14, 1985</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(on file with the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Supreme Court</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16533" data-sentence-id="16995" class="ldml-sentence">With respect to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16995"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>,</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_17026" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="17026" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> ... revised the procedures for commencing <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17026"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> action</span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="17101" class="ldml-sentence">Previously, there was much confusion as to whether or not <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17101"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> action</span> was commenced by the filing of a complaint under the C.R.C.P. or by the filing of a petition.</span> <span data-sentence-id="17271" class="ldml-sentence">Both methods were used.</span> <span data-sentence-id="17295" class="ldml-sentence">Now it is clear that the action is commenced by the filing of a complaint.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="17369" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17369" data-sentence-id="17369" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Michael J. Heydt</span>, <span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">C.R.C.P. Rule 106 : </i> <i class="ldml-italics">Amendments</i></span></a></span><i class="ldml-italics"> Governing Appeals from </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:localgovernmentaldecisions,15cololaw1643,1643sept1986" data-prop-ids="sentence_17369"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Local Governmental Decisions</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">15 Colo. Law. 1643
, 1643</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">Sept. 1986</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17369" data-sentence-id="17512" class="ldml-sentence">At the same time, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17512"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> to align its language with <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17512"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to make it clear that a complaint, as opposed to a petition, is the vehicle for seeking review under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17512"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="17369" data-sentence-id="17718" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:localgovernmentaldecisions,15cololaw1643,1643sept1986" data-prop-ids="sentence_17512"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1644</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17369" data-sentence-id="17731" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> also clarified that a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17731"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaint must be filed in <span class="ldml-entity">district court</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not later than thirty days <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘after’</span> the final decision"</span> to be reviewed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17369" data-sentence-id="17885" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:localgovernmentaldecisions,15cololaw1643,1643sept1986" data-prop-ids="sentence_17731"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17888" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17888" data-sentence-id="17888" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17888"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> More recently, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> adjusted <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17888"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s filing deadline in <span class="ldml-entity">2011</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">effective <span class="ldml-entity">January 1, 2012</span></span>)</span> from thirty days to twenty-eight days as part of a comprehensive overhaul of time calculations in Colorado rules adopting the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Rule of Seven."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="17888" data-sentence-id="18128" class="ldml-sentence">Rule Change <span class="ldml-entity">2011</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(18)</span>, <i class="ldml-italics">Time Calculation Changes to </i><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18128"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Colorado Rules</i></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">Dec. 14, 2011</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span><a href="#note-fr4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr4">4</a> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:richardpholme,ruleofsevenfortriallawyerscalculatinglitigationdeadlines,41cololaw33,33jan2012" data-prop-ids="sentence_18128"><span class="ldml-refname">Richard P. Holme, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Rule of Seven"</span> for Trial Lawyers: Calculating Litigation Deadlines</i></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">41 Colo. Law. 33
, 33</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">Jan. 2012</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17888" data-sentence-id="18331" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, in <span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18331"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> to limit its application to civil matters.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17888" data-sentence-id="18418" class="ldml-sentence">Rule Change <span class="ldml-entity">2020</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(26)</span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18418"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18418"><span class="ldml-cite">106</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18418"><span class="ldml-cite">121</span></a></span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18418"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">§ 1–14</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">Aug. 17, 2020</span>)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18523" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18523" data-sentence-id="18523" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18523"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> Throughout this evolution, the nature of review under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18523"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> has remained consistently narrow: <span class="ldml-entity">Courts</span> simply review the lower body or officer's decision to determine whether it <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion"</span> when <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18523" data-sentence-id="18849" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18523"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2022</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18523"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1941</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(published in <span class="ldml-entity">1941</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18523"><span class="ldml-refname">Replacement Volume</span> <span class="ldml-cite">1 CSA: Ch. 16, Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1935</span>)</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(permitting review <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>here an inferior tribunal ... has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy"</span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-id="heading_19136" data-ordinal_end="3" data-specifier="C" data-value="C. Application" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="C. Application" data-ordinal_start="3" data-parsed="true" id="heading_19136"><span data-paragraph-id="19136" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="19136" data-sentence-id="19136" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19136" data-sentence-id="19139" class="ldml-sentence">Application</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="19150" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19150" data-sentence-id="19150" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19150"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> Here, the division concluded that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19150"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> applies to allow the filing of <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19150"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> action</span> beyond <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19150"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day filing deadline upon a showing of excusable neglect.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_19344" data-val="1021"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19344" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19344" data-sentence-id="19345" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Walker Com.</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 14</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">492 P.3d at 1049</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19344" data-sentence-id="19382" class="ldml-sentence">The division reasoned that because <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19382"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> explicitly excludes <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19382"><span class="ldml-cite">Rules 59</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19382"><span class="ldml-cite">60<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span></span></span>, the omission of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19382"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> from this list of exclusions was intentional, and so <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19382"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s otherwise broad language must apply to the deadline in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19382"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19344" data-sentence-id="19625" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19625"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19625"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 42</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886692273" data-vids="886692273" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19625"><span class="ldml-cite">492 P.3d at 1053</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19344" data-sentence-id="19656" class="ldml-sentence">Considering the development of <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19656"><span class="ldml-cite">Rules 6</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19656"><span class="ldml-cite">106</span></a></span></span></span>, the language of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19656"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> itself, and our <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span> interpreting the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19656"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> disagree.