Colo.App.,2010.
Colorado Coffee Bean, LLC v. Peaberry Coffee Inc.
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
360I(B) Federal Supremacy; Preemption
ny served as a guarantor of franchisor, as the rule only preempted a common law claim if there was a direct conflict,
and rule did not prohibit franchisors from disclosing that the parent company had been unprofitable. 16 C.F.R. §
436.1(a)(20)(i), (a)(21) (2003).
[10] Trial 388 384
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to show a right to relief during a bench trial, the trial court must de-
termine whether judgment in favor of defendant is justified on the evidence presented. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 41(b).
[11] Appeal and Error 30 996
sion of a plaintiff’s case during a bench trial, then an appellate court, in an appeal of an order granting a motion to
dismiss for failure to show a right to relief, cannot disturb the findings and conclusions of the trial court. Rules
Civ.Proc., Rule 41(b).
[12] Antitrust and Trade Regulation 29T 151
ceptive trade practice significantly impacts the public as actual or potential consumers. West‘s C.R.S.A. § 6-1-101 et
seq.
[13] Antitrust and Trade Regulation 29T 151
order to bring a private cause of action under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA): (1) the number of
consumers directly affected by the challenged practice; (2) the relative sophistication and bargaining power of the
consumers affected by the challenged practice; and (3) evidence that the challenged practice has previously impact-
29TIII(A) In General
29Tk151 k. Public Impact or Interest; Private or Internal Transactions. Most Cited Cases
An actual or potential public impact did not exist as a result of fraudulent nondisclosures by coffee retailer franchi-
sor and franchisor’s parent company regarding parent company’s losses, when they placed a posting on the Internet
for potential franchisees, as required in order for franchisees to maintain a private cause of action against franchisor,
95 Contracts
95I Requisites and Validity
95I(B) Parties, Proposals, and Acceptance
95k17 k. Request or Advertisement for Proposals. Most Cited Cases
230II Right to Trial by Jury
230k27 Waiver of Right
230k28 In Civil Cases
230k28(5) k. Form and Sufficiency of Waiver. Most Cited Cases
Provision waiving a jury trial in the event of a dispute was enforceable against franchisees, in fraudulent nondisclo-
95 Contracts
95II Construction and Operation
95II(A) General Rules of Construction
95k143 Application to Contracts in General
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
30k893(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases
Appeal and Error 30 1008.1(8.1)
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review
30XVI(I) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings
30XVI(I)3 Findings of Court
30k1008 Conclusiveness in General
30k1008.1 In General
30k1008.1(8) Particular Cases and Questions
101 Corporations
101I Incorporation and Organization
101k1.6 Particular Occasions for Determining Corporate Entity
101k1.6(13) k. Torts. Most Cited Cases
Evidence was sufficient to establish, in trial of fraudulent nondisclosure action that franchisees brought against fran-
95 Contracts
95VI Actions for Breach
95k351 Trial
95k352 Questions for Jury
95IV Rescission and Abandonment
95k271 k. Election to Rescind and Notice. Most Cited Cases
An election to rescind a contract may be determined on the basis of conduct.
[30] Attorney and Client 45 26
Uniform franchise offering circular (UFOC) prepared by law firm for coffee retailer franchisor did not contain any
representations regarding store profitability or parent company’s profitability, as required in order for franchisees to
maintain a negligent misrepresentation claim against law firm based on statements regarding profitability; UFOC
388 Trial
388I Notice of Trial and Preliminary Proceedings
388k3 Separate Trials in Same Cause
388k3(4) k. Particular Parties, Separate Trial as To. Most Cited Cases
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by bifurcating trial of franchisees’ claims against law firm that advised fran-
[32] Trial 388 3(1)
388 Trial
388I Notice of Trial and Preliminary Proceedings
388k3 Separate Trials in Same Cause
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review
30XVI(H) Discretion of Lower Court
30k963 Proceedings Preliminary to Trial
30k964 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
Law Office of D. Bruce Coles, P.C., Donald Coles, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant Double R Coffee,
LLC.
Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP, Hugh Q. Gottschalk, Andrew M. Unthank, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants–
Appellees Peaberry Coffee, Inc., Peaberry Coffee Franchise, Inc., William I. Tointon, and James T. Orr.
Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Hilary D. Wells, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant–
Appellee Perkins Coie, LLC.
