Thomas v. Childhelp, Inc.
2024 COA 16. No. 23CA0431. Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure—Class Actions—Class Certification—Claim in Individual Capacity—Colorado Consumer Protection Act—Summary Judgment.
February 15, 2024
Childhelp, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation that raises revenue, in part, by soliciting members of the public to make donations. In response to a Childhelp solicitation, Thomas made what he thought was a one-time $10 donation to Childhelp. Thomas paid with his credit card and did not authorize additional payments to Childhelp, but Childhelp subsequently used Thomas’s credit card information to convert his one-time contribution into a recurring monthly charge of $10. Thomas alleged that Childhelp made two monthly charges before he was able to stop the recurring charges. His credit card company later reimbursed him for these two charges. Thomas filed a complaint against Childhelp for violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), asserting, among other things, that Childhelp subjected many other individuals to unauthorized recurring charges after making what the donor thought was a single donation. Thomas sought class certification under CRCP 23. Childhelp filed an answer and then moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court treated the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, which it granted on two grounds: Thomas had not pursued a claim in his individual capacity, and Thomas suffered no damages because his credit card company reimbursed him for the two allegedly unauthorized charges.
On appeal, Thomas argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the ground that he had not pursued a claim in his individual capacity. A private claim under the CCPA may be pursued individually or on behalf of a class. And when a complaint contains a claim requesting class certification but certification is not granted, the plaintiff may still pursue the claim to recover their individual losses. Here, Thomas’s sole claim alleged that Childhelp’s deceptive trade practices had injured him and the other putative class members in a similar way. Ultimately, Thomas failed to obtain certification, so the class action aspect of his claim fails, but his individual claim for deceptive trade practices remains unadjudicated. Therefore, the district court erred as a matter of law by concluding that Thomas failed to assert a claim for his individual losses.
Thomas also contended that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the ground that he suffered no damages because his credit card company reimbursed him for the two allegedly unauthorized charges. He maintained that Childhelp cannot avoid the damage claim by relying on the reimbursement paid to him by his credit card company, arguing that the contract exception to the collateral source rule applies. The contract exception precludes reduction of a damage award based on payments from a collateral source that were made pursuant to a contract paid for by, or on behalf of, the injured party. Here, Thomas’s allegation that the credit card company reimbursed him as a cardholder benefit has not been countered by contrary evidence, so it must be taken as true for purpose of evaluating the summary judgment motion. This evidence precludes entry of summary judgment for Childhelp because Childhelp has not established, as a matter of law, that the payment does not fall within the contract exception to the collateral source rule. Accordingly, Thomas has alleged a sufficient injury to provide him standing to pursue the CCPA claim in his individual name, and the district court erred by entering summary judgment against him.
The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.