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19818" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19818" data-sentence-id="19818" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19818"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> The history of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19818"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> sheds light on why <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19818"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline is not among the listed exclusions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19818" data-sentence-id="19925" class="ldml-sentence">As noted above, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19925"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> was amended in <span class="ldml-entity">1951</span> to create exclusions for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19925"><span class="ldml-cite">Rules 59</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19925"><span class="ldml-cite">60<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19818" data-sentence-id="20016" class="ldml-sentence">At that time, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20016"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> actions</span> had no deadline, so there was no need—nor would it have made sense—to reference <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20016"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20016"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s list of exclusions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19818" data-sentence-id="20177" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, the deadline in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20177"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> for filing <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> action</span> did not appear until <span class="ldml-entity">1970</span>, almost two decades later.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19818" data-sentence-id="20296" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, it cannot be inferred that the omission of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20296"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> from the list of exclusions in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20296"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> was intentional.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20414" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20414" data-sentence-id="20414" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20414"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> More importantly, the language of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20414"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> generally—and of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20414"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> in particular—shows that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20414"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day filing deadline functions as a limitation period for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20414"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> actions</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20625" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20625" data-sentence-id="20626" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20626"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> start with the understanding, confirmed in <span class="ldml-entity">1985</span>, that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20626"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> review is not a traditional appeal—instead, it is a standalone suit.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20625" data-sentence-id="20771" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_20787,sentence_20626"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[R]</span>elief may be obtained in <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> by appropriate <i class="ldml-italics">action</i> ...."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_20900,sentence_20626"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[A]</span> <i class="ldml-italics">complaint</i> seeking review under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_21009,sentence_20626"><span class="ldml-cite">subsection <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> of this Rule shall be filed in <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> ....</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">A timely <i class="ldml-italics">complaint</i> may be amended ...."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphases added</span>)</span>)</span></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20625" data-sentence-id="21068" class="ldml-sentence">Like other new actions, review under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21068"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> commences with <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"the filing of a complaint.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">An answer or other responsive pleading shall then be filed ...."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="20625" data-sentence-id="21228" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21068"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(II)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21251" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21251" data-sentence-id="21251" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21251"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> Moreover, the text of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21251"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> reveals that <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21251"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> action</span> is special among the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21251"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span>—hearkening back to its predecessors, the special writs—in that it constitutes a self-contained process.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21251" data-sentence-id="21482" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21482"><span class="ldml-cite">Subsections <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(I)</span> to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(IX)</span></span></a></span> set forth a detailed set of procedures for how such an action unfolds.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21251" data-sentence-id="21589" class="ldml-sentence">And these provisions explicitly refer to other rules from the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21589"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span> when <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> specifically apply.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21251" data-sentence-id="21715" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_21750,sentence_21589"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(II)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"An answer or other responsive pleading shall <i class="ldml-italics">then be filed in accordance with the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_21870,sentence_21589"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span>.</i></span> "</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_21911,sentence_21589"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(V)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The proceedings before or decision of the body or officer may be stayed, <i class="ldml-italics">pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_22050,sentence_21589"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 65 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span></i> ."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21251" data-sentence-id="22069" class="ldml-sentence">These specific references relying on other rules from the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22069"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span> for particular parts of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22069"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>'s procedure—but not for all of it—indicate that <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22069"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> action</span> is unique.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21251" data-sentence-id="22283" class="ldml-sentence">Such characteristics distinguish <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22283"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> from other acts required as part of standard litigation under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22283"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span> such as responsive pleadings or motions.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22471" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22471" data-sentence-id="22471" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22471"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> Given the unique, self-contained nature of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22471"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> proceedings, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have long construed <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22471"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s filing deadline to function as a limitation period.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22471" data-sentence-id="22635" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> must decide whether <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> may extend such a limitation period for equitable considerations and specifically, in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, for excusable neglect.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22790" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="22790" data-sentence-id="22791" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22791"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> As part of our adversarial legal system, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> include limitation periods <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to promote justice, discourage unnecessary delay, and forestall <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> of stale claims."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22790" data-sentence-id="22961" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deanwitterreynolds,incvhartman,911p2d1094,1099colo1996enbanc" data-prop-ids="sentence_22791"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">911 P.2d 1094
