{"id":987,"date":"2018-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-04-12T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/content.local\/2018\/04\/12\/what-happens-if-a-computer-glitch-causes-your-attorney-to-miss-a-filing-deadline-in-your-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2026-02-10T06:42:37","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T06:42:37","slug":"what-happens-if-a-computer-glitch-causes-your-attorney-to-miss-a-filing-deadline-in-your-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawfirmofjeremyrosenthal.com\/es\/what-happens-if-a-computer-glitch-causes-your-attorney-to-miss-a-filing-deadline-in-your-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"What Happens if a Computer Glitch Causes Your Attorney to Miss a Filing Deadline in Your Lawsuit?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Courts generally operate according to established procedures and use deadlines. For example, if a plaintiff misses a deadline in a personal injury action, the court may dismiss the claim. In the\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0Taylor v. HCA-HealthONE LLC (2018)<\/em>, a Colorado appeals court was asked to review a lower court’s dismissal of a medical negligence claim after Taylor failed to comply with rule 4(m) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure titled \u201cThe Limit for Service.\u201d The plaintiff had failed to meet the deadline date for serving the defendant. After the dismissal, the statute of\u00a0limitations\u00a0had then expired, barring Taylor from being able to file the complaint again. Plaintiff counsel explained that a technical computer system malfunction was the cause of the unforeseen delay.<\/p>\n

The lower court did not hold a hearing and simply found the failure in timely service was not excusable and dismissed Taylor’s motion. Taylor’s counsel asked the court to reconsider and submitted a more detailed summary of the docketing system problem. An affidavit\u00a0explained\u00a0that the attorney’s calendar and management software became disabled and all the data relating to upcoming deadlines were deleted. A technician from the software provider was needed to resolve the problem. After enabling the system, the technician noted that once reestablished, only some of the deleted deadlines on the schedule were automatically restored.<\/p>\n

On Appeal<\/h2>\n

During the appeal, Taylor alleged that the lower court order to dismiss the case had been erroneous. Taylor’s counsel originally contended that such a dismissal required some advanced notice. The appeals court disagreed, saying that notice was not required once the service deadline had already passed.<\/p>\n

Next, the plaintiff argued that the court should have been required to use a three-factor test based on the case of\u00a0Craig v. Rider (1982)<\/em>. The three-factor \u201cCraig test\u201d seeks to balance and thoroughly examine the factors in the rule 60(b) motions by considering key factors:<\/p>\n