Start with Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. In Colorado, Colorado calls the opening paper a complaint. Self-represented parties file in District Court (County Court for many civil cases under jurisdictional limits). Individuals may appear pro se. Entities must have counsel except as expressly allowed in small claims. That is the question this guide answers for filing a lawsuit without a lawyer. E-filing: Colorado Courts E-Filing (ICC / ICCES). Self-represented parties can e-file in Colorado state courts; some County Court and small-claims filings still accept paper at the clerk’s window. Service: C.R.C.P. 4. Small claims: County Court small-claims procedure (generally up to $7,500).
Contents
- What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
- Can you litigate pro se in Colorado?
- Role of the judge and the jury
- Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
- How to file and serve in Colorado
- Registering for e-filing
- Discovery
- Rules of evidence (short tour)
- Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
- How LawDiver can help
- Colorado case law highlights
- Frequently asked questions
What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:
| Source | What it is | How you use it in Colorado |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | A law enacted by the legislature (or Congress) | Creates rights, duties, damages caps, notice periods, and causes of action |
| Case (opinion) | A written decision of a court resolving a dispute | Interprets statutes and rules; binds lower courts in the same hierarchy when it is controlling precedent |
| Court rule | A procedural regulation adopted by the judiciary | Tells you how to plead, serve, discover, and try a case — e.g. Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure |
| Regulation | A rule issued by an executive agency under statutory authority | Matters when your claim involves licensed industries, benefits, or administrative prerequisites |
| Local rule / administrative order | County- or court-specific filing practice | Often controls e-filing mandates, cover sheets, and hearing calendars |
A winning Colorado theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the Colorado Rules of Evidence.
How the Colorado rule applies
Apply the Colorado authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
A person in Colorado wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.
- Confirm you may appear without counsel: Individuals may appear pro se. Entities must have counsel except as expressly allowed in small claims.
- Draft a complaint and file it in District Court (County Court for many civil cases under jurisdictional limits). E-filing: Self-represented parties can e-file in Colorado state courts; some County Court and small-claims filings still accept paper at the clerk’s window.
- Serve under C.R.C.P. 4. Serve under C.R.C.P. 4 by personal service, waiver, or authorized alternatives. File the return/affidavit of service. County Court packets simplify service instructions.
- Expect discovery under C.R.C.P. 26–37 govern discovery. Colorado’s disclosure-heavy culture (Rule 26) means early document exchanges even before formal discovery requests. A jury demand follows Demand a jury under C.R.C.P. 38 for eligible claims. Small claims are heard by a magistrate or judge without a jury.
Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in Colorado. The evidence companion is the Colorado evidence guide.
Can you litigate pro se in Colorado?
Individuals may appear pro se. Entities must have counsel except as expressly allowed in small claims.
Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
Colorado Judicial Branch self-help forms cover County Court civil and small claims.
Colorado opinions on pro se practice
People v. Cali
People v. Cali, 459 P.3d 516 (2020)
…of appeals issued its mandate in Cali’s case, Cali filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c). In this petition, Cali raised, as pertinent here, a claim for relief based on a “Substantial Change In The Law.” Specifically, he asserted, for the first time, that under the newly amended statute, he could only have been convicted of a class six fel…
Practitioners open People v. Cali when Colorado pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Cali’s case, Cali filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c). In this petition, Cali raised, as pertinent here, a claim for relief based on a “Substantial Change In The Law." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner v. Allen Charles BERGERUD, Respondent
…denied his motion, and Bergerud elected to proceed to trial pro se in order to argue his theory of self-defense. He was subsequently convicted. On appeal, Bergerud claimed the content of his lawyers' opening statements and the denial of his motion for substitute counsel violated his constitutional right to representation. The court of appeals, reasoning that his lawyers' statem…
On pro se, The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner v. Allen Charles BERGERUD, Respondent speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Bergerud elected to proceed to trial pro se in order to argue his theory of self-defense. He was subsequently convicted." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Kenneth E. YADON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanton E. SOUTHWARD, Defendant-Appellee