, 1096</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22790" data-sentence-id="23034" class="ldml-sentence">Generally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have recognized two types of limitation periods: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> of limitations, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> non-claim <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23153" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23153" data-sentence-id="23154" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23154"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Statutes</span> of limitations <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"limit<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> the time in which an action may be brought, but do<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> not deprive <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> of jurisdiction."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23153" data-sentence-id="23284" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:matterofestateofkubby,929p2d55coloctapp1996" data-prop-ids="sentence_23154"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">In re Estate of Kubby</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">929 P.2d 55
, 57</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895750677" data-vids="895750677" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23154"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Barnhill v. Pub. Serv. Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">649 P.2d 716
, 718</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23153" data-sentence-id="23416" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The doctrine of equitable tolling provides for the tolling of <span class="ldml-entity">the statute</span> of limitations when <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘flexibility is required to accomplish the goals of justice.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23153" data-sentence-id="23575" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885985135" data-vids="885985135" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23416"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Ass'n</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2017 CO 107
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23416"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 27</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885985135" data-vids="885985135" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">408 P.3d 836
, 841</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deanwitterreynolds,incvhartman,911p2d1094,1099colo1996enbanc"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dean Witter</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">911 P.2d at 1096</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23153" data-sentence-id="23695" class="ldml-sentence">Importantly, the doctrine of equitable tolling is disfavored and requires <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_23769" data-val="1022"></span> an extraordinary situation that prevents <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span> from filing on time.<a href="#note-fr5" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr5">5</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="23844" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23844" data-sentence-id="23845" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23845"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span> In contrast, limitations that come from non-claim <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> are, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in effect, conditions on the existence of a right to seek redress."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23844" data-sentence-id="23982" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23982"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23982"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 28</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885985135" data-vids="885985135" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23982"><span class="ldml-cite">408 P.3d at
841</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23844" data-sentence-id="24012" class="ldml-sentence">In practice, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"such <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> prohibits the initiation of litigation after the prescribed date and, therefore, is jurisdictional in effect."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23844" data-sentence-id="24152" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885985135" data-vids="885985135" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24012"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(quoting <a href="/vid/895596847" data-vids="895596847" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24012"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pub. Serv. Co. v. Barnhill</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">690 P.2d 1248
, 1251</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23844" data-sentence-id="24229" class="ldml-sentence">Limitations from non-claim <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"are not subject to equitable defenses such as waiver, tolling, or estoppel."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23844" data-sentence-id="24343" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885985135" data-vids="885985135" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24343"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24343"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 27</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885985135" data-vids="885985135" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24343"><span class="ldml-cite">408 P.3d at
841</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892020984" data-vids="892020984" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24343"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Mesa Cnty. Valley Sch. Dist. No. 51 v. Kelsey</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">8 P.3d 1200
, 1206</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2000</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="24461" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="24461" data-sentence-id="24462" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24462"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span> In determining whether a limitation period comes from <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> of limitations or a non-claim <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>, intent is paramount.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24461" data-sentence-id="24590" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:firstinterstatebankoffortcollins,navpiperaircraftcorp,744p2d1197,1200colo1987" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_24704,sentence_24462"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A. v. Piper Aircraft Corporation</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">744 P.2d 1197
, 1200</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1987</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">centering analysis on the General Assembly's intent to create <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span> of limitations as opposed to a non-claim <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24461" data-sentence-id="24827" class="ldml-sentence">Ordinarily, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> look to the statutory language for this intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24461" data-sentence-id="24890" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885985135" data-vids="885985135" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24827"><span class="ldml-refname">UMB Bank</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24827"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 30</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885985135" data-vids="885985135" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">408 P.3d at
