C.G. v. City of Fort Lupton

2 Citing cases

  1. Interstate Med. Licensure Compact Comm'n v. Bowling

    Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02942-CMA-NYW (D. Colo. Jun. 23, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Ms. Bowling alleges that the implied “abruptness” of her departure made her appear “reckless and untrustworthy, ” [#11 at ¶ 41], because as the individual in “total control over operations and technology, ” [id. at ¶ 34], the IMLCC would face “serious hardships” in her absence [id. at 24]. Thus, construing the Counterclaim in a light most favorable to Ms. Bowling, I cannot conclude that Mr. Smith's statements were incapable of a defamatory meaning or effect as a matter of law. See C.G. v. City of Fort Lupton, No. 13-CV-01053-REB-CBS, 2014 WL 2597165, at *14-15 (D. Colo. June 10, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss Colorado defamation claim on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)).

  2. Brokers' Choice of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc.

    138 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (D. Colo. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding "the comparison did not ... show the aired statements would have left viewers with a false impression of the gist of Clark's seminars. Instead, Dateline ' s portrayal of what occurred at the seminar was, in fact, 'substantially true' "

    2001) Specifically, a motion to dismiss can be granted on the basis that the challenged publication was substantially true. Fry , 2013 COA, ¶ 24, ––– P.3d –––– ; see also Barnett, 36 P.3d at 147 (affirming trial court's dismissal of a defamation claim where challenged statement's substantial truth was clear from plaintiff's complaint); C.G. v. City of Fort Lupton , No. 13–CV–01053–REB–CBS, 2014 WL 2597165, at *14–15 (D.Colo. June 10, 2014) (dismissing defamation claim on a 12(b)(6) motion where substantial truth was clear from the face of the complaint). B. APPLICATION