Laserfiche WebLink
matter with the judicial review matter.Z The Division does not believe that consolidation would <br />lead to judicial efficiency as the procedures for hearing the two matters, civil trial versus <br />administrative record review, are inconsistent. <br />II. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to the Division. <br />In ruling on a C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can <br />be granted, the court must accept all well - pleaded material facts in the complaint as true and <br />view the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Asphalt Specialists, Co. v. City of <br />Commerce City, 218 P.3d 741 (Colo. App. 2009); Western Innovations, Inc. v. Sonitrol <br />Corporation, 187 P.3d 1155 (Colo. App. 2008). However, the court is not required to accept as <br />true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Western Innovations, Inc. v. Sonitrol <br />Corporation, supra. Further, a complaint may be dismissed if it is clearly without merit and this <br />want of merit may consist of an absence of substantive law to support the claims asserted. Id; <br />Nelson v. Nelson, 497 P.2d 1284, 31 Colo. App. 63 (1972); see Fort Collins - Loveland Water <br />District v. City of Fort Collins, 482 P.2d 986, 174 Colo. 70 (197 1) (when it appears from face of <br />complaint that the complaint simply does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the <br />claim is barred and the court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter). A motion for failure <br />to state a claim must be determined solely from the four corners of the complaint. Town of Alma <br />v. Azco Construction, Inc., 10 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2000); Coors Brewing Co. v. Floyd, 978 P.2d <br />663 (Colo. 1999). <br />In addition, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 8(a)(2), a complaint must set forth "a short and plain <br />statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ". Nowhere in Plaintiffs' <br />Complaint do they make any allegations with respect to the conduct of the Division. Plaintiffs' <br />Complaint fails to put the Division on notice of the conduct they allege caused them harm. <br />Therefore, Plaintiffs' Complaint, on its face, fails to state a claim against the Division upon <br />which relief can be granted. Based on this alone, the Division should be dismissed as a party - <br />Defendant. Western Innovations, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corporation, supra; Fort Collins - Loveland <br />Water District v. City of Fort Collin, supra. <br />2 The Board's attorney, John Roberts, has authorized undersigned counsel to represent to this Court that the Board <br />agrees with the Division that consolidation of these matters is not proper. <br />3 <br />