DISTRICTCOURT,CITYANDCOUNTYOF DENVER,COLORADO EFILEDDocument 1437BannockStreet CODenverCountyDistrictCourt2ndJD Denver,Colorado80202 FilingDate:Oct03201210:33PMMDT __________________________________________ FilingID:46796554 ReviewClerk:AnnieKeirnes DANIELWEST,anindividual, Plaintiff, v.

tiff, v. ANATOLYPORTNOY,anindividualand COURTUSEONLY _______________________ GREENCROSS,LLC,aColoradoLimited LiabilityCompany, CaseNumber:12CV5636 Defendants. __________________________________________ AttorneysforDefendant: Courtroom376 RobertJ.Corry,Jr.#32705 TravisB.Simpson#43858 600SeventeenthStreet Suite2800SouthTower Denver,Colorado80202 3036342244telephone 7204209084facsimile Robert.Corry@comcast.net Travis@RobCorry.com DEFENDANTSMOTIONTODISMISSPURSUANTTOC.R.C.P.12(b)(6)OR INTHEALTERNATIVEFORAMOREDEFINITESTATEMENTPURSUANT TOC.R.C.P.12(e)

DefendantsAnatolyPortnoyandGreenCross,LLC,throughundersigned

counsel,herebyrespectfullysubmitthismotiontodismissPlaintiffsComplaint pursuanttoC.R.C.P.12(b)(5)(failuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbe granted),orinthealternative,foramoredefinitestatementpursuanttoC.R.C.P. 12(e),andasgroundsstatesasfollows: C.R.C.P.1211158Certification:OnSeptember26,2012andon

October3,2012,RobertJ.Corry,Jr.,counselfordefendants,contactedAdamC.

Foster,counselforPlaintiff,toconferregardingthismotion,andMr.Foster respondedviaelectronicmailonSeptember27,2012andonOctober3,2012that heopposedthemotionstodismissandforamoredefinitestatement. STANDARDOFREVIEW Whenevaluatingamotiontodismiss,thecourtshouldonlyconsider

mattersstatedinthecomplaintandshouldnotlookbeyondtheconfinesofthe pleadings.Hewittv.Rice,119P.3d541,544(Colo.App.2004).Furthermore,the courtmustacceptallavermentsofmaterialfactastrue.Id.However,thecourtis notrequiredtoacceptlegalconclusionsastrue,evenwheretheyarecouchedas factualallegations.WesternInnovations,Inc.v.SonitrolCorporation,187P.3d 1155,11571158(Colo.App.2008).Thecomplaintmustsetforthfactual allegationssufficienttoraisearighttoreliefabovethespeculativelevel.Id. citingBellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,127S.Ct.1955,1965,1968 1969,167L.Ed.2d929(2007). ARGUMENT I. A. PlaintiffsFirstClaimforBreachofImpliedContractand SecondClaimforFailuretoPayWagesFailtoStateaClaim UponWhichReliefMayBeGrantedinGeneralContractTerms PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINTFAILSTOSTATECLAIMSUPON WHICHRELIEFCANBEGRANTED

ThecourtshoulddismissPlaintiffsfirstclaimofbreachofcontractand

Plaintiffssecondclaimforfailuretopaywagesforfailuretostateaclaimupon whichreliefmaybegrantedpursuanttoC.R.C.P.12(b)(5).
2

Plaintiff,inhisComplaint,allegesthatGreenCrossisamedicalmarijuana center(MMC)authorizedtoproducemedicalmarijuana(MMJ)anddispenseit topatientspursuanttoColoradostatelaw.SeeComplaintat5.Plaintifffurther allegesthat[i]nthesummerof2010Mr.PortnoyandGreenCrosshiredMr. WesttocultivateMMJatGreenCrossoptionalcultivationfacilitylocatedat505 BryantStreetinDenver(theOPC).SeeComplaintat6. Plaintiffallegesthathewasregisteredandbadgedasanemployee withtheMedicalMarijuanaEnforcementDivisionoftheColoradoDepartmentof Revenue(seeComplaintat8),andthatPlaintiffengagedinthecultivationof marijuanaaspartofthisputativeemploymentandconferredbenefitsupon GreenCrossandMr.Portnoy.SeeComplaintat10,18,26,31. Thus,theComplaintallegesthatPlaintiffwasengagedinthecultivationof medicalmarijuana,andDefendantwasengagedinthebusinessofretailmedical marijuanasales.PlaintiffarguesthathehadvalidcontractswithDefendantsto cultivatemedicalmarijuanaforcompensationandwages.Contractsrequirean offer,acceptance,supportedbyconsideration.Foranenforceablecontractto exist,theremustbemutualassenttoanexchangebetweencompetentparties,legal consideration,andsufficientcertaintywithrespecttothesubjectmatterand essentialtermsoftheagreement.DenverTruckExch.v.Perryman,307P.2d805 (Colo.1957)IndustrialProds.Intl,Inc.v.EmosTrans,Inc.,962P.2d983(Colo. App.1997),cert.denied(Colo.1998).