…Certiorari Denied February 24, 2003. 910 Kenneth E. Yadon, Pro se. Ewing & Ewing, P.C., Laurence B. James, Englewood, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee. Opinion by Justice KIRSHBAUM.[] In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff, Kenneth E. Yadon, appeals the judgment dismissing his complaint against defendant, Stanton E. Southward, based on his failure to file a timely cert…
On pro se, Kenneth E. YADON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanton E. SOUTHWARD, Defendant-Appellee speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Certiorari Denied February 24, 2003. 910 Kenneth E. Yadon, Pro se. Ewing & Ewing, P.C., Laurence B. James, Englewood, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee. Opinion by Justice KIRSHBAUM.[] In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff, Kenneth E." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Pauline TASSIAN, Petitioner, v. the PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent
…a Denver District Court chief judge’s directive prohibiting pro se litigants from paying filing fees by personal checks did not violate equal protection of the laws under the Colorado Constitution. Because the chief judge’s directive lacks a rational basis for distinguishing between pro se litigants and litigants represented by attorneys, we conclude that it violates equal prot…
Pauline TASSIAN, Petitioner, v. the PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent is worth reading on Colorado pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "Denver District Court chief judge’s directive prohibiting pro se litigants from paying filing fees by personal checks did not violate equal protection of the laws under the Colorado Constitution." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The People of the State of Colorado v. Sherron F. Spencer
The People of the State of Colorado v. Sherron F. Spencer, 185 Colo. 377 (1974)
…requested is that we enjoin respondent Spencer from further pro se litigation as plaintiff in both Colorado state and federal courts. We issued an order to show cause why that relief should not be granted. We hold that we are without jurisdiction to enjoin respondent from his activities in federal court, but make the rule absolute as to the Colorado courts. I. The core of this…
Practitioners open The People of the State of Colorado v. Sherron F. Spencer when Colorado pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Spencer from further pro se litigation as plaintiff in both Colorado state and federal courts. We issued an order to show cause why that relief should not be granted." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Wallace DUNLAP and Perry Dunlap, Respondents
…ion requests that we enjoin the respondents from proceeding pro se as plaintiffs in any present or future litigation in the state courts of Colorado. We issued a rule to show cause why the injunction should not be granted. The respondents, through their attorney, filed an answer. We now make that rule absolute. On August 8, 1978, Wallace Dunlap, appearing pro se, filed seven co…
Practitioners open The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Wallace DUNLAP and Perry Dunlap, Respondents when Colorado pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Colorado. We issued a rule to show cause why the injunction should not be granted. The respondents, through their attorney, filed an answer. We now make that rule absolute." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MORGAN COUNTY, Colorado, Petitioner, v. Rainsford J. WINSLOW, Respondent
…nting Rainsford J. Winslow from filing actions or pleadings pro se in the District Court in and for the County of Morgan lies exclusively with the state supreme court. We reverse and remand the case to the court of appeals for consideration of the remaining issues on appeal. Since 1979, Winslow, who is not an attorney, and his wife have been litigants in several lawsuits regard…
Practitioners open BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MORGAN COUNTY, Colorado, Petitioner, v. Rainsford J. WINSLOW, Respondent when Colorado pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Rainsford J. Winslow from filing actions or pleadings pro se in the District Court in and for the County of Morgan lies exclusively with the state supreme court. We reverse and remand the case to the court of appeals for consideration of the remaining issues on appeal." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Role of the judge and the jury
- The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
- The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
- Demand a jury under C.R.C.P. 38 for eligible claims. Small claims are heard by a magistrate or judge without a jury.
Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (County Court small-claims procedure) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.
Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In Colorado the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a complaint. It should:
- Identify the parties and the court (District Court (County Court for many civil cases under jurisdictional limits) or the small-claims forum).
- Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
- Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
- Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.
The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.
