Opinion ID: 6934948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Transaction of Business

Text: Although the court below, as well as the parties both below and on appeal, focused primarily on the “tortious act” provision, Wenz also claims that Colorado courts may exercise jurisdiction over the defendants pursuant to the “transaction of business” subsection of the long-arm statute. See Colo.Rev. Stat. § 13-l-124(l)(a) (Supp.1992). After reviewing the pleadings and supporting affidavits, however, we are unable to find factual allegations sufficient to support Wenz’s claim. In the complaint, Wenz simply makes the allegation that “all Defendants have transacted business in the State of Colorado.” Compl. ¶ 6. The defendants then challenged this allegation in their motion to dismiss and their supporting affidavits. See Crystal Aff. ¶¶ 3-11; Connick Aff. ¶ 4; Mem. in Supp. of Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss at 3-4, 13-17. We have previously stated: “The plaintiff has the duty to support jurisdictional allegations in a complaint by competent proof of the supporting facts if the jurisdictional allegations are challenged by an appropriate pleading.” Pytlik v. Professional Resources, Ltd., 887 F.2d 1371, 1376 (10th Cir.1989); see Becker v. Angle, 165 F.2d 140, 141 (10th Cir.1947); see also Ten Mile Indus. Park v. Western Plains Serv. Corp., 810 F.2d 1518, 1524 (10th Cir. 1987) (providing that only the well pled facts of plaintiffs complaint, as distinguished from mere conclusory allegations, must be accepted as true). Wenz’s complaint fails to allege any facts in support of his conclusory statement that the “defendants transacted business” in Colorado. Moreover, Wenz’s affidavit and response to the motion to dismiss do not contain any additional facts which would sufficiently support jurisdiction. 2 Consequently, Wenz has also failed to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction under the transaction of business subsection of the long-arm statute. Inasmuch as we have concluded that the Colorado long-arm statute cannot be used to assert jurisdiction over the defendants, we need not address whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.