TheComplaintfailstoallegeanyoftheserequirementsofacontract,fails tostatetheparametersandprovisionsoftheallegedcontract,andfailstostatethe provisionsoftheallegedemploymentorwageagreement,andhencefailstostate aclaimonthisbasis. However,evenifthepreciseprovisionsofthecontractorwageagreement werestated,theseallegedcontractsarevoidasagainstpublicpolicybecause marijuanaremainsillegalunderfederallawandanycontractforthesale, manufacture,and/orcultivationofmarijuanaisunenforceableinacourtoflaw. B. AllThreeClaimsShouldbeDismissedasTheyareVoidfor PublicPolicyandIllegalityReasons 1. CultivationandPossessionofMarijuanaRemainIllegal UnderFederalLaw.

AllthreeclaimsofPlaintiffrelatetotheproductionandforprofitsaleof

marijuana.Marijuanaremainsanillegalsubstanceunderfederallaw.Peoplev. Watkins,2012COA15,at20,cert.denied,No.12SC179,2012WL1940753 (Colo.May29,2012)seealso,Benoirv.Indus.ClaimsAppealsOffice,262P.3d 970,977(Colo.App.2011),certdenied,No.11SC676,2012WL1940833(Colo. May29,2012).In1970,CongressenactedtheComprehensiveDrugAbuse PreventionandControlAct(CSA)inanefforttoconsolidatethegrowing numberofpiecemealdruglawsandtoenhancefederaldrugenforcementpowers. 21U.S.C.A.801971(West2011)Gonzalesv.Raich,545U.S.1,12(2005). TheCSAcreatedacomprehensiveregimetocombattheinternationaland interstatetrafficinillicitdrugs.Gonzales,545U.S.at12.TheCSAmakesit
4

unlawfultomanufacture,distribute,dispense,orpossessanycontrolledsubstance exceptinamannerauthorizedbytheCSA.Gonzales,545U.S.at13(citing21 U.S.C.A.841(a)(1),844(a)). Controlledsubstancesarecategorizedintofiveschedulesaccordingto

acceptedmedicaluses,thepotentialforabuse,andtheirpsychologicaland physicaleffectsonthebody.Gonzales,545U.S.at13(citing21U.S.C.A. 811,812).CongressclassifiedmarijuanaasaScheduleIdrug.Gonzales,545 U.S.at14(citing21U.S.C.A.812(c)).DrugsarecategorizedunderScheduleI becauseoftheirhighpotentialforabuse,lackofanyacceptedmedicaluse,and absenceofanyacceptedsafetyforuseinmedicallysupervisedtreatment. Gonzales,545U.S.at14(citing21U.S.C.A.812(b)(1)).WhenCongress categorizedmarijuanaasaScheduleIdrug,themanufacture,distribution,or possessionofmarijuanabecameacriminaloffense.Id.citing21U.S.C.A. 823(f),841(a)(1),844(a)). NotwithstandingtheprohibitionofmarijuanaundertheCSA,numerous

states,includingColorado,haveenactedmedicalmarijuanalaws,creatingsome conflictinguncertaintyregardingthestatusofmarijuanaslegality.SeeGonzales, 545U.S.at5ColoradoConstitution,ArticleXVIII14C.R.S.1818406.3 C.R.S.1243.3101etseq.C.R.S.251.5106.Coloradocourtsrecognizethat authorizationtousemedicalmarijuanaisnotlimitless.Benior,262P.3d970,976 (citingPeoplev.Clendenin,232P.3d210,212,214(Colo.App.2009)Inre MarriageofParr,240P.3d509,511(Colo.App.2010)).