Colorado pleadings opinions
Menda K. WARNE, Petitioner, v. Bill J. HALL, Respondent
Menda K. WARNE, Petitioner, v. Bill J. HALL, Respondent, 2016 CO 50 (2016)
….C. § 1441 (2012). Upon removal, Warne and the town filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Before briefing was complete, the federal district court accepted a stipulation by the parties whereby the federal law claims would be voluntarily dismissed by Hall and the case would be remanded to state district court for resolu…
Menda K. WARNE, Petitioner, v. Bill J. HALL, Respondent is worth reading on Colorado pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "C. § 1441 (2012). Upon removal, Warne and the town filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
HEMMANN MANAGEMENT SERVICES and Robert McIlvane, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MEDIACELL, INC., Defendant-Appellee
…laintiffs. In addition, defendant contemporaneously filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiffs had not asserted sufficient facts to support all the elements of their breach of contract claims, and that plaintiffs were barred from pursuing quantum meruit claims because the latter claims arose from the same facts as the breach of contract claims. Plaintiffs…
On pleadings, HEMMANN MANAGEMENT SERVICES and Robert McIlvane, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MEDIACELL, INC., Defendant-Appellee speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "laintiffs. In addition, defendant contemporaneously filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiffs had not asserted sufficient facts to support all the elements of their breach of contract claims, and that plaintiffs were barred from pursuing quantum meruit clai" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Berryman v. Berryman.
Berryman v. Berryman., 115 Colo. 281 (1946)
…rther relief as may be proper.” The trial court sustained a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the terms of the former code we have a statement of the facts constituting, a cause of action in ordinary and concise language and á demand for the- relief which plaintiff claims. In the terms of the new rules of civil procedure, we hav…
Practitioners open Berryman v. Berryman. when Colorado pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The trial court sustained a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State, Colo. Civil Rights Com'n v. Adolph Coors Corp.
State, Colo. Civil Rights Com'n v. Adolph Coors Corp., 29 Colo. App. 240 (1971)
…strict Court asking it to issue the subpoena. Coors filed a motion to dismiss that petition on the grounds that it failed to state a claim for relief, and this motion was granted by the trial court with leave to the Commission to amend. Subsequently the Commission filed an amended petition supported by the amended complaint, which petition Coors also moved to dismiss for the fa…
On pleadings, State, Colo. Civil Rights Com'n v. Adolph Coors Corp. speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Court asking it to issue the subpoena. Coors filed a motion to dismiss that petition on the grounds that it failed to state a claim for relief, and this motion was granted by the trial court with leave to the Commission to amend." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The Civil Service Commission, Consisting of L. C. Richards, Adolph Turkowski, and Harley O. Mullins; The City of
…ikos and Blake, the successful promotees. On hearing of the motion to dismiss, despite the fact that the 30-day limitation of C.R.C.P. 106(b) had then run and the original complaint had failed to join officers Gigikos and Blake, the respondent court permitted the joinder of Gigikos and Blake and denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss the proceedings. Alleging the trial court was…
On pleadings, The Civil Service Commission, Consisting of L. C. Richards, Adolph Turkowski, and Harley O. Mullins; The City of speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Blake, the successful promotees. On hearing of the motion to dismiss, despite the fact that the 30-day limitation of C.R.C.P." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
James E. Renner v. J. Emery Chilton
James E. Renner v. J. Emery Chilton, 142 Colo. 454 (1960)
…58, alleging seven “causes of action.” Chilton then filed a motion to dismiss, stating as grounds therefor that none of the allegations stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. This motion was granted by the trial court, whereupon Renner made an oral motion to amend his complaint, which motion was denied. We do not deem it either desirable or propitious to set forth,…
On pleadings, James E. Renner v. J. Emery Chilton speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Chilton then filed a motion to dismiss, stating as grounds therefor that none of the allegations stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. This motion was granted by the trial court, whereupon Renner made an oral motion to amend his complaint, which motion was denied." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Michael M. Sprott, by His Mother and Next Friend, Lois M. Sprott, v. Claude O. Roberts, M.D.
