Frey v. Sofamor Danek Holdings, Inc.

Filing 182

ORDER ON CHOICE OF LAW STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS re 174 , 181 , and 175 : plaintiff's claims under the Boomerang Agreement are subject to the 6-year statute of limitations under Tennessee law, and the plaintiff's claims under the Pyramesh Agreement are subject to the 6-year statute of limitations under Indiana law, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 7/30/2014. (jsmit)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00767-RPM
DR. GEORGE FREY, M.D.,
a Colorado Citizen,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC.,
an Indiana corporation, and
MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC.,
a Tennessee corporation,
Defendants.

ORDER ON CHOICE OF LAW
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The plaintiff claims breaches of two contracts; the Boomerang Agreement and the
Pyramesh Agreement. Those documents provide, respectively, that they are to be construed and
interpreted for all purposes according to the law of Tennessee and Indiana. Both Tennessee and
Indiana have a 6-year limitations period.
The defendants have raised the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations under
Colorado law, C.R.S. § 13-80-101 (three years). In asserting that contention they argue that the
choice of law provisions in the contracts should be narrowly construed to issues of contract
interpretation and that Colorado has the most significant relationship to this case.
These arguments are rejected. Contract interpretation is a critical question in this case.
-1-

These contracts are separate. C.R.S. § 13-82-104(1)(a) provides that if a claim is
substantively based upon the law of one other state, the limitation period of that state applies.
The defendants argue that subsection 104(1)(b) applies because the plaintiff’s claims involve the
law of more than one state and the conflict laws of Colorado should be used to determine the
limitation period. That argument is rejected. It also misreads the statute which requires
application of the law of one of the states.
The defendants seek a ruling on when the plaintiff’s claims accrued. That question
depends upon disputed facts and must be determined at trial.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s claims under the Boomerang Agreement are subject to the
6-year statute of limitations under Tennessee law, and the plaintiff’s claims under the Pyramesh
Agreement are subject to the 6-year statute of limitations under Indiana law.
Date: July 30, 2014
BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch
Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

-2-