5

InresponsetoachallengerelevanttoCaliforniasmedicalmarijuanalaws, theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatthereisnomedicalnecessityexception totheprohibitionscontainedwithintheCSA.UnitedStatesv.OaklandCannabis BuyersCoop.,532U.S.483,486,494(2001). Furthermore,Coloradosmedicalmarijuanaprovisionmayprotect claimantfromprosecutionunderColoradoscriminallaws,buttheAmendment hasnoeffectonfederallaws.Watkins,2012COAat20.InGonzales,the UnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatapplicationoftheCSAtointrastate growersandusersofmedicalmarijuanadidnotviolatetheCommerceClauseof theUnitedStatesConstitution,thusaffirmingCongressspowerto comprehensivelyregulate,andinsomecasesprohibit,intrastateandinterstate drugactivity.SeeGonzales,545U.S.at9. Finally,theColoradoCourtofAppealshasfoundthatmedicalmarijuana

lawscontinuetoviolatefederalpublicpolicy.Benoir,262P.3dat974(citingthe OfficeofNationalDrugPolicysnoticemandatingthatenforcementoffederal druglawswouldremainineffectdespitestatepassageofmedicalmarijuana provisions). 2. Federallawregardingmarijuanapreemptsstatelaw becauseColoradostatelawcreatesanobstacletothefull enforcementoffederallaw.

TheSupremacyClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionprovidesthatthe

ConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStatesshallbethesupremeLawofthe Land.U.S.Const.art.VI,cl.2Marylandv.Louisiana,451U.S.725,746
6

(1981).Itisfundamentaltothisconstitutionalcommandthatallconflictingstate provisionsbewithouteffect.Maryland,451U.S.at746.However,afederalact cannotsupersedetheStateshistoricpolicepowerunlessthatistheclear purposeofCongress.Medtronic,Inc.v.Lohr,518U.S.470,471(1996). Therefore,interpretationofastatutespreemptivescopemustfocusonthefair understandingofCongressionalpurpose.Id. Congressmayindicateitspreemptiveintentthroughexplicitstatutory

languageorimplicitlythroughitsstructureandpurpose.Jonesv.RathPacking Co.,430U.S.519,525(1977).Afederalstatutemayimplicitlysupersedeastate statutewhenastatutesscopeindicatesthatCongressintendedfederallawto occupyafieldexclusively,orwhenthestatelawisinactualconflictwith federallaw.FreightlinerCorp.v.Myrick,514U.S.280,287(1995).TheCSAs centralobjectiveistoconquerdrugabuseandtocontrolthelegitimateand illegitimatetrafficincontrolledsubstances.Gonzales,545U.S.at12.Congress createdacomprehensiveframeworkforregulatingtheproduction,distribution, andpossessionoffiveclassesofcontrolledsubstances.Id.at24. CongressclassifiedmarijuanaasaScheduleIdrugpartlyforitslackof

anyacceptedmedicaluse.Id.at14.Despiteconsiderableeffortstoreschedule marijuana,Congresshasrefusedtoclassifymarijuanaunderanylesserschedules. Id.at15.Further,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatthereisnomedical necessityexemptionavailableundertheCSA,thusforeclosinganyconclusionthat Coloradosmarijuanalawcancreateanysuchexemptionunderfederaldruglaw.

7

SeeOaklandCannabis,532U.S.at483,486,494.SinceCongresshasnot indicatedanyintenttooccupythefieldofdruglawexclusively,theCourtmust considertheexistenceofanactualconflictbetweenstateandfederallaw.Actual conflictmayexistwhenitisphysicallyimpossibletocomplywithbothstateand federallaworwhenstatelawstandsasanobstacletotheaccomplishmentand executionofthefullpurposesandobjectivesofCongress.Freightliner,514U.S. at287.Historically,theCourthasappliedthephysicalimpossibilitystandardvery narrowly.SeeWyethv.Levine,555U.S.555,590(2009). Here,itisnotphysicallyimpossibletocomplywithbothstateandfederal

lawbecauseapersoncansimplyrefrainfromusingmarijuana,medical orotherwise.InEmeraldSteelFabricators,Inc.v.BureauofLabor&Indus.(230 P.3d518,528(Or.2010)),theOregonSupremeCourtappliedsimilarreasoning andconcludedthatitisnotphysicallyimpossibleforOregonresidentstocomply withbothfederallawandOregonsmedicalmarijuanalawbecauseresidentscan refrainfromusingmarijuanaaltogether.Similarly,itisnotphysicallyimpossible forColoradoresidentstocomplywithbothfederalandstatelaw.Therefore, thephysicalimpossibilitystandardofpreemptionisnotsatisfied. Finally,theCourtmustconsiderwhetherthestatelawstandsasan

obstacletotheaccomplishmentandexecutionofthefullpurposesandobjectives ofCongress.Hinesv.Davidowitz,312U.S.52,67(1941).InMichiganCanners &FreezersAssn,Inc.v.Agric.Mktg.&BargainingBd.(467U.S.461,478 (1984)),theUnitedSupremeCourtheldthatstatelawwaspreemptedwhenstate