…t as satisfaction for the alleged tort. Dr. Roberts filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the complaint failed to state a claim. The court granted this motion and forthwith entered formal judgment on May 14, 1962. Within ten days after the entry of judgment of dismissal Michael filed his “Petition For Rehearing Or Motion For New Trial In The Alternative” with the trial judge.…
On pleadings, Michael M. Sprott, by His Mother and Next Friend, Lois M. Sprott, v. Claude O. Roberts, M.D. speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Dr. Roberts filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the complaint failed to state a claim. The court granted this motion and forthwith entered formal judgment on May 14, 1962." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Buena Vista Bank & Trust Company, Plaintiff and Judgment
…IC on the garnishment issue, the trial court granted FDIC’s motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action. ACC appealed both rulings, and the appeals were consolidated in this court. During the pendency of the appeals, Bowen moved to vacate the default judgment. The trial court denied Bowen’s motion and that order was appealed. This court reversed and remanded the case for…
On pleadings, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Buena Vista Bank & Trust Company, Plaintiff and Judgment speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "IC on the garnishment issue, the trial court granted FDIC’s motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action. ACC appealed both rulings, and the appeals were consolidated in this court. During the pendency of the appeals, Bowen moved to vacate the default judgment." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
How to file and serve in Colorado
Filing
- Choose the correct forum: District Court (County Court for many civil cases under jurisdictional limits) for larger or complex civil cases; County Court small-claims procedure when your claim fits generally up to $7,500.
- Prepare the complaint (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
- Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as Colorado practice allows.
- Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.
Governing procedure: Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
Service of process
Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: C.R.C.P. 4.
Serve under C.R.C.P. 4 by personal service, waiver, or authorized alternatives. File the return/affidavit of service. County Court packets simplify service instructions.
Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.
Colorado service opinions
Kenneth H. Hoen and Industrial Commission v. the District Court of Arapahoe County, in the Eighteenth Judicial
…commission of a tortious act within this state* “Section 2. Service of Process. (1) Service of process upon any person subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of ■ Colorado may be made by personally serving the summons upon the defendant outside this state, in the manner prescribed by the Colorado rules of civil procedure, with the same force and effect as if the summons had…
Practitioners open Kenneth H. Hoen and Industrial Commission v. the District Court of Arapahoe County, in the Eighteenth Judicial when Colorado service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "commission of a tortious act within this state* “Section 2. Service of Process. (1) Service of process upon any person subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of ■ Colorado may be made by personally serving the summons upon the defendant outside this state, in the manner prescr" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Marie G. Weber v. Stanley A. Williams, Et Al.
Marie G. Weber v. Stanley A. Williams, Et Al., 137 Colo. 269 (1958)
…filed her motion in No. 1012 seeking to have the purported service of process quashed, foreclosure decree vacated and sheriff’s sale and deed set aside, for the reason that Weber had not been served with process as required by law. On the same day Weber filed her motion in No. 1073 seeking to have the purported service of process quashed and the decree quieting the titles vaca…
Marie G. Weber v. Stanley A. Williams, Et Al. is worth reading on Colorado service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "No. 1012 seeking to have the purported service of process quashed, foreclosure decree vacated and sheriff’s sale and deed set aside, for the reason that Weber had not been served with process as required by law. On the same day Weber filed her motion in No." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Conrad C. Fletcher, Et Al. v. District Court of Jefferson County, Et Al.
Conrad C. Fletcher, Et Al. v. District Court of Jefferson County, Et Al., 137 Colo. 143 (1958)
…ition should not be granted. The trial court found that the service of process was defective but concluded that it had jurisdiction because the parties knew from the complaint the court where the action had been filed. Of course that is beside the point. A reference to the complaint for particulars does not aid a defective summons. Atchison T. & S.F. Co. v. Nicholls, 8 Colo. 18…
Colorado opinions such as Conrad C. Fletcher, Et Al. v. District Court of Jefferson County, Et Al. are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "The trial court found that the service of process was defective but concluded that it had jurisdiction because the parties knew from the complaint the court where the action had been filed. Of course that is beside the point." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Kelly v. Pennington Et Al.