841</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24461" data-sentence-id="24923" class="ldml-sentence">Our test is as follows:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_24946" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="24946" class="ldml-sentence">Statutory language suggesting that a provision is a non-claim <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> includes language stating that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the failure to file a claim within the statutory period bars the claim, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> a timely filing is a condition to the existence of the claim itself, or <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> the failure to file within the statutory period <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"deprives <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> of jurisdiction over such a claim."</span></span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="25303" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="25303" data-sentence-id="25304" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885985135" data-vids="885985135" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895596847" data-vids="895596847" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Barnhill</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">690 P.2d at 1252</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25303" data-sentence-id="25347" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25347"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> is promulgated by <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>, however, it is <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>'s intent that governs.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25303" data-sentence-id="25443" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890109454" data-vids="890109454" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25347"><span class="ldml-refname">Schaden</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25347"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 32</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890109454" data-vids="890109454" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_25481"><span class="ldml-cite">478 P.3d at 1270</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-entity">We</span> interpret the rules by applying settled principles of statutory construction."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="25303" data-sentence-id="25564" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="25565" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="25565" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25565"><span class="ldml-cite">¶38</span></a></span> For <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25565"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span>, our consistent treatment of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25565"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline as jurisdictional is the clearest and best indicator of our intent that the deadline function similarly to a non-claim provision, subject to no equitable exceptions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="25800" class="ldml-sentence">Soon after <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25800"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> to include a filing deadline, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> discussed the nature of that deadline in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25800"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Hidden Lake Development Co. v. District Court</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">183 Colo. 168
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">515 P.2d 632
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1973</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="25999" class="ldml-sentence">There, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> considered <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25999"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> in the context of a challenge to a rezoning decision made by the Adams County Commissioners where an indispensable <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> was not included in the initial complaint.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26196" class="ldml-sentence">The original <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26196"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaint was filed within <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26196"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s then thirty-day filing deadline.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26298" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26196"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 634</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26310" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> was not a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally constituted entity"</span> with the capacity to sue.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26398" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26310"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 634–35</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26413" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The plaintiff</span> filed an amended complaint thirteen days after the initial complaint was filed, substituting <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiffs</span> and joining the beneficiary of the rezoning decision, <span class="ldml-entity">Hidden Lake Development Company</span>, as <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26640" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26413"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 634</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26652" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> allowed <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiffs</span> to amend the complaint notwithstanding the thirty-day deadline.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26754" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26652"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26758" class="ldml-sentence">Upon review of <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s decision</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> reversed, explaining that as no <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> provided a time limit to review county commissioners' zoning decisions, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26758"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s thirty-day deadline was controlling.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26978" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26758"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="26982" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> then noted that the amended complaint <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"with the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[substituted]</span> <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiffs</span> was not filed until twelve days after the <i class="ldml-italics">period of limitation</i> had passed."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="27141" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26982"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="27163" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reasoned that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"new <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiffs</span> could not adopt the pleadings and filing date <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[of the initial complaint]</span> and make it their own."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="27297" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27163"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 635</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="27309" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">This court</span> held that the amended <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"complaint was filed too late, and the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[district]</span> court was without jurisdiction."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25565" data-sentence-id="27425" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27309"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27428" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="27428" data-sentence-id="27428" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-cite">¶39</span></a></span> Ever since our <span class="ldml-entity">decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Hidden Lake</i></span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have consistently interpreted <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline as a jurisdictional deadline; <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> also initially declined to allow <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiffs</span> to amend <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaints to substitute or add indispensable <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27428" data-sentence-id="27684" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890333817" data-vids="890333817" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_27764,sentence_27428"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Civ. Serv. Comm'n v. Dist. Ct.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">185 Colo. 179
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">522 P.2d 1231
, 1232</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1974</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">relying on</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889127845" data-vids="889127845" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Hidden Lake</i></span></a></span> 's rule</span> and holding that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"failure of the <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_27828" data-val="1023"></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span>]</span> to join the two fellow examinees as indispensable <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> prior to the expiration of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s]</span> 30-day period <i class="ldml-italics">divested the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[district]</span> court of jurisdiction</i> "</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888375194" data-vids="888375194" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28092,sentence_27428"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Snyder v. City of Lakewood</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">189 Colo. 421
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">542 P.2d 371
, 376</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1975</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The failure to bring a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> proceeding within 30 days of <span class="ldml-entity">the enactment</span> of the Lakewood rezoning ordinance was a <i class="ldml-italics">jurisdictional defect</i> under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28262,sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">overruled on other grounds by</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889797896" data-vids="889797896" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27428"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Margolis v. Dist. Ct.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">638 P.2d 297
