Colorado State Court Class Action Complaint

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DISTRICT COURT, [________________________________] COUNTY, COLORADO

Court Address: [________________________________]

Case Number: [________________________________]

Division: [____] Courtroom: [____]

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff [________________________________] ("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through undersigned counsel, brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendant [________________________________] ("Defendant"), and alleges upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff's own conduct and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a class action brought on behalf of [________________________________] [describe the proposed class] who suffered injury as a result of Defendant's [________________________________] [describe the common unlawful conduct].

2. Defendant engaged in deceptive trade practices in the course of business in Colorado, in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), C.R.S. §§ 6-1-101 et seq., and applicable common law. Defendant's conduct significantly impacted the public as actual or potential consumers of Defendant's goods, services, or property.

3. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of Plaintiff and the proposed Class: (a) actual damages and, where willful, TREBLE damages under C.R.S. § 6-1-113; (b) restitution and disgorgement; (c) declaratory and injunctive relief; (d) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under C.R.S. § 6-1-113; and (e) pre- and post-judgment interest.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, Section 9(1) of the Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. § 13-1-124, as the District Court is a court of general jurisdiction empowered to adjudicate the claims asserted herein. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum exclusive of interest and costs.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under Colorado's long-arm statute, C.R.S. § 13-1-124, because:

☐ Defendant is incorporated, organized, or has its principal place of business in Colorado;
☐ Defendant transacts business in Colorado;
☐ Defendant committed tortious acts within Colorado;
☐ Defendant has caused tortious injury in Colorado by acts or omissions occurring within or outside Colorado in connection with regularly conducted business in the State;
☐ Defendant purposefully directed conduct toward Colorado residents;
☐ Other: [________________________________].

6. Venue is proper in [________________________________] County pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98 because:

☐ Defendant resides or has its principal place of business in this County (C.R.C.P. 98(c)(1));
☐ A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this County;
☐ Tortious conduct affecting Colorado consumers occurred in this County;
☐ Other: [________________________________].

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

7. Plaintiff [________________________________] is an individual who, at all relevant times, resided in [________________________________] County, Colorado.

8. Plaintiff [describe Plaintiff's connection, e.g., purchased Defendant's product, paid Defendant's fee, received Defendant's service] on or about [__/__/____].

B. Defendant

9. Defendant [________________________________] is a [corporation/limited liability company/partnership] organized under the laws of the State of [________________________________], with its principal place of business at [________________________________]. Defendant transacts substantial business in Colorado.

10. At all relevant times, Defendant engaged in [describe business and conduct at issue].

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Background

11. [________________________________]

12. [________________________________]

B. Defendant's Deceptive Trade Practices

13. Defendant engaged in a uniform course of deceptive trade practices, consisting of [________________________________].

14. Defendant's conduct constitutes one or more deceptive trade practices enumerated in C.R.S. § 6-1-105, including:

☐ § 6-1-105(1)(e) — knowingly or recklessly making false representations as to characteristics, uses, or benefits of goods, services, or property;
☐ § 6-1-105(1)(g) — representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade when they are of another;
☐ § 6-1-105(1)(l) — making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the price of goods or services;
☐ § 6-1-105(1)(u) — failing to disclose material information concerning goods, services, or property when such failure to disclose was intended to induce the consumer to enter into a transaction;
☐ Other: § 6-1-105(1)([____]) — [________________________________].

C. Public Impact

15. Defendant's conduct significantly impacts the public as actual or potential consumers of Defendant's goods, services, or property in that:

a. Defendant uniformly directed the conduct at a large number of Colorado consumers — on information and belief, [hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands] of persons;

b. The deceptive practice was widely disseminated through [advertising/marketing/standardized contractual or transactional documents/standardized sales practices];

c. Consumers had limited ability to detect the deception due to disparate sophistication and information; and

d. The conduct is ongoing and continues to threaten harm to additional Colorado consumers.

D. Plaintiff's Experience

16. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff [________________________________].

