“The fox chases the rabbit around the tree and down the hole. That’s how the tie works buddy.” Dirk Pitt – Sahara. Plaintiff Bristol Bay (BB) produced Sahara, based on a Clive Cussler novel. Cussler told BB he had sold over 100 million books; actually it was 40 million. The movie failed and BB lost around $50 million. BB sued Cussler in California for fraudulent inducement. A CA jury found that BB’s damages were not caused by Cussler’s lie. BB then sued different defendants – Cussler’s agents – in Colorado for the same exact claim. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were precluded by the CA action and won. The Court agreed because the identity of the defendant is irrelevant to whether plaintiff’s reliance caused damages. But, the trial court should have converted the CRCP 12 motion to CRCP 56 because preclusion was an affirmative defense based on matters outside the pleadings.
Tag Archives: Affirmative Defense
Bristol Bay Productions, f/k/a Crusader Entertainment v. Peter Lampack; The Peter Lampack Agency; Simon & Schuster; and Penguin Group USA, 2013CO60 (October 21, 2013)
Count the negatives: “noncompliance with nonclaim statutes deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction” (Opinion), and CRS 38-26-106 is not a nonclaim statute. That statute requires public-works-project contractors to post a bond. Here, Tarco did not post a bond when constructing an overpass and infrastructure around a shopping center for the Conifer Metro District (CMD). It did not get paid by CMD and sued. The District, after a two-year delay, claimed that Tarco couldn’t sue because of its noncompliance with the statute. The trial court dismissed Tarco’s claims. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding: 1) CMD’s pleadings didn’t prejudice Tarco, 2) the contracts were for “public works” under the statute, 3) the statute is not a nonclaim statute, 4) the CMD lacked the power to waive the bond requirement, and 5) fact issues saved Tarco’s equitable estoppel argument.