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1981</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:westlundvhonorablejamesjcarter,judge,twenty-firstjudicialdistrict,stateofcoloradono27522565p2d920,193colo129april25,1977" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28429,sentence_27428"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Westlund v. Carter</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">193 Colo. 129
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">565 P.2d 920
, 921</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1977</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he failure of <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiffs</span> to perfect their <span class="ldml-entity">petition for certiorari review</span> within thirty days constituted a <i class="ldml-italics">fatal defect</i> which required that the complaint be dismissed."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:boardofcountycommissionersofmesacountyvhonorablejamesjcarter,judge,twenty-firstjudicialdistrict,stateofcoloradono27531564p2d421,193colo225may23,1977" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28712,sentence_27428"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Mesa Cnty. v. Carter</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">193 Colo. 225
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">564 P.2d 421
, 422</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1977</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Since there is no special <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> providing a time limit in which to appeal a rezoning determination<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span>, the 30-day limit of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> controls, and the failure to bring a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28958,sentence_27428"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> proceeding within that time is a <i class="ldml-italics">jurisdictional defect.</i></span> "</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="28976" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="28976" data-sentence-id="28976" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28976"><span class="ldml-cite">¶40</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28976"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106</span></a></span> in <span class="ldml-entity">1981</span> to permit <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span> to amend a timely-filed complaint for good cause to substitute, add, or dismiss <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28976" data-sentence-id="29124" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893950884" data-vids="893950884" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_29226,sentence_28976"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tri-State Generation & Transmission Co. v. City of Thornton</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">647 P.2d 670
, 676 n.6</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">explaining</span> that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28976"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> had been amended, effective <span class="ldml-entity">July 1, 1981</span>, and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span>s a result, the failure to join indispensable <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> within the 30<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[-]</span>day time limit established by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28976"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> need no longer result in dismissal"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28976" data-sentence-id="29458" class="ldml-sentence">However, this change to allow <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> to amend a <i class="ldml-italics">timely</i> filed complaint did not alter <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s treatment of the thirty-day limitation period under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29458"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> as jurisdictional.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28976" data-sentence-id="29639" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:johnrdanielson,individuallyvzoningboardofadjustmentofthecityofcommercecityno89sa418807p2d541dec24,1990" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_29721,sentence_29458"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Danielson v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">807 P.2d 541
, 543</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1990</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he thirty-day time requirement in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_29950,sentence_29458"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> is jurisdictional</i> and a complaint to review the actions of an inferior tribunal will be dismissed if it is not filed within thirty days after final action by that tribunal."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28976" data-sentence-id="29969" class="ldml-sentence">Notably, our <span class="ldml-entity">decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:johnrdanielson,individuallyvzoningboardofadjustmentofthecityofcommercecityno89sa418807p2d541dec24,1990" data-prop-ids="sentence_29969"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Danielson</i></span></a></span></span> resulted in dismissal where the complaint was filed just one day late.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28976" data-sentence-id="30075" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:johnrdanielson,individuallyvzoningboardofadjustmentofthecityofcommercecityno89sa418807p2d541dec24,1990" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_30079,sentence_29969"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Here, both <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> agree that the complaint was filed <i class="ldml-italics">thirty-one days</i> after <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity">Zoning Board</span>'s decision</span>."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="30205" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="30205" data-sentence-id="30205" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30205"><span class="ldml-cite">¶41</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> has also followed <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>'s approach</span> of treating <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30205"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline as strict and jurisdictional.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30205" data-sentence-id="30335" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:auxiervmcdonald,2015coa50" data-prop-ids="sentence_30205"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Auxier v. McDonald</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2015 COA 50
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30205"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 12</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891904404" data-vids="891904404" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_30398"><span class="ldml-cite">363 P.3d 747
, 751</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The limitations period prescribed by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_30498"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> is jurisdictional and cannot be tolled or waived.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Where, as here, no <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> provides a different limitations period, a claim seeking review under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_30728"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> that is filed more than twenty-eight days after the governmental body or officer's final decision must be dismissed."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">citation omitted</span>)</span>)</span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892885347" data-vids="892885347" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Brooks v. Raemisch</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2016 COA 32
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 26</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892885347" data-vids="892885347" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_30807"><span class="ldml-cite">371 P.3d 738
, 742</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A complaint filed after the applicable time period must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888168599" data-vids="888168599" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Maslak v. Town of Vail</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2015 COA 2
</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 17</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888168599" data-vids="888168599" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_30968"><span class="ldml-cite">345 P.3d 972
, 976</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[A]</span> Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaint that is not filed in <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> by the 28-day jurisdictional deadline must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:crawfordvcolorado,departmentofcorrectionsno94ca0765895p2d1156april6,1995" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_31205"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Crawford v. Dep't of Corr.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">895 P.2d 1156
