Tag Archives: Consumer Protection Act

Ann Marie Damian and John M Taylor, Jr. v. Mountain Parks Electric, Inc., 2012COA217 (December 27, 2012)

“Why you wanna give me a run-around/ Is it a sure-fire way to speed things up/ When all it does is slow me down.” (Blues Traveler).  In this statute of limitations case, Plaintiff brought a lawsuit under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) that later appeared to be about unreasonable electricity rates that the Public Utilities Commission should decide. It wasn’t, so the PUC dismissed it. Back in the trial court, Defendant claimed the action was filed after the three-year statute of limitations ended. The trial court agreed, and held that the doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply, nor did the one-year extension in the CPA itself. The court of appeals affirmed. Equitable tolling does not apply if it contradicts a statute. Here, it was inconsistent with the CPA. As Plaintiffs did not show the delay was due to Defendant’s misrepresentations, the one-year extension did not apply either.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA1887-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8785&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Torts

State ex. rel. John Suthers, Attorney General and Laura Udis, Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code, v. Tulips Investments, LLC, d/b/a CashBanc, and David Blevins, 2012COA206 (November 21, 2012)

An elderly couple got a pay-day loan with an annual interest rate of 365%. Seriously. The Attorney General (AG) sought to investigate the loan under Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Consumer Protection Act. After the lender Tulips, a Delaware company, ignored numerous orders to provide information, including an administrative investigative subpoena, the AG obtained a court order to compel compliance. Tulips challenged the jurisdiction of a Colorado court to enforce a subpoena served out-of-state on an out-of-state entity. The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena. The court of appeals disagreed on two grounds: 1) the legislature authorized the AG to take reasonable actions to fulfill its statutory duties, and 2) an administrative subpoena is not limited like a judicial subpoena under CRCP 45. The subpoena was enforceable.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA2367-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8756&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Administrative, Government