Kelly v. Pennington Et Al., 78 Colo. 482 (1926)
…rule and have exempted both suitors and witnesses from the service of process in civil cases where the sole purpose was in the one case to represent their own interests as parties, in the other case to testify as witnesses. In some of the state courts the rule is otherwise. Probably the leading case against the exemption, and the opinion is well reasoned, is Guynn v. Mc-Daneld…
Practitioners open Kelly v. Pennington Et Al. when Colorado service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "In some of the state courts the rule is otherwise. Probably the leading case against the exemption, and the opinion is well reasoned, is Guynn v." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
William H. ReMINE ex rel. Leeman Lee LILEY v. The DISTRICT COURT FOR the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, and the
…urisdiction over his person. We conclude that the purported service of process upon Liley by publication pursuant to court order was legally ineffective because, under the facts of this case, such service was not authorized by statute or court rule. Consequently, we make the rule absolute. I. Grace Marie Vialpando and Ishmael Daniel Vialpando (plaintiffs) brought an action agai…
On service of process, William H. ReMINE ex rel. Leeman Lee LILEY v. The DISTRICT COURT FOR the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, and the speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "We conclude that the purported service of process upon Liley by publication pursuant to court order was legally ineffective because, under the facts of this case, such service was not authorized by statute or court rule. Consequently, we make the rule absolute. I." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Judgment Enforcement, LLC v. King
Judgment Enforcement, LLC v. King, 465 P.3d 78 (2020)
…ber 2017. 4 vacation. Concluding that Mr. King was avoiding service of process, the process server then performed skip traces that showed that Mr. King had continued using the personal address in Parker to secure credit. ¶ 10 On July 22, 2010, investors filed a “Motion for Substituted Service on All Defendants” pursuant to C.R.C.P. 4(f). They requested authorization to send the…
On service of process, Judgment Enforcement, LLC v. King speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Concluding that Mr. King was avoiding service of process, the process server then performed skip traces that showed that Mr. King had continued using the personal address in Parker to secure credit." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Charles J. RAINSBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. KLEIN D/B/A J. Klein Construction, Defendant-Appellant
…y-designated individual defendant, and there was no further service of process on him. No answer has been filed, and defendant did not appear or otherwise defend in the trial court prior to entry of judgment. On plaintiff's motion, a default judgment was eventually entered against defendant "J. Klein, d/b/a J. Klein Construction" on January 12, 1996. Defendant's first appearanc…
On service of process, Charles J. RAINSBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. KLEIN D/B/A J. Klein Construction, Defendant-Appellant speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "No answer has been filed, and defendant did not appear or otherwise defend in the trial court prior to entry of judgment. On plaintiff's motion, a default judgment was eventually entered against defendant 'J. Klein, d/b/a J. Klein Construction' on January 12, 1996." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Registering for e-filing
Colorado's primary electronic filing path is Colorado Courts E-Filing (ICC / ICCES).
How to register: Register through Colorado Courts E-Filing, complete the user agreement, and fund an account for filing fees or submit a fee-waiver motion.
Pro se reality check: Self-represented parties can e-file in Colorado state courts; some County Court and small-claims filings still accept paper at the clerk’s window.
When you e-file:
- Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
- Check that party names match the caption exactly.
- Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
- Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).
Discovery
After pleadings, parties exchange information. In Colorado:
C.R.C.P. 26–37 govern discovery. Colorado’s disclosure-heavy culture (Rule 26) means early document exchanges even before formal discovery requests.
Typical tools:
- Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
- Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
- Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
- Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).
If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.
Colorado discovery opinions
Stephan D. CLARK, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; Daniel B
…ion as a defense to the claims. 1 In the course of pretrial discovery, Clark’s deposition was taken by the conservator. Clark admitted to having received psychiatric treatment for a mental problem in 1973 and psychological counseling for alcohol and drug abuse on at least four separate occasions between 1974 and 1979. The conservator requested Clark to execute a document author…
On discovery, Stephan D. CLARK, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; Daniel B speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "In the course of pretrial discovery, Clark’s deposition was taken by the conservator." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Karen LEAFFER and Steven Leaffer v. Gerald V. ZARLENGO Cristee Locke Offerdahl and Midtown Obstetrics & Gynecology P.C.