, 1158</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Failure to comply with the 30-day limitations period divests <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the action."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="30205" data-sentence-id="31338" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31339" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="31339" data-sentence-id="31340" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31340"><span class="ldml-cite">¶42</span></a></span> This unbroken line of <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span> over nearly half a century—beginning shortly after <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> first adopted <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31340"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline—is conclusive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31339" data-sentence-id="31481" class="ldml-sentence">It conveys our intent to treat <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31481"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline as a non-claim limitation period.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31339" data-sentence-id="31569" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reaffirm <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31569"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline as a strict jurisdictional limitation.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="31655" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="31655" data-sentence-id="31656" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31656"><span class="ldml-cite">¶43</span></a></span> Notably, our construction of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31656"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline as a jurisdictional limitation serves important practical purposes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31655" data-sentence-id="31780" class="ldml-sentence">In particular, the strict enforcement of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31780"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day filing deadline <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"promote<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span> government efficiency and sound municipal planning."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31655" data-sentence-id="31933" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:boardofcountycommissionersofdouglascountyvsundheimno95sc330926p2d545oct28,1996" data-prop-ids="sentence_31780"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Douglas Cnty. v. Sundheim</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">926 P.2d 545
, 549</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31655" data-sentence-id="32016" class="ldml-sentence">This is especially true considering the number and breadth of lower governmental decisions that are reviewable under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32016"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>.<a href="#note-fr6" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr6">6</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31655" data-sentence-id="32149" class="ldml-sentence">In <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:boardofcountycommissionersofdouglascountyvsundheimno95sc330926p2d545oct28,1996" data-prop-ids="sentence_32149"><span class="ldml-refname">Sundheim</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> explained <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_32175" data-val="1024"></span> how the short deadline for filing <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32149"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> actions</span> supports our intent to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"balance a citizen's right to have <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[their]</span> case heard against the need for efficient municipal planning."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31655" data-sentence-id="32362" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:boardofcountycommissionersofdouglascountyvsundheimno95sc330926p2d545oct28,1996" data-prop-ids="sentence_32149"><span class="ldml-cite">926 P.2d at 550</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31655" data-sentence-id="32379" class="ldml-sentence">Providing a reasonably short jurisdictional deadline promotes that goal by <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"removing municipal planning and individual properties from a cloud of uncertainty"</span> after the deadline passes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31655" data-sentence-id="32565" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:auxiervmcdonald,2015coa50" data-prop-ids="sentence_32379"><span class="ldml-refname">Auxier</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32379"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 13</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891904404" data-vids="891904404" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">363 P.3d at
751</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:richtervcityofgreenwoodvillageno77-010577p2d776,40coloapp310jan5,1978"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Richter v. City of Greenwood Village</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">40 Colo.App. 310
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">577 P.2d 776
, 778</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1978</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="32687" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="32687" data-sentence-id="32687" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32687"><span class="ldml-cite">¶44</span></a></span> This approach—treating <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32687"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline as strict and jurisdictional to balance the rights of aggrieved citizens with legitimate government interests in finality—also aligns with the uniform strictness with which the General Assembly and our <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> have treated other types of untimely challenges of governmental actions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32687" data-sentence-id="33019" class="ldml-sentence">For example, the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33019"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Governmental Immunity Act <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"CGIA"</span>)</span></span></a></span> provides for a statutory right of action to sue the government for <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an injury by a public entity or by an employee thereof."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32687" data-sentence-id="33205" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33019"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 24-10-109<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2022</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32687" data-sentence-id="33236" class="ldml-sentence">The General Assembly expressly made the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33236"><span class="ldml-cite">CGIA</span></a></span>'s 182-day limitation a non-claim jurisdictional deadline.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32687" data-sentence-id="33339" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_33348,sentence_33236"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Compliance with the provisions of <span class="ldml-entity">this section</span> shall be a jurisdictional prerequisite to any action brought under the provisions of <span class="ldml-entity">this article</span>, and failure of compliance shall forever bar any such action."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32687" data-sentence-id="33559" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have recognized that the General Assembly <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"pointedly meant to render the 18<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[2]</span>–day notice provision into a jurisdictional prerequisite rather than an affirmative defense ... <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[and thus]</span> provide certainty."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32687" data-sentence-id="33767" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888037225" data-vids="888037225" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33559"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Lopez</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">916 P.2d 1187
, 1193</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="33831" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="33831" data-sentence-id="33831" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33831"><span class="ldml-cite">¶45</span></a></span> Similarly, the <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33831"><span class="ldml-cite">State Administrative Procedure Act</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"APA"</span>)</span></span>, which allows for judicial review of final agency actions commencing at <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>, bars untimely review. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33831"><span class="ldml-cite">§§ 24-4-101</span></a></span> to - 106, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2022</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33831" data-sentence-id="34046" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 26<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span> generally allows for an extension of time <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"for good cause shown,"</span> it excludes its application to these APA review actions:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_34190" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="34190" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> may not extend the time to file ... a petition to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, enforce, or <i class="ldml-italics">otherwise review,</i> or a notice of appeal from, an order of an administrative agency, board, commission, or officer of the <span class="ldml-entity">State of Colorado</span>, except as specifically authorized by law.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="34481" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="34481" data-sentence-id="34482" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 26<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2022</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.<a href="#note-fr7" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr7">7</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="34481" data-sentence-id="34520" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, our treatment of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34520"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline aligns with statutory frameworks that create non-claim <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> for similar types of review.