The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2026, in a case involving J.B., the legal guardian of E.B., an adult with a disability, against MKBS, LLC, and Jesus Manuel Ortiz. The court addressed the complex issues surrounding default judgments and the rights of a defaulting defendant to testify in a trial involving a non-defaulting co-defendant. This decision could have significant implications for future cases involving similar circumstances.

In this case, E.B. alleged that Ortiz, her regular taxi driver, sexually assaulted her during one of their rides. J.B. filed a lawsuit against both Ortiz and MKBS, the taxi company. Ortiz failed to respond to the complaint, leading the district court to enter a default judgment against him. However, during the trial against MKBS, Ortiz was allowed to testify, which ultimately influenced the jury's decision in favor of MKBS.

The case reached the Colorado Supreme Court after J.B. appealed the decision that allowed Ortiz to testify and subsequently set aside the default judgment against him. The court's ruling addressed whether a defaulting defendant could testify at a trial involving a non-defaulting co-defendant and the implications of such testimony on liability and damages.

Background

J.B. is the legal guardian of E.B., who has cognitive impairments and is blind. E.B. used MKBS for transportation to a day program, where Ortiz was her regular driver. Following the alleged assault, J.B. filed a lawsuit against Ortiz and MKBS, claiming various forms of misconduct, including negligent hiring and supervision.

After Ortiz failed to respond to the lawsuit, J.B. obtained a default judgment against him. However, the case was complicated by Ortiz's ongoing criminal trial related to the same incident, where he was acquitted. J.B. and MKBS agreed to stay the civil proceedings until the criminal trial concluded. After the criminal trial, J.B. sought to exclude evidence of Ortiz's acquittal in the civil case.

When the civil trial against MKBS began, the district court allowed Ortiz to testify, despite his default status. This decision was contested by J.B., who argued that Ortiz should not be allowed to contradict the admissions made through his default. The jury ultimately found in favor of MKBS, leading to further legal battles over the default judgment against Ortiz.

The Ruling

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a ruling delivered by Justice Hood, affirmed the decision of the lower court. The court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Ortiz to testify at the trial against MKBS, even though he had previously defaulted. The court stated, "We agree with the division majority that the district court properly... allowed Ortiz to testify at MKBS's trial (despite the default)."

The court also upheld the decision to set aside the default judgment against Ortiz and to enter judgment in his favor based on the jury's verdict in the MKBS trial. The court emphasized that the preference for resolving cases on their merits outweighed the strict enforcement of default judgments. Justice Hood noted, "Prohibiting MKBS from introducing Ortiz's firsthand testimony because of an entry of default against Ortiz would subvert this preference."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving default judgments and the rights of defendants. By allowing a defaulting defendant to testify in a trial involving a non-defaulting co-defendant, the court has set a precedent that could affect how similar cases are handled in the future. This decision underscores the importance of the truth-seeking function of the legal system, allowing for all relevant evidence to be presented, even if it comes from a defaulting party.

The ruling may also impact the strategies employed by plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases. Plaintiffs may need to consider the potential for defaulting defendants to testify in related trials, while defendants may see opportunities to present their cases more robustly, even if they have defaulted in previous proceedings.

What's Next

While the Colorado Supreme Court has made its ruling, the case does not appear to have any further appeals pending at this time. However, the implications of this decision may lead to new legal challenges and cases that explore the boundaries of default judgments and testimony in civil trials.