…rm to her and the death of her infant daughter.1 During the discovery stage of the litigation, Petitioners served sixteen non-pattern interrogatories, among other discovery demands, to Respondents. Respondents argued that each subpart of each interrogatory should be considered a separate question. Since the Case Management Order limited the number of non-pattern interrogatories…
Karen LEAFFER and Steven Leaffer v. Gerald V. ZARLENGO Cristee Locke Offerdahl and Midtown Obstetrics & Gynecology P.C. is worth reading on Colorado discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "During the discovery stage of the litigation, Petitioners served sixteen non-pattern interrogatories, among other discovery demands, to Respondents. Respondents argued that each subpart of each interrogatory should be considered a separate question." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Donzell Oliver ROSENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Virginia Lou GRADY, Defendant-Appellee
…he court would not rule *27 on plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery until he had complied with those requirements. Therefore, the trial court implicitly made the findings which were not present in Badis v. Martinez, supra. Subsequently, the trial court granted plaintiffs motion for a thirty-day extension of time in which to comply with § 13-20-602. Plaintiff then filed a hand…
Practitioners open Donzell Oliver ROSENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Virginia Lou GRADY, Defendant-Appellee when Colorado discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Therefore, the trial court implicitly made the findings which were not present in Badis v. Martinez, supra. Subsequently, the trial court granted plaintiffs motion for a thirty-day extension of time in which to comply with § 13-20-602." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Julie STONE, Plaintiff. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant
…uthorizations for the release of her tax records as part of discovery in her action against Respondent State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. ("State Farm") to recover under-insured motorist ("UIM") benefits. Stone claims that the court abused its discretion by failing to apply the factors set forth in Martinelli v. District Court, 199 Colo. 163, 612 P.2d 1083 (1980), when it analyzed…
On discovery, Julie STONE, Plaintiff. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Respondent State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. ('State Farm') to recover under-insured motorist ('UIM') benefits. Stone claims that the court abused its discretion by failing to apply the factors set forth in Martinelli v. District Court, 199 Colo. 163, 612 P." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In re GATEWAY LOGISTICS, INC. and Gateway Freight Solutions, Inc. v. Christopher Patrick SMAY Republic Cargo, a
…ial court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. 1 2 In this case involving breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets claims, the plaintiffs sought to inspect personal and business computers, smart-phones, and other electronic storage devices belonging to the lead defendant and his wife, who is not a party to the case. The plaintiffs *…
Practitioners open In re GATEWAY LOGISTICS, INC. and Gateway Freight Solutions, Inc. v. Christopher Patrick SMAY Republic Cargo, a when Colorado discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "ial court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. 1 2 In this case involving breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets claims, the plaintiffs sought to inspect personal and business computers, smart-phones, and other electronic storage de" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Melissa ROBERTS-HENRY, Plaintiff, v. Jason RICHTER, Defendant-Appellee, and Concerning, Martha Gay, Appellant
…th defendant had been terminated. Defense counsel requested discovery from plaintiff, including the treatment notes of Gay. Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order, and Gay filed a lengthy report summarizing plaintiff’s history and detailing her reasons opposing disclosure of treatment notes. The trial court ruled that the treatment notes were subject to discovery only…
Colorado opinions such as Melissa ROBERTS-HENRY, Plaintiff, v. Jason RICHTER, Defendant-Appellee, and Concerning, Martha Gay, Appellant are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Defense counsel requested discovery from plaintiff, including the treatment notes of Gay. Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order, and Gay filed a lengthy report summarizing plaintiff’s history and detailing her reasons opposing disclosure of treatment notes." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
William GAGNON and the Star-Journal Publishing Corporation, Petitioners, v. the DISTRICT COURT in and for the COUNTY
…rsonal and professional reputation. In the normal course of discovery conducted in connection with his defamation action, plaintiff deposed William Gagnon, the reporter whose byline appeared on the article, concerning his sources of information for the article. In response to a request for “all the documents. . .relating to the matter raised in and by the [plaintiff’s] complain…
On discovery, William GAGNON and the Star-Journal Publishing Corporation, Petitioners, v. the DISTRICT COURT in and for the COUNTY speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "In the normal course of discovery conducted in connection with his defamation action, plaintiff deposed William Gagnon, the reporter whose byline appeared on the article, concerning his sources of information for the article. In response to a request for “all the documents. . ." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Ralph D. NORDEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E.F. HUTTON & COMPANY, INC., Peter W. Casey, Yates Snowden Williams, and
…on clause. They deposed the plaintiff and participated in a discovery hearing at which they confirmed their intention to go to trial in five weeks. At the hearing, the trial court ordered the defendants to comply with certain discovery orders. Following the hearing, the defendants indicated to the plaintiff, that other than the discovery already ordered by the court, they would…
Ralph D. NORDEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E.F. HUTTON & COMPANY, INC., Peter W. Casey, Yates Snowden Williams, and is worth reading on Colorado discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "They deposed the plaintiff and participated in a discovery hearing at which they confirmed their intention to go to trial in five weeks. At the hearing, the trial court ordered the defendants to comply with certain discovery orders." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Rules of evidence (short tour)
Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. Colorado applies the Colorado Rules of Evidence. Core ideas:
- Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
- Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
- Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
- Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.