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="34658" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="34658" data-sentence-id="34659" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34659"><span class="ldml-cite">¶46</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34659"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s twenty-eight-day filing deadline is a strict jurisdictional limitation on <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34659"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> actions</span>, and so it is not subject to equitable tolling, let alone broader equitable considerations like excusable neglect.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="34905" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="34905" data-sentence-id="34905" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34905"><span class="ldml-cite">¶47</span></a></span> Having determined that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34905"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s deadline cannot be extended for equitable considerations, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not reach the issue of the relevant standard to apply for excusable neglect.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="35088" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="35088" data-sentence-id="35088" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35088"><span class="ldml-cite">¶48</span></a></span> Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> turn to whether the division erred in addressing Walker's Claim 3 in <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="521" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d" data-id="pagenumber_35173" data-val="1025"></span> the amended complaint and by remanding <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> for further consideration.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35088" data-sentence-id="35268" class="ldml-sentence">Walker amended its untimely-filed <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35268"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaint to add two additional claims seeking declaratory relief.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35088" data-sentence-id="35384" class="ldml-sentence">The rule expressly allows additional claims to be included in the complaint.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35088" data-sentence-id="35461" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_35485,sentence_35384"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(VI)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Where claims other than claims under this Rule are properly joined in the action, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> shall determine the manner and timing of proceeding with respect to all claims."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35088" data-sentence-id="35661" class="ldml-sentence">The question here is whether Walker <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"properly joined"</span> its additional claims.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="35737" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="35737" data-sentence-id="35738" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35738"><span class="ldml-cite">¶49</span></a></span> Because Walker's <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35738"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> claim</span> was untimely filed, it naturally follows that Walker could not amend its complaint to join the additional claims.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35737" data-sentence-id="35894" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:auxiervmcdonald,2015coa50" data-prop-ids="sentence_35738"><span class="ldml-refname">Auxier</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35738"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 24</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891904404" data-vids="891904404" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_35929"><span class="ldml-cite">363 P.3d at
753</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[I]</span>f <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>'s original complaint did not seek review under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_36159"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> within the relevant limitations period, <span class="ldml-entity">an amendment</span> seeking such review will not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘relate back to the date of filing of the original complaint.’</span> "</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(quoting C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span> )</span>)</span></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35737" data-sentence-id="36188" class="ldml-sentence">Furthermore, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have previously held that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> may not seek to accomplish by a declaratory judgment what it can no longer accomplish directly under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="35737" data-sentence-id="36361" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893950884" data-vids="893950884" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36188"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tri-State</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">647 P.2d at 676 n.7</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35737" data-sentence-id="36393" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore hold that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> properly dismissed Walker's Claim 3.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-value="IV. Conclusion" data-types="conclusion" data-ordinal_end="4" data-confidences="very_high" data-specifier="IV" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-id="heading_36468" data-content-heading-label="IV. Conclusion" data-ordinal_start="4" data-parsed="true" id="heading_36468"><span data-paragraph-id="36468" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="36468" data-sentence-id="36468" class="ldml-sentence">IV.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36468" data-sentence-id="36472" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="36482" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="36482" data-sentence-id="36482" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36482"><span class="ldml-cite">¶50</span></a></span> Consistent with decades of <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reaffirm that the filing deadline under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36482"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> functions as a strict limitation period to invoke <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s jurisdiction under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36482"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36482" data-sentence-id="36684" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> may not extend that deadline under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36684"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> on grounds of excusable neglect.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36482" data-sentence-id="36796" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> properly dismissed Walker's <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36796"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> amended complaint as untimely.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36482" data-sentence-id="36886" class="ldml-sentence">Because Walker could not join additional claims to its untimely-filed <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36886"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> action</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> properly dismissed Claim 3 as well.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36482" data-sentence-id="37031" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse the judgment of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="37092" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="37092" data-sentence-id="37093" class="ldml-sentence">The Director did not serve or mail notice of the final decision to Walker as required by <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Aurora City Code</span> <span class="ldml-cite">138-398<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(d)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Every final decision of the director of water shall be in writing, and notice thereof shall be mailed to or served upon <span class="ldml-entity">the petitioner</span> within 15 days from the date of the decision."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37092" data-sentence-id="37396" class="ldml-sentence">Nevertheless, there is no dispute that Walker had actual notice of the Director's <span class="ldml-entity">August 13</span> final decision.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="37503" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="37503" data-sentence-id="37504" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted certiorari review of three issues:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_37549" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="37549" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-sentence-id="37552" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in holding that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span> applies to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106</span></a></span> and thus grants <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span> discretion to allow untimely <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> complaints upon a finding of excusable neglect.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_37768" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="37768" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-sentence-id="37771" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in holding that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 6<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span>'s excusable neglect standard parallels <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 60<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>'s excusable neglect standard.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_37922" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="37922" class="ldml-sentence">3.</span> <span data-sentence-id="37925" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in addressing Walker's Claim 3 from the amended complaint and remanding <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s decision</span>.