293 P.3d 99
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Arnold, a member of Anton Cooperative Association, was barred from the store after a May 2006 notice by the Association.
- Arnold filed a CRA discrimination claim in district court alleging the store was a public accommodation and discriminated due to gender and disability.
- CCRD reviewed the claim and noted no probable cause but advised Arnold could pursue in district court.
- The Association answered with defenses and counterclaims alleging Arnold was disruptive and that she presented bad checks; it sought an injunction to bar her from the store.
- The trial court dismissed Arnold's CRA claim as outside district court jurisdiction and later dismissed contract claims; counterclaim was voluntarily dismissed.
- On appeal, the court held district courts have jurisdiction over CRA part 6 claims; affirmed some rulings, reversed others, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over CRA part 6 claims | Arnold argues district court has concurrent jurisdiction. | Defendants contend only county court handles damages under part 6. | District courts have concurrent jurisdiction; CRA claim properly in district court. |
| Express contract existence | Articles, bylaws, and Cooperatives Act create an express right to purchase. | No enforceable promise to allow continuous purchasing; no express right proven. | No enforceable express contract to continue shopping found; summary judgment proper. |
| Implied contract or quasi-contract | Membership and cooperative structure imply a right to purchase. | Arguments not preserved; courts cannot rewrite contracts. | Implied/quasi-contract claims not considered; not prevail. |
| Interference with contract | Interference claim derives from breach of contract. | No viable breach of contract, thus no interference claim. | Derivative interference claim foreclosed by lack of breach. |
| Costs and appellate jurisdiction | Costs/fees rulings should be reviewed. | Challenged portions of costs/fees; timely appeal under rules. | Costs reversed; attorney fees affirmed; appellate timing recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007) (read statutory provisions harmoniously; interpret as a whole)
- Adams Reload Co. v. Int'l Profit Assocs., Inc., 143 P.3d 1056 (Colo. App. 2005) (judicial economy supports single-action litigation)
- Continental Title Co. v. District Court, 645 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1982) (employer-employee discrimination distinctions in CRA context)
- Watson v. Public Service Co., 207 P.3d 860 (Colo. App. 2009) (employment discrimination context within CRA)
- Ohmie v. Martinez, 141 Colo. 480, 349 P.2d 131 (Colo. 1960) (concurrent jurisdiction principle in civil actions)
- Estate of Stevenson v. Hollywood Bar & Cafe, Inc., 832 P.2d 718 (Colo. 1992) (preservation of arguments on appeal; review standards)
- USI Properties East, Inc. v. Simpson, 938 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1997) (courts not rewrite contracts)
- Schwindt v. Hershey Foods Corp., 81 P.3d 1144 (Colo. App. 2003) (motions to dismiss must rely on pleading; summary judgment standards)