C. Ruybalid Failed to State a Claim for Relief ¶19 Ruybalid argues that because Warne v. Hall , 2016 CO 50, 373 P.3d 588, had not been decided when he filed his complaint, the lower courts should have allowed him to file an amended complaint that complied with Warne instead of dismissing his case. In Warne , this court adopted the "plausible on its face" pleading standard for making a claim under C.R.C.P. 8(a)(2) as articulated in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), thereby mirroring the U.S. Supreme Court's abandonment of the previous "no set of facts" pleading standard.

C. Ruybalid Failed to State a Claim for Relief ¶19 Ruybalid argues that because Warne v. Hall, 2016 CO 50, 373 P.3d 588, had not been decided when he filed his complaint, the lower courts should have allowed him to file an amended complaint that complied with Warne instead of dismissing his case. In Warne, this court adopted the "plausible on its face" pleading standard for making a claim under C.R.C.P. 8(a)(2) as articulated in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), thereby mirroring the U.S. Supreme Court's abandonment of the previous "no set of facts" pleading standard.

A complaint is sufficient if it "state[s] a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Warne v. Hall, 2016 CO 50, ¶ 1, 373 P.3d 588 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). A claim is facially plausible when its factual allegations "raise a right to relief above the speculative level," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and allow a "court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

The court granted the motion, in part. It ordered Panzlau to "amend her counterclaims of negligence, breach of contract, and constructive eviction in substantial conformance with the pleading standards of Warne [v. Hall , 2016 CO 50, 373 P.3d 588]," and to "state her claims clearly and in separately-numbered counts in compliance with C.R.C.P. 12(e)." The court dismissed all of Panzlau's other counterclaims for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(5).

¶ 37 In Warne v. Hall , our supreme court adopted the United States Supreme Court's "plausibility standard" for determining whether a plaintiff stated a claim upon which relief can granted. 2016 CO 50, ¶ 24, 373 P.3d 588, 595 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). Under that test, "the factual allegations of the complaint must be enough to raise a right to relief ‘above the speculative level,’ and provide ‘plausible grounds’ " to create an inference that the allegations are true.

Further, where, as here, a party responds to a Rule 16.2(e)(10) motion by filing a motion to dismiss, does C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) and the "plausibility" standard set forth in Warne v. Hall , 2016 CO 50, 373 P.3d 588, apply? And, is a party entitled to rely on allegations that are based on "information and belief" and to conduct discovery to support her Rule 16.

¶ 2, 364 P.3d at 874. And in Warne v. Hall, 2016 CO 50, ¶ 24, 373 P.3d 588, 595, we adopted the "plausible on its face" pleading standard, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The division directed the parties to address at oral arguments whether the holding in Warne applies retroactively.

4. Pleading Standard for a Motion to Dismiss ¶ 23 To survive summary dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(5), a party must plead sufficient facts that, if taken as true, suggest plausible grounds to support a claim for relief. Warne v. Hall , 2016 CO 50, ¶ 24, 373 P.3d 588 (adopting a heightened standard of pleading in Colorado that requires a complaint to allege plausible grounds for relief, not merely speculative grounds).¶ 24 In Warne , the supreme court adopted this new standard over the old standard requiring dismissal only if "the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief."Id. at ¶ 11.

Even so, a complaint must "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Warne v. Hall , 2016 CO 50, ¶¶ 1–2, 373 P.3d 588 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ).Warne v. Hall , 2016 CO 50, 373 P.3d 588, was decided after the district court dismissed Ybarra's complaint.

To establish liability for intentional interference with contract, a plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's interference was improper. Warne v. Hall, 373 P.3d 588, 595 (Colo. 2016) (“A plaintiff cannot be entitled to relief on a claim of intentional interference with contract unless he alleges and proves that the defendant intentionally and improperly induced a party to breach the contract or improperly made it impossible for a party to perform.”)