Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-111 (2026)

Commencement of new action upon involuntary dismissal

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If an action is commenced within the period allowed by this article and is terminated because of lack of jurisdiction or improper venue, the plaintiff or, if he dies and the cause of action survives, the personal representative may commence a new action upon the same cause of action within ninety days after the termination of the original action or within the period otherwise allowed by this article, whichever is later, and the defendant may interpose any defense, counterclaim, or setoff which might have been interposed in the original action. (2) This section shall be applicable to all actions which are first commenced in a federal court as well as those first commenced in the courts of Colorado or of any other state.

Source: L. 86: Entire article R&RE, p. 700, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-80-128 as it existed prior to 1986.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: West Colo. Motors v. Gen. Motors, 2019 COA 77 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

West Colo. Motors v. Gen. Motors, 2019 COA 77 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 36× “General Motors — Courts and Court Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Commencement of New Action Upon Involuntary Dismissal — Remedial Revival Statute A division of the court of appeals considers whether Colorado’s remedial revival statute, section 13-80-111, C.R.S. 2018, which…”

Currier v. Sutherland, 218 P.3d 709 (Colo. 2009). · cites it 14× “This case involves invocation of the remedial revival statute, section 13-80-111(1), C.R.S. (2009), in a case where a complaint was timely filed against a deceased, nonexistent defendant and was later amended to name the estate of the deceased and the special administrator of…”

SMLL, L.L.C. v. Peak Nat'l Bank, 111 P.3d 563 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff responded that its new action was timely under § 13-80-111, C.R.S.2004, because it was commenced within ninety days after dismissal of the first action.”

Sharp Bros. Contracting Co. v. Westvaco Corp., 817 P.2d 547 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 11× “Furthermore, the court dismissed all claims against Westvaco, except an oral contract claim, as barred by § 13-80-127, and not revived by the remedial revival statute, § 13-80-111, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A). Upon motion of the plaintiffs, the court subsequently directed that…”

Archangel Diamond Corp. Liquidating Trust v. OAO Lukoil, 75 F. Supp. 3d 1343 (D. Colo. 2014). · cites it 6× “On January 6, 2012, while the Colorado appeal was pending, the Trust filed the action before this Court under the Colorado savings statute, C.R.S. § 13-80-111. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) On August 23, 2012, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Archangel’s (by now,…”

Currier v. Sutherland, 215 P.3d 1155 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs' Argument for Application of the Nullity Theory It is not disputed that the revival provisions of section 13-80-111 permits the filing of a new complaint when an earlier complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Chilcott Ent. L.L.C. v. John G. Kinnard Co., 10 P.3d 723 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “Section 13-80-111 provides in pertinent part that: (1) If an action is commenced within the, period allowed by this notice and is terminated because of lack of jurisdiction .”

Broker House Int'l, Ltd. v. Bendelow, 952 P.2d 860 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court’s finding that “dismissal of this case based- upon expiration of the statute of limitations is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction,” and that § 13-80-111 is not applicable. Judgment affirmed.”

Norris v. Univ. Of Colorado, Boulder, 362 F. Supp. 3d 1001 (D. Colo. 2019). · cites it 2× “CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is: 1.”

In Play Membership Golf, Inc. v. Billy Casper Golf, LLC (In re In Play Membership Golf, Inc.), 576 B.R. 15 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2017). · cites it 4× “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-111 (1)~(2). Thus, the Debtor would have at least ninety days from the date of dismissal in which to refile claims before any jeopardy would attach.”

City of Littleton v. Com. Union Assurance Companies, 133 F.R.D. 159 (D. Colo. 1990). · cites it 2× “…applies to actions first commenced in federal court that involuntarily were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Colo. Rev.Stat. § 13-80-111 (1987).”

Nguyen v. Swedish Med. Ctr., 890 P.2d 255 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff contends that the remedial revival statute, § 13-80-111(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6A), applied and tolled the running of the statute of limitations for his second complaint.”

Show all 53 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-111(1) — 12 cases

Currier v. Sutherland, 218 P.3d 709 (Colo. 2009). “This case involves invocation of the remedial revival statute, section 13-80-111(1), C.R.S. (2009), in a case where a complaint was timely filed against a deceased, nonexistent defendant and was later amended to name the estate of the deceased and the special administrator of…”

West Colo. Motors v. Gen. Motors, 2019 COA 77 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “General Motors — Courts and Court Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Commencement of New Action Upon Involuntary Dismissal — Remedial Revival Statute A division of the court of appeals considers whether Colorado’s remedial revival statute, section 13-80-111, C.R.S. 2018, which…”

SMLL, L.L.C. v. Peak Nat'l Bank, 111 P.3d 563 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “Plaintiff responded that its new action was timely under § 13-80-111, C.R.S.2004, because it was commenced within ninety days after dismissal of the first action.”

Currier v. Sutherland, 215 P.3d 1155 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “Plaintiffs' Argument for Application of the Nullity Theory It is not disputed that the revival provisions of section 13-80-111 permits the filing of a new complaint when an earlier complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Broker House Int'l, Ltd. v. Bendelow, 952 P.2d 860 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998). “Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court’s finding that “dismissal of this case based- upon expiration of the statute of limitations is not a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction,” and that § 13-80-111 is not applicable. Judgment affirmed.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-111(2) — 1 case

Onyx Props. LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 868 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (D. Colo. 2012).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.