1979-04-25_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

Home Browse Search

F tingham was not involved on his own behalf in the administrative proceedings which are the subject of this action. [Nottingham -�� Affidavit, $9[5-6.. ] Mr. Nottingham' s lack of personal involvement is reflected in Plaintiffs' Complaint, which fails to set forth a single allegation of personal action or involvement on the part. of Mr. Nottingham. Mr. Nottingham' s only connection with this controversy was as an officer of Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company. In this regard, he was functioning entirely within the scope of his duties as a corporate officer. Moreover, Mr. Nottingham' s interest in. the administrative proceeding was defined solely by his status as an officer and shareholder of Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company. [Nottingham Affidavit, 9[5. ] It is indisputable that Mr. Nottingham, as an individual , had no personal interest in the administrative proceeding. It is a basic and universally accepted principle of corporate law that, where claims are advanced against a corpora- tion, shareholders or officers of the corporation may not be sued in their individual capacity absent some extraordinary showing of personal interest or involvement. See, Contractors Heating and Supply Co. v. Scherb, 163 Colo. 584, 432 P. 2d 237, 239 (1967) ; Girard v. 94th St. & 5th Avenue Corp. , 530 F. 2d 66, 72 (2nd Cir . 1976 ) . Plaintiff' s Complaint, however, is devoid of any allega- tions that would implicate Mr. Nottingham personally. Further, Mr. Nottingham' s Affidavit demonstrates that he had no individual interest in the administrative proceeding. Plaintiffs' claim against William E. Nottingham, individually should, therefore, be dismissed or in the alternative summary judgment awarded to Mr. Nottingham. B. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies. One of the most fundamental rules of administrative law is that "exhaustion of the administrative remedies is a judicial prerequisite to court action" . Hannum v. Hillyard, 130 Colo. 37, -6-