8

lawauthorizedassociationsoffarmersandotherproducersofagricultural commoditiestoengageinconductforbiddenbyfederallaw.TheCourtheldthat federallawpreemptedstatelawbecauseitstoodasanobstacletothe accomplishmentandexecutionofthefullpurposesandobjectivesof Congress.Id. InEmerald,theOregonSupremeCourtfoundthatOregonlaw

affirmativelyauthorizestheuseofmedicalmarijuanawhereastheCSA prohibitsmarijuanaregardlessofanymedicalpurpose.230P.3dat529.Similarly, Coloradolawauthorizescertainindividualstousemarijuanaformedicalpurposes, whereasfederallawforbidsanyuseofmarijuana.Ultimately,theCSAprohibits themanufacture,distribution,orpossessionofmarijuana,andanystate authorizationtoengageinthemanufacture,distribution,orpossessionof marijuanacreatesanobstacletothefullexecutionofthefederalCSA.Therefore, ColoradosmarijuanalawsarepreemptedbytheCSAsprohibitionofmarijuana. Similarly,inEmerald,theOregonSupremeCourtheldthatOregonmarijuanalaw iswithouteffectbecauseOregonsmarijuanalawsarepreemptedbyfederallaw. 230P.3dat529. 3. ContractsinContraventionofPublicPolicyareVoidand Unenforceable.

[C]ontractsincontraventionofpublicpolicyarevoidandunenforceable.

Piercev.St.VrainValleySchoolDist.RE1J,981P.2d600,604(Colo.1999). Partiestoillegalcontractsgenerallycannotrecoverdamagesforbreachof
9

contract.Bd.ofCnty.CommrsofPitkinCnty.v.Pfeifer,546P.2d946,950 (Colo.1976).Althoughpartieshavethefreedomtoagreetowhatevertermsthey seefit,suchtermscannotviolatestatutoryprohibitionsaffectingpublicpolicyof thestate.Foxv.I10Ltd,957P.2d1018,1022(Colo.1998)seealsoCityof ColoradoSpringsv.MountainViewElectricAssn,Inc.,925P.2d1378,1386 (Colo.App.1995)(Itisafundamentalprincipleofcontractlawthatparties cannotbyprivatecontractabrogatethestatutoryrequirementsorconditions affectingthepublicpolicyofthestate.)Aboveallelse,noonecanlawfullydo thatwhichtendstoinjurythepublic,orisdetrimentaltothepublicgood.Russell v.CourierPrinting&PublgCo.,95P.936(Colo.1908).Asaresult,adefendant maynotbeforcedtoperformonacontracttowhichheagreedandreceiveda benefit.SeeId.However,itisnotforhissake,orforhisprotection,thatthe objectionisallowed,butfortheprotectionofthepublic.Id. Furthermore,Coloradolawdoesnotsuggestthatapublicpolicyanalysis

shouldbelimitedtoviolationsofpublicpolicyonlyasdefinedbyColoradolaw. SeePierce,981P.2dat604Fox,957P.2dat1022Pfeifer,546P.2dat 950MountainView,925P.2dat1386.Instead,theconceptofpublicpolicy includesboththestateofColoradoandthestateasdefinedasapolitically organizedbodyofpeople[usually]occupyingadefiniteterritory.Websters Dictionary1151(9thed.1989).Coloradocourtsareresponsibleforupholdingthe publicpolicyofthestateofColoradoandthestateofthenation.InRussell,the SupremeCourtofColoradoheldthatacontractwasvoidasagainstpublicpolicy