For a full Colorado walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: Colorado Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.
Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.
Colorado summary-judgment opinions
Diana K. CHURCHEY, Petitioner, v. ADOLPH COORS COMPANY, Respondent
Diana K. CHURCHEY, Petitioner, v. ADOLPH COORS COMPANY, Respondent, 759 P.2d 1336 (1988)
…rageous conduct. The trial court granted Coors’ motions for summary judgment on all claims. The court of appeals affirmed in Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 725 P.2d 38 (Colo.Ct.App.1986), and we granted certiorari to review that opinion. Wé affirm the court of appeals with respect to Churchey’s claim for outrageous conduct; we reverse its judgment with respect to the wrongful di…
Diana K. CHURCHEY, Petitioner, v. ADOLPH COORS COMPANY, Respondent is worth reading on Colorado summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "The trial court granted Coors’ motions for summary judgment on all claims. The court of appeals affirmed in Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 725 P.2d 38 (Colo.Ct.App.1986), and we granted certiorari to review that opinion." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
CONTINENTAL AIR LINES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Petitioner, v. Maynard W. KEENAN, Jr., Respondent
…uded that there were material questions of fact; therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate. We granted certiorari review, and we reverse in part and remand with directions. I. The respondent, Maynard W. Keenan, Jr., was employed by Continental from May 1974 to September 1981, when he was discharged. Keenan then filed this suit alleging wrongful discharge based on the failur…
CONTINENTAL AIR LINES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Petitioner, v. Maynard W. KEENAN, Jr., Respondent is worth reading on Colorado summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "We granted certiorari review, and we reverse in part and remand with directions. I. The respondent, Maynard W. Keenan, Jr., was employed by Continental from May 1974 to September 1981, when he was discharged." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, the City and County of Denver, Petitioner, v. John E. PINDER, Respondent
…nver Civil Service Commission’s (the Commission) motion for summary judgment based upon section 24-72-204(6), 10B C.R.S. (1988), which allows a court to restrict access to public records where substantial injury to the public interest would result. The court of appeals held that section 24-72-204(2)(a)(II) specifically allows Pinder, as a party in interest, to inspect the exami…
On summary judgment, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, the City and County of Denver, Petitioner, v. John E. PINDER, Respondent speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "Civil Service Commission’s (the Commission) motion for summary judgment based upon section 24-72-204(6), 10B C.R.S. (1988), which allows a court to restrict access to public records where substantial injury to the public interest would result." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, IN the INTEREST OF S.N., a Child, and Concerning S.N., a/k/a S.S., and M.A.S.
