On April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an attorney does not violate Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (“C.R.C.P.”) 11(a) merely by copying information, including allegations, from complaints in lawsuits involving some of the same defendants, as long as the attorney conducts “a sufficient investigation to support the allegations contained in the complaint, at least on information and belief.” The court cautioned, however, that the sufficiency of that investigation is highly fact dependent.
Accordingly, a plaintiff’s incorporation of allegations from related actions does not alone violate Rule11(a) and must instead be evaluated in the context of each case.
Background
In 2018, plaintiff Dean Houser filed a securities class action against CenturyLink, Inc. and several of its current and former officers and directors. Houser alleged that CenturyLink’s offering documents issued in connection with its merger with another company were false and misleading because they contained material omissions regarding systemic and ongoing illegal “cramming” practices—the unauthorized addition of services to customer accounts. Hauser later filed a notice of supplemental authority, citing a parallel securities fraud class action lawsuit pending in federal court in Minnesota.
The district court initially dismissed Houser’s complaint, but a division of the court of appeals reversed in part, granting Houser leave to amend his complaint. The division cautioned that if Houser desired to use allegations made by a party in a separate lawsuit, he must plead borrowed allegations “as facts, not as allegations by someone else, and must do so only after reasonable inquiry as required by C.R.C.P. 11.”
Houser filed an amended complaint incorporating additional allegations from several related proceedings, including a Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit and a whistleblower action.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Houser had “simply plagiarized” complaints without speaking to confidential witnesses or independently verifying the underlying allegations. The district court agreed and dismissed the amended complaint. A division of the court of appeals again reversed, concluding that Rule 11(a) does not require counsel to speak directly with confidential witnesses whose allegations are incorporated from related complaints.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting defendants’ contention that counsel must personally interview witnesses before incorporating their allegations from related proceedings.
Reviewing the civil rules, the Court noted that a complaint need only provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” C.R.C.P. 8(a)(2), and that allegations may be made “upon information and belief” when a pleader lacks direct knowledge, C.R.C.P. 8(e)(1).
Under C.R.C.P. 11(a), an attorney’s signature certifies that, after reasonable inquiry, the pleading is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law. An attorney may violate the rule by failing to conduct an objectively reasonable inquiry before signing (bad faith is not a prerequisite for a violation). The Court observed that C.R.C.P. 11(a) “personalizes the responsibility of the attorney who certified the pleading” and “safeguards the judicial process by compelling attorneys to submit pleadings which are truthful and advance meritorious legal arguments.”
Surveying federal case law interpreting the analogous Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, the Court observed that courts have reached varying fact-specific conclusions. The Court declined to adopt a bright-line rule requiring counsel to speak with confidential witnesses before copying their allegations from related litigation, reasoning that it “simply may not be possible for counsel to do so” and that such a requirement would dramatically raise the pleading standard.
Applying these principles, the Court agreed that Houser’s counsel had conducted a sufficient inquiry. Specifically, Houser’s counsel had spoken with plaintiffs’ counsel in related cases; reviewed publicly available filings, state attorneys general investigations, SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, and analyst and media reports; and attached affidavits from four named customers. These efforts, the Court found satisfied C.R.C.P. 11(a)’s reasonable inquiry requirement.
Implications
The Court emphasized that its holding does not permit plaintiffs to “wholesale copy complaints from other lawsuits without personally investigating the facts alleged in them,” reiterating that the civil rules mandate a reasonable investigation. The Court also rejected the suggestion that its decision would cause securities class actions to skyrocket in state courts, expressing confidence that trial courts will continue to serve as appropriate gatekeepers.
The opinion was authored by Justice Richard L. Gabriel.
For questions about this legal alert, please contact a member of the Davis Graham Appellate Group.