10

becauseitviolatedarulingbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdeclaringthat agreementsforgovernmentcontractsarevoidasagainstpublicpolicywhen compensationiscontingentuponthesuccessofthepromiseesefforts.95P.at 938.Therefore,ifthedisputedcontractviolatesfederallaw,itwouldbeagainst publicpolicyandwouldbevoidandunenforceable. Thoughnotbindingprecedent,onAugust8,2012,followingabenchtrial

inwhichtheplaintiffbroughtabreachofcontractaction,theArapahoeDistrict Courtvoidedanotherwisevalidandexistingcontractforthesaleofmedical marijuanaundersimilarrationale.InArapahoeDistrictCourtCaseNo.11CV709, DistrictCourtJudgeCharlesM.Prattconcludedthatcontractsforthesaleof marijuanaarevoidastheyareagainstpublicpolicy.Accordinglythecontract hereisvoidandunenforceable.SeeHaeberlev.BlueSkyCareConnection, LLC,ArapahoeDistrictCourtCaseNo.11CV709,August8,2012ORDER, attachedheretoandincorporatedhereinbyreferenceasDefendantsExhibit1. Here,thecontracts,asalleged,areillegalunderfederallaw.Therefore,

neitherlawnorequitywillaideithertoenforce,revoke,orrescind.Bakerv. Couch,221P.1089,1090(Colo.1923)(emphasisadded).Thecontractsarevoid asagainstpublicpolicybecausetheyviolatefederallawprohibitingthecultivation andsaleofmarijuana. Moreover,asBakerv.Couchexplains,therecanbenoequitableclaimfor illegalactivityinviolationofthelaw.Inordertoprevailonaclaimforunjust enrichment,theplaintiffmustshowthatsheconferredabenefitonthedefendant

11

undercircumstancesthatwouldmakeitunjustfordefendanttoretainthebenefit withoutpaying.Lewisv.Lewis,189P.3d1134,1145(Colo.2008)quoting DCBConstr.Co.v.Cent.CityDev.Co.,965P.2d115,11920(Colo.1998).It wouldbeunjustfortheCourttocompensatePlaintiffforhisillegalacts. Defendantsrecognizethisisasomewhatunsettledareaofthelaw,andthat variousattorneysandcourtshavetakenavarietyofpositionsaboutthelegalityof medicalmarijuanainlightoffederallaw.However,pursuanttotheColorado RulesofProfessionalConduct,licensedpracticingattorneysareethicallyrequired toraiseandadvanceargumentsonbehalfofclientsthatcouldpotentiallybenefit thelawyersclients,notwithstandingthelawyerspersonalinterestorpolitical views.SeeColo.R.Prof.C.1.1(Competence)3.1(MeritoriousClaimsand DefensesTheadvocatehasadutytouselegalprocedureforthefullestbenefitof theclient'scause...)3.2(ExpeditingLitigation).Eveniflawyersmaypersonally believethatfederallawrelatedtomarijuanaisantiquatedorirrational,saidlaw remainsvalidandbinding,andeliminatesallclaimsallegedhere. Additionally,pursuanttoColo.R.Prof.C.3.3(CandorTowardthe Tribunal),counselforDefendantsbelievetheyareethicallyobligatedtoadvise thisCourtofcontraryauthorityastotheabovefederalillegalityargument.The followingcontrollinglegalauthoritymayfitinthiscategory:Colorado Constitution,ArticleXVIII14(2)(d)(constitutionalrighttothemedicaluseof marijuanaincludesacquisition,possession,manufacture,production,sale, distribution,dispensing,ortransportationofmarijuana)InreMarriageofParr,
12

240P.3d509,511(Colo.App.2010)(discussingfathersconstitutionalrightto usemedicalmarijuanathroughoutCourtofAppealsopinion)21U.S.C.903 (noCongressionalintenttooccupythefieldonsubjectmatterofcontrolled substanceswhichwouldotherwisebewithintheauthorityoftheState)21 U.S.C.885(d)CFR1301.24(federalimmunityforstateorlocalgovernment officialwhoshallbelawfullyengagedintheenforcementofanylawor municipalordinancerelatingtocontrolledsubstances)C.R.S.1243.3901 (deputizingCenterlicenseesandemployeesasbadgedstateandlocalgovernment officialsempoweredtoconfiscatefraudulentdocumentationandpursueall violationsofStatelaw)U.S.PatentNo.6,630,507(patentheldbyUnitedStates ofAmerica,asrepresentedbytheDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,for theuseofcannabinoidsformedicalpurposes)NationalInstituteofDrugAbuse, CompassionateUseProtocol(federalprogramgrowing,transporting,and distributingmarijuanatoU.S.citizensthroughoutthestatesformedicalpurposes) DistrictofColumbiaMedicalMarijuanaProgram,D.C.Stat.71671etseq. D.C.Law1331557DCR3360(federalmedicalmarijuanaprogrampassedby U.S.CongressandsignedintolawbyPresidentoftheUnitedStates). II. PLAINTIFFSTHIRDCLAIMFORQUANTUMMERUIT/UNJUST ENRICHMENTFAILSTOSTATEACLAIMUPONWHICH RELIEFCANBEGRANTED Inadditionto,andseparatelyfrom,thefederalrationalesetforthabove,the