17. Plaintiff was deceived by Defendant's misrepresentations and/or omissions and suffered injury in fact to a legally protected interest.

18. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered actual damages of [________________________________].

E. Harm to Class Members

19. Plaintiff and all members of the proposed Class suffered the same type of harm flowing from the same uniform conduct of Defendant.

20. [________________________________]

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated pursuant to C.R.C.P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), and in the alternative under Rule 23(b)(1). Plaintiff acknowledges that the Court will conduct a "rigorous analysis" of these requirements. See Jackson v. Unocal Corp., 262 P.3d 874 (Colo. 2011); Patterson v. BP America Prod. Co., 240 P.3d 456 (Colo. App. 2010).

A. Class Definition

22. The proposed Class is defined as:

All persons in the State of Colorado who [________________________________] during the period from [__/__/____] to the present (the "Class Period").

23. Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, and legal representatives; (b) the judicial officers presiding over this action and members of their immediate families and staff; (c) any persons who timely opt out; and (d) [________________________________].

B. Numerosity — C.R.C.P. 23(a)(1)

24. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. On information and belief, the Class numbers in the [hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands].

25. The precise number and identities of Class members are ascertainable from Defendant's books and records, including [transaction records, customer databases, billing systems].

C. Commonality — C.R.C.P. 23(a)(2)

26. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, including:

a. Whether Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged;

b. Whether Defendant's conduct constitutes one or more "deceptive trade practices" under C.R.S. § 6-1-105;

c. Whether the conduct occurred in the course of Defendant's business;

d. Whether Defendant's conduct significantly impacted the public as actual or potential consumers within the meaning of Hall v. Walter;

e. Whether Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury in fact and actual damages caused by the conduct;

f. Whether Defendant acted "in bad faith" so as to support an award of treble damages under C.R.S. § 6-1-113(2)(a)(III); and

g. The proper measure of damages and restitution.

D. Typicality — C.R.C.P. 23(a)(3)

27. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff and all Class members were injured by the same uniform conduct and assert the same legal theories.

28. Plaintiff has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.

E. Adequacy — C.R.C.P. 23(a)(4)

29. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. See Coverdell v. Mid-South Farm Equip. Ass'n, 2018 COA 168. Plaintiff's interests are aligned with — and not antagonistic to — those of the Class.

30. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation.

F. Predominance and Superiority — C.R.C.P. 23(b)(3)

31. Common questions of law and fact predominate over any individual questions. See Friedman v. Dollar Thrifty Auto. Grp., Inc., 2015 COA 64 (predominance analysis). The central liability questions — whether Defendant engaged in the alleged deceptive practice, whether it occurred in the course of business, and whether it had a significant public impact — are common to all Class members.

32. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:

a. Individual Class members' damages are modest relative to the burden of individual litigation;

b. Separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications;

c. Concentrating the litigation in this forum promotes efficiency and consistency; and

d. The case presents no unusual manageability concerns.

G. C.R.C.P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) Allegations

33. Certification is alternatively appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1) because separate adjudications would risk inconsistent standards for Defendant or, as a practical matter, impair non-party Class members' ability to protect their interests.

34. Certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted on grounds that apply generally to the Class, making final declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I — Violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act

C.R.S. §§ 6-1-101 to 6-1-1707

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

36. Defendant engaged in a "deceptive trade practice" as defined in C.R.S. § 6-1-105 by [________________________________].

37. Defendant's deceptive trade practice occurred in the course of Defendant's business, vocation, or occupation.

38. Defendant's deceptive trade practice significantly impacted the public as actual or potential consumers of Defendant's goods, services, or property, as alleged in Section IV.C above.

39. Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury in fact to legally protected interests, including economic injury.

40. Defendant's deceptive trade practice proximately caused the injuries to Plaintiff and Class members.

41. Defendant engaged in the deceptive trade practice in bad faith, supporting an award of treble damages under C.R.S. § 6-1-113(2)(a)(III), and entitling Plaintiff and the Class to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under C.R.S. § 6-1-113(2)(b).