360I(B) Federal Supremacy; Preemption
ny served as a guarantor of franchisor, as the rule only preempted a common law claim if there was a direct conflict,
and rule did not prohibit franchisors from disclosing that the parent company had been unprofitable. 16 C.F.R. §
436.1(a)(20)(i), (a)(21) (2003).
[10] Trial 388 384
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to show a right to relief during a bench trial, the trial court must de-
termine whether judgment in favor of defendant is justified on the evidence presented. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 41(b).
[11] Appeal and Error 30 996
sion of a plaintiff’s case during a bench trial, then an appellate court, in an appeal of an order granting a motion to
dismiss for failure to show a right to relief, cannot disturb the findings and conclusions of the trial court. Rules
Civ.Proc., Rule 41(b).
[12] Antitrust and Trade Regulation 29T 151
ceptive trade practice significantly impacts the public as actual or potential consumers. West‘s C.R.S.A. § 6-1-101 et
seq.
[13] Antitrust and Trade Regulation 29T 151
order to bring a private cause of action under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA): (1) the number of
consumers directly affected by the challenged practice; (2) the relative sophistication and bargaining power of the
consumers affected by the challenged practice; and (3) evidence that the challenged practice has previously impact-
29TIII(A) In General
29Tk151 k. Public Impact or Interest; Private or Internal Transactions. Most Cited Cases
An actual or potential public impact did not exist as a result of fraudulent nondisclosures by coffee retailer franchi-
sor and franchisor’s parent company regarding parent company’s losses, when they placed a posting on the Internet
for potential franchisees, as required in order for franchisees to maintain a private cause of action against franchisor,
95 Contracts
95I Requisites and Validity
95I(B) Parties, Proposals, and Acceptance
95k17 k. Request or Advertisement for Proposals. Most Cited Cases
230II Right to Trial by Jury
230k27 Waiver of Right
230k28 In Civil Cases
230k28(5) k. Form and Sufficiency of Waiver. Most Cited Cases
Provision waiving a jury trial in the event of a dispute was enforceable against franchisees, in fraudulent nondisclo-
95 Contracts
95II Construction and Operation
95II(A) General Rules of Construction
95k143 Application to Contracts in General
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
30k893(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases
Appeal and Error 30 1008.1(8.1)
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review
30XVI(I) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings
30XVI(I)3 Findings of Court
30k1008 Conclusiveness in General
30k1008.1 In General
30k1008.1(8) Particular Cases and Questions
101 Corporations
101I Incorporation and Organization
101k1.6 Particular Occasions for Determining Corporate Entity
101k1.6(13) k. Torts. Most Cited Cases
Evidence was sufficient to establish, in trial of fraudulent nondisclosure action that franchisees brought against fran-
95 Contracts
95VI Actions for Breach
95k351 Trial
95k352 Questions for Jury
95IV Rescission and Abandonment
95k271 k. Election to Rescind and Notice. Most Cited Cases
An election to rescind a contract may be determined on the basis of conduct.
[30] Attorney and Client 45 26
Uniform franchise offering circular (UFOC) prepared by law firm for coffee retailer franchisor did not contain any
representations regarding store profitability or parent company’s profitability, as required in order for franchisees to
maintain a negligent misrepresentation claim against law firm based on statements regarding profitability; UFOC
388 Trial
388I Notice of Trial and Preliminary Proceedings
388k3 Separate Trials in Same Cause
388k3(4) k. Particular Parties, Separate Trial as To. Most Cited Cases
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by bifurcating trial of franchisees’ claims against law firm that advised fran-
[32] Trial 388 3(1)
388 Trial
388I Notice of Trial and Preliminary Proceedings
388k3 Separate Trials in Same Cause
30 Appeal and Error
30XVI Review
30XVI(H) Discretion of Lower Court
30k963 Proceedings Preliminary to Trial
30k964 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
Law Office of D. Bruce Coles, P.C., Donald Coles, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant Double R Coffee,
LLC.
Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP, Hugh Q. Gottschalk, Andrew M. Unthank, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants–
Appellees Peaberry Coffee, Inc., Peaberry Coffee Franchise, Inc., William I. Tointon, and James T. Orr.
Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP, Frederick J. Baumann, Hilary D. Wells, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant–
Appellee Perkins Coie, LLC.