…icated the parents' child, S.N., dependent and neglected by summary judgment. The case is before us again following a remand from our supreme court, which directed us to determine whether the "underlying material facts are undisputed" and, if they are, "apply the [dependency and neglect] statute to the facts and determine whether reasonable minds can draw differing inferences."…
Colorado opinions such as The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, IN the INTEREST OF S.N., a Child, and Concerning S.N., a/k/a S.S., and M.A.S. are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "S.N., dependent and neglected by summary judgment." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Petitioner, and Dominic J. Gargano and Stephen S. Reffel, Complainants, v. NORTH
…ce provided by all parties. The District filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the applicants were neither handicapped nor perceived to be handicapped. The District also claimed it was justified in disqualifying the applicants for medical reasons to ensure the safety of themselves, other firefighters, and the public. The applicants also moved for summary judgment…
Practitioners open COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Petitioner, and Dominic J. Gargano and Stephen S. Reffel, Complainants, v. NORTH when Colorado summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The District filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the applicants were neither handicapped nor perceived to be handicapped." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Southern Cross Ranches v. JBC Agricultural Management
Southern Cross Ranches v. JBC Agricultural Management, 442 P.3d 1012 (2019)
…under C.R.C.P. 56, if the nonmoving party fails to oppose a summary judgment motion, a trial court is not required to review the entire record on file for factual disputes before ruling on a summary judgment motion. The division further concludes that in this case the trial court abused its discretion by making inconsistent rulings, first denying and then granting summary judgm…
On summary judgment, Southern Cross Ranches v. JBC Agricultural Management speaks to the Colorado dispute in this passage: "C.R.C.P. 56, if the nonmoving party fails to oppose a summary judgment motion, a trial court is not required to review the entire record on file for factual disputes before ruling on a summary judgment motion." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of A.C., III, a Child, and Concerning T.C.
Opinion by Judge ROMAN. T.C. (mother) appeals the court's summary judgment adjudicating her son, A.C., III, to be dependent and neglected. We affirm. I. Relying on C.R.C.P. 56(c), mother asserts the court erred by allowing the Morgan County Department of Human Services (the department) to file a motion for summary judgment only twenty-one days before the adjudicatory hearing.…
Colorado opinions such as The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of A.C., III, a Child, and Concerning T.C. are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "Opinion by Judge ROMAN. T.C. (mother) appeals the court's summary judgment adjudicating her son, A.C., III, to be dependent and neglected. We affirm. I. Relying on C.R.C.P." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
How LawDiver can help
LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.
- LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to Colorado. Search phrases like
pro se,service of process,motion to compel, or your statute number. - Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a
/casedisplayopinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them. - Statutes — Where Colorado codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
- GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later Colorado cases treat it.
- Evidence companion — Use the Colorado evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
- AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.
LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.
Colorado case law highlights
Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.
Checklist before you file in Colorado
- Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
- Pick County Court small-claims procedure vs District Court (County Court for many civil cases under jurisdictional limits) based on amount and remedy.
- Draft a complaint that states facts and a legal theory.
- Register on Colorado Courts E-Filing (ICC / ICCES) (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
- Arrange proper service under C.R.C.P. 4.
- Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
- Research controlling Colorado cases and the Colorado Rules of Evidence on LawDiver.
- Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.
Key takeaways
- Individuals may appear pro se. Entities must have counsel except as expressly allowed in small claims.
- Main trial forum: District Court (County Court for many civil cases under jurisdictional limits). Smaller disputes often belong in County Court small-claims procedure (generally up to $7,500).
- Procedure: Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Opening paper: a complaint.
- Service: C.R.C.P. 4. Serve under C.
- E-filing: Colorado Courts E-Filing (ICC / ICCES). Self-represented parties can e-file in Colorado state courts; some County Court and small-claims filings still accept paper at the clerk’s window.
- Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to Colorado) and the Colorado evidence guide.
Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer Colorado; Colorado pro se; Colorado Courts E-Filing; how to sue in Colorado.
Frequently asked questions
How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in Colorado?
Prepare a complaint, file it in the correct Colorado court (District Court (County Court for many civil cases under jurisdictional limits) or County Court small-claims procedure), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under C.R.C.P. 4. Register for Colorado Courts E-Filing (ICC / ICCES) when e-filing is required or available.
What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?
A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.
Do I need to register for e-filing?
Self-represented parties can e-file in Colorado state courts; some County Court and small-claims filings still accept paper at the clerk’s window. Registration steps: Register through Colorado Courts E-Filing, complete the user agreement, and fund an account for filing fees or submit a fee-waiver motion.
Will I get a jury?
Demand a jury under C.R.C.P. 38 for eligible claims. Small claims are heard by a magistrate or judge without a jury.
What happens in discovery?
C.R.C.P. 26–37 govern discovery. Colorado’s disclosure-heavy culture (Rule 26) means early document exchanges even before formal discovery requests.
How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?
It lets you search and read Colorado opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.
Disclaimer
LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Colorado attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official Colorado sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.