Consumer Protection Act - Opposing Summary Judgment - Part 2

The intent and public policy of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act  should also be borne in mind. “The CCPA was enacted for this very purpose, to protect vulnerable consumers and the consuming public as a whole.” Crowe v. Tull, 126 P.3d 196, 209 (Colo. 2006). Moreover, the “availability of ‘other statutory or common law causes of action based on the same set of facts does not affect the plaintiff's right to assert a claim under the CCPA.’” Crowe, 126 P.3d at 210. “The purpose of the CCPA is to provide ‘consumers who are in a position of relative bargaining weakness with protection against a range of deceptive trade practices.’” Curragh Queensland Min. Ltd. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 55 P.3d 235, 240 (Colo. App. 2002).

One way to show that your CCPA allegations are sufficiently stated with particularity is to compare them with allegations which the Colorado court of appeals has already found to be sufficient. In State ex rel. Suthers v. Mandatory Poster Agency, Inc., 09CA0253, 2009 WL 4981891 (Colo. Ct. App. Dec. 24, 2009), cert. dismissed (Mar. 10, 2010), the court held that the CCPA allegations in the complaint satisfied both the statutory elements of the CCPA and the procedural requirements of Rule 9. While your claims under the CCPA may differ, see if there is a correspondence to the sufficient allegations in Mandatory Power:

• “Defendant MPA is a Michigan corporation, and its principal place of business is located in Michigan.”
• “Defendant conducted business in Colorado under the assumed names Colorado Food Service Compliance Center and The Colorado Labor Law Poster Service.”
• “Defendants listed a Colorado address for both entities that was nothing more than a mail drop.”
• “Defendants did not maintain an office, or conduct any business operations, in Colorado other than mailing flyers from Michigan to Colorado.”
• “Defendants’ solicitations violated the CCPA.”
• “Defendants’ misrepresentations included misleading consumers into believing that MPA was a Colorado company or a government or government-affiliated company dedicated to compliance with governmental regulations when defendants are a Michigan company engaged in selling posters available for free through true governmental entities.”

Good luck ...