courtshoulddismissPlaintiffsthirdclaimforreliefthroughtheequitabledoctrine ofunjustenrichment.Asdetailedabove,Plaintiffallegesthatheenteredintoan
13

enforceablecontractandanemploymentagreementprovidingforwageswith Defendants,whichareallegationstakenastrueatthisstageandforpurposesof thismotion. Therefore,sincelegalremediesexist,anequitableoneisautomatically precluded.Plaintiffisnotentitledtoassertaclaimforunjustenrichment,the survivalofwhichasaclaimrequiresthenonexistenceofacontract,i.e.alegal remedy.Unjustenrichmentisavailableasaremedyonlyintheabsenceofan otherwiseenforceablecontract.ScottCo.v.MKFergusonCo.,832P.2d1000 (Colo.App.1991)seealsoGilmorev.UteCityMortgageCo.,660F.Supp.437 (D.Colo.1986).Itislongstandingprecedentthatequitableclaimscanexistwhere thereisnoadequateremedyatlaw.Pattersonv.Peopleexrel.Parr,130P.138 (Colo.1913)Blitzv.Moran,67P.1020(Colo.1902).Iftherehasbeenmutual agreementbetweenthepartiesformingacontract,asisallegedhere,theremedyof unjustenrichmentisnotavailable.Vigodav.DenverUrbanRenewalAuthority, 646P.2d900(Colo.1982). Plaintiffassertsthattherewerenumerousexpressagreementsenteredinto withDefendant.(PlaintiffsComplaint9).Acceptingtheseassertionsastrue, Plaintiffisprecludedfromassertingtheclaimofunjustenrichment,which dependsonthenonexistenceofacontract,andtheCourtshoulddismissthis claim. Plaintiffcannothaveitbothways,evenatthisstage.Legalandequitable

remediesaremutuallyexclusive.IfPlaintiffdescendsintotheworldofequity,
14

suchclaimsdependonthelackofremediesatlaw.SincePlaintiffalleges remediesexistatlaw,andtheseallegationsaretakenastrue,thentheequitable claimsmustfail. III. IFTHEMOTIONTODISMISSISDENIED,THENINTHE ALTERNATIVEPLAINTIFFSHOULDPROVIDEAMORE DEFINITESTATEMENT TheComplaintdoesnotsetforththetermsoftheallegedcontractandwage

agreement,anditshoulddoso,inordertoadvancethelitigationsothatparties neednotaimatamovingtargetandincreasetheirexpensesandimpactthe Courtslimitedresources.C.R.C.P.12(e)allowsthisCourt,initsdiscretion,to orderPlaintifftoprovideamoredefinitestatement: Beforerespondingtoapleadingor,ifnoresponsivepleadingis permittedbytheserules,within21daysaftertheserviceofthe pleadinguponhim,apartymayfileamotionforastatementin separatecountsordefenses,orforamoredefinitestatementofany matterwhichisnotaverredwithsufficientdefinitenessor particularitytoenablehimproperlytopreparehisresponsive pleading. C.R.C.P.12(e). Inacontractscasesuchasthis,Plaintiffshouldberequiredtostateatthe outsettheprecisetermsoftheallegedcontracts.ItisexpectedthatPlaintiffwill resist,atthisstageandthroughoutthelitigation,everactuallysettingforththe termsoftheseallegedcontractsortheputativewagessupposedlydue. PRAYERFORRELIEF Wherefore,forthereasonsstatedherein,theCourtshoulddismiss

Plaintiffsclaimsforthwithandwithprejudice,orinthealternative,shouldorder
15

Plaintifftoprovideamoredefinitestatementdetailingtheallegedspecificsofthe contracts,andforallotherreliefjustandproper. Date:October3,2012 RespectfullySubmitted, /s/RobertJ.Corry,Jr. (originalsignatureonfile) ____________________________ RobertJ.Corry,Jr.

16

 CertificateofService Above designated counsel hereby certifies that on the above date he served via LexisNexisFile&Serveatrueandcompletecopyoftheforegoingto: AdamC.Foster Hoban&Feola,LLC 1626WazeeStreetSuite2A Denver,Colorado80202 3036747000 adam@hobanandfeola.com /s/RobertJ.Corry,Jr. (originalsignatureonfile) ____________________________ RobertJ.Corry,Jr.

17