COUNT II — Common Law Fraud / Fraudulent Misrepresentation

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

43. Defendant made material false representations to Plaintiff and Class members.

44. Defendant knew the representations were false, or made them with reckless disregard for the truth.

45. Defendant intended that Plaintiff and Class members would rely on the representations.

46. Plaintiff and Class members justifiably relied to their detriment.

47. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT III — Unjust Enrichment

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class, in the Alternative)

48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

49. Plaintiff and Class members conferred a benefit on Defendant in the form of [payments/premiums/fees].

50. Defendant appreciated and retained the benefit under circumstances that would make retention inequitable without payment of its value.

51. Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to restitution and disgorgement of all amounts unjustly retained by Defendant.

COUNT IV — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

53. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiff and the Class on the one hand, and Defendant on the other, regarding [________________________________].

54. Plaintiff seeks a declaration under C.R.S. §§ 13-51-101 et seq. (Uniform Declaratory Judgments Law) that Defendant's conduct violates the CCPA and other applicable law, and injunctive relief under C.R.C.P. 65 enjoining Defendant from continuing the unlawful conduct.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of Plaintiff and the proposed Class, respectfully requests that the Court:

A. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 23, appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative, and appoint undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;

B. Direct notice to the Class as required by C.R.C.P. 23(c)(2);

C. Award Plaintiff and the Class actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

D. Award TREBLE damages under C.R.S. § 6-1-113(2)(a)(III) for bad-faith conduct, OR a statutory civil penalty of $500 per consumer, whichever is greater, as the statute permits;

E. Award restitution and disgorgement of all benefits unjustly obtained by Defendant;

F. Enter declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from continuing the unlawful conduct;

G. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rates permitted by law, including C.R.S. § 5-12-102;

H. Award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under C.R.S. § 6-1-113(2)(b) and the common-fund doctrine; and

I. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class, demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 38 and Colo. Const. art. II, § 23.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]
[Attorney Name], #[Atty Reg. No.]
[Firm Name]
[Street Address]
[City], Colorado [ZIP]
Telephone: [____________]
Email: [____________]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

VERIFICATION

I, [________________________________], declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado, pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-27-101, that I have read the foregoing Class Action Complaint and that the factual allegations concerning my personal experience are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed on [__/__/____] at [________________________________], Colorado.

[________________________________]
Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT was filed with the Clerk of the District Court using the Colorado Courts E-Filing System (CCES) pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-26, and that service of process will be effected pursuant to C.R.C.P. 4.

[________________________________]
[Attorney Name], #[Atty Reg. No.]

Sources and References

• C.R.C.P. 23 (Class Actions)
• C.R.C.P. 98 (Venue)
• C.R.S. §§ 6-1-101 to 6-1-1707 (Colorado Consumer Protection Act)
• C.R.S. § 6-1-105 (Deceptive Trade Practices)
• C.R.S. § 6-1-113 (Civil Actions; Treble Damages; Attorneys' Fees)
• C.R.S. § 6-1-115 (Three-Year Limitations Period)
• C.R.S. § 13-20-901 (Interlocutory Appeals of Class Certification)
• C.R.S. § 13-1-124 (Long-Arm Statute)
• Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998) (public impact element)
• Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc., 62 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2003) (public impact factors)
• Jackson v. Unocal Corp., 262 P.3d 874 (Colo. 2011) (rigorous analysis)
• Patterson v. BP America Prod. Co., 240 P.3d 456 (Colo. App. 2010) (rigorous analysis)
• Friedman v. Dollar Thrifty Auto. Grp., Inc., 2015 COA 64 (predominance)
• Coverdell v. Mid-South Farm Equip. Ass'n, 2018 COA 168 (adequacy)

This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Colorado class action litigation under the CCPA requires careful pleading of the public impact element and is subject to a three-year statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 6-1-115.