Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180322_0000383.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:29:04+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Peterson v. USAA Life Insurance Co.
Peterson v. USAA Life Insurance Co.
USAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 21) Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. # 12) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of only the CCPA claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule12(b)(6) provides that a defendant may move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court takes all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and construe the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 2012).
“The court's function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991). A claim should not be dismissed if it contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility, in the context of a motion to dismiss, means that the plaintiff pled facts which allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations state a plausible claim for relief, such claim survives the motion to dismiss. Id.
The CCPA was “enacted to regulate commercial activities and practices, which because of their nature may prove injurious, offensive, or dangerous to the public.” Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc., 62 P.3d 142, 146 (Colo. 2003). It is “intended to deter and punish deceptive trade practices committed by business in dealing with the public.” Showpiece Homes Corp. v. Assurance Co. of America, 38 P.3d 47, 51 (Colo. 2001). The CCPA is liberally construed to serve its broad purpose and scope. Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224, 230 (Colo.1998).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.