Monarch Natural Gas v. V.
District Court of Colorado, Arapahoe County
June 6, 2019, Decided; June 6, 2019, Filed
Case No.: 2017CV31409
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED COMPLAINT
The Court has received and reviewed defendant Wapiti Oil & Gas II, LLC's (hereinafter "Wapiti" or "Defendant") Motion to Dismiss First Amended and Restated Complaint Against Wapiti Oil & Gas, LLC. The Court has also received and reviewed Monarch Natural Gas, LLC's (hereinafter "Monarch" or "Plaintiff") Opposition to the Motion and Defendant's Reply. The Court now dispenses with oral argument on the Motion and enters its ruling thereon as stated herein.
Statement of the Motion
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended and Restated Complaint pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) and (5). Defendant argues: (1) Wapiti cannot be held jointly liable for debts owed by Wapiti and Badlands based on allegations by Plaintiff that a partnership existed; (2) Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails for lack of personal jurisdiction; and, (3) that Monarch has not pled facts that can support a claim for unjust enrichment.
Standard of Review
In ruling on a motion submitted pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, [*2] the court must apply well established legal standards. Such motions are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted. Davidson v. Dill, 503 P.2d 157 (Colo. 1972); Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc., 829 P.2d 1286 (Colo. 1992). The court may only consider matters stated in the complaint and cannot go beyond the confines of the pleading. Troxel v. Town of Basalt, 682 P.2d 501 (Colo. App. 1984). All material allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true and the court must view the allegations in the light most favorable to the claiming party. Asphalt Specialties, Co., Inc. v. City of Commerce City, 218 P.3d 741 (Colo. App. 2009). Schmaltz v. St. Luke's Hospital, 521 P.2d 787 (Colo. App. 1974), modified 534 P.2d 781 (Colo. 1975). The complaint must state a claim for relief which is plausible on its face. Warne v. Hall, 373 P.3d 588, 595 (Colo. 2016). The court may consider documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference and matters proper for judicial notice. Norton v. Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc. 409 P.3d 331 (Colo. 2018). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In the complaint the plaintiff need not set forth the underlying facts giving rise to the claim with precise particularity. Shockley v. Georgetown Valley Water and Sanitation District, 548 P.2d 928 (Colo. App. 1976). A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Davidson v. Dill, supra.
Analysis by the CourtRead The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2019 Colo. Dist. LEXIS 1973 *
MONARCH NATURAL GAS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Plaintiff v. BADLANDS PRODUCTION COMPANY, f/k/a Gasco Production Company, a Colorado corporation; BADLANDS ENERGY, INC., f/k/a Gasco Energy, Inc., a Colorado corporation; and WAPITI OIL & GAS II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Defendants
partnership, unjust enrichment, salt water, disposal, argues, personam jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, claim for relief, joint liability, allegations, motion to dismiss, processing, asserts, pled, Oil