</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="38059" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="38059" data-sentence-id="38060" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">See, e.g.,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Supreme <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38060"><span class="ldml-cite">Court Rule 57</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1934</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">published in <span class="ldml-entity">Rules of <span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court of Colorado</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_38110"><span class="ldml-cite">Ch. II, Rule 57</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1929</span>)</span></a></span></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(describing the application for original jurisdiction for various special writs)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Supreme <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38060"><span class="ldml-cite">Court Rule 38</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1914</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">published in</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Rules of the Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">p. 20, Rule 38</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1914</span>)</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Supreme <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38060"><span class="ldml-cite">Court Rule 54</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1885</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">published in</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Rules of Supreme Court Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">p. 22, Rule 54</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1885</span>)</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span></span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="38507" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr4">4</a> <span data-paragraph-id="38507" data-sentence-id="38508" class="ldml-sentence">These changes and other rule changes from <span class="ldml-entity">1997</span> onward are publicly memorialized on our website.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38507" data-sentence-id="38604" class="ldml-sentence">Colorado Judicial Branch Adopted & Proposed Rule Changes, https://www.<span class="ldml-entity">courts</span>.state.co.<span class="ldml-entity">us</span>/<span class="ldml-entity">Courts</span>/<span class="ldml-entity">Supreme_Court</span>/Rule_Changes.cfm <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/3KRK-LRLP]</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="38760" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr5" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr5">5</a> <span data-paragraph-id="38760" data-sentence-id="38761" class="ldml-sentence">Equitable tolling is appropriate only <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"where <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s wrongful conduct prevented <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> from asserting <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[their]</span> claims in a timely manner,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deanwitterreynolds,incvhartman,911p2d1094,1099colo1996enbanc" data-prop-ids="sentence_38761"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dean Witter</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">911 P.2d at 1096</span></a></span>, or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"where extraordinary circumstances make it impossible for <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> to file <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[their]</span> claims within the statutory period,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deanwitterreynolds,incvhartman,911p2d1094,1099colo1996enbanc" data-prop-ids="sentence_38761"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 1097</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38760" data-sentence-id="39086" class="ldml-sentence">This standard is far higher than that for excusable neglect.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="39146" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr6" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr6">6</a> <span data-paragraph-id="39146" data-sentence-id="39147" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:johnrdanielson,individuallyvzoningboardofadjustmentofthecityofcommercecityno89sa418807p2d541dec24,1990" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39184,sentence_32016"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Danielson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">807 P.2d 541
</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">reviewing municipal zoning decision</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895038024" data-vids="895038024" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39317,sentence_32016"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bd. of Comm'rs of Cnty. of Boulder v. City of Broomfield</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">7 P.3d 1033
, 1035</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">reviewing decision adopting urban renewal plan</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887767227" data-vids="887767227" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39426,sentence_32016"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Berger v. City of Boulder</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">195 P.3d 1138
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2008</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">reviewing liquor license use review</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889495107" data-vids="889495107" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39548,sentence_32016"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Colo. Health Consultants v. City & Cnty. of Denver</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">429 P.3d 115
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2018</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">reviewing denial of retail marijuana cultivation renewal</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893503996" data-vids="893503996" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39680,sentence_32016"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">U.S. West Commc'ns v. City of Longmont</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">924 P.2d 1071
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">reviewing ordinance addressing undergrounding of facilities</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893701233" data-vids="893701233" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_39845,sentence_32016"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Colo. Airport Parking, LLC v. Dep't of Aviation of City & Cnty. of Denver</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2014 COA 17
</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">320 P.3d 1217
</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">reviewing municipal transportation rule promulgation</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888693043" data-vids="888693043" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32016"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Barnes v. City of Westminster</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">723 P.2d 164
</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(reviewing personnel discipline)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="39995" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr7" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr7">7</a> <span data-paragraph-id="39995" data-sentence-id="39996" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, Walker argues—and the division agreed—that <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> has extended jurisdictional deadlines in our appellate rules, so <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should construe our civil rules to do the same for <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39996"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39995" data-sentence-id="40190" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are not persuaded.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39995" data-sentence-id="40212" class="ldml-sentence">Unlike <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40212"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>, appellate rules like <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4.1</span></a></span></span></span> expressly allow for an extension of time to their respective deadlines.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39995" data-sentence-id="40349" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40212"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R 4<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40212"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40212"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4.1<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39995" data-sentence-id="40401" class="ldml-sentence">While <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4.2</span></a></span> does not provide for time extensions, a division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> has extended the rule's deadline pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 26</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39995" data-sentence-id="40547" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:farmdeals,lllpvstate,2012coa6" data-prop-ids="sentence_40401"><span class="ldml-refname">Farm Deals</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40401"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 19</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887061166" data-vids="887061166" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">300 P.3d at
924</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39995" data-sentence-id="40587" class="ldml-sentence">That appellate rule, as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have noted, may not extend deadlines to review lower governmental orders.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39995" data-sentence-id="40688" class="ldml-sentence">It does not apply to such initial deadlines for review under either the APA or <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40688"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 106<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p></div></div></div></div> </div> </div>