Preview
BOULDER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
1777 6th St.
PO Box 4249 DATE FILED: February 9, 2023 11:02 AM
Boulder, CO 80306 FILING ID: 2E0BFA2AFCC4E
(303) 441-3750 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30099
Plaintiff: STERLING BUILDING COMPANY, LLC, a
Colorado Limited Liability Company,
v.
Defendant: STERLING PHARMS, INC., a Colorado COURT USE ONLY
Corporation.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Jeffrey S. Rose, #40607 Case Number:
Erin C. Pierce, #52525
Lyons Gaddis P.C.
P.O. Box 978 Div.:
Longmont, CO 80502
303-776-9900
jrose@lyonsgaddis.com; epierce@lyonsgaddis.com
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Sterling Building Company, LLC, through its undersigned counsel, Lyons
Gaddis, PC, for its Complaint states as follows:
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
1. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company, LLC (“Plaintiff” and / or “Sterling Building
Company”) is a Colorado limited liability company located at 1377 Tamarack
Avenue in Boulder, Colorado 80304.
2. Defendant Sterling Pharms, Inc. (“Defendant” and / or “Sterling Pharms”) is a
Colorado corporation located and headquartered at 3065 Sterling Circle in
Boulder, Colorado 80301.
3. The Court has jurisdiction over this dispute under Article VI, Section 9 of the
Colorado Constitution and Paragraph 22 of the parties’ lease (the “Lease”)
attached as Exhibit A.
4. Venue is proper in the Boulder County District Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(c)
because the contract is to be performed in Boulder County, Colorado and
Defendant is located in Boulder County, Colorado.
5. Venue is proper in the Boulder County District Court pursuant to Paragraph 22 of
the Lease.
General Allegations
6. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company owns real property located at 3065 West
Sterling Circle in Boulder, Colorado 80301 (the “Premises”).
7. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company leased the Premises to Defendant Sterling
Pharms pursuant to the Lease attached as Exhibit A.
8. The Lease began on November 1, 2021 and runs through October 31, 2026.
9. The terms of the Lease require Defendant Sterling Pharms to pay base rent and
additional rent to Plaintiff Sterling Building Company on a monthly basis.
10. The terms of the Lease also entitle Plaintiff to late charges of 5% of the amount
due or $250, whichever is greater.
11. The roof of the Premises suffered damage due to weather in January, 2022. As a
result, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company hired a roofer, Scott’s Roofing, LLC
(“Scott’s Roofing”) to undertake repairs in a workmanlike manner.
12. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company entered into a commercial construction
contract with Scott’s Roofing on or about February 4, 2022, following which
Scott’s Roofing undertook repairs.
13. Defendant Sterling Pharms installed certain equipment (the “Chillers”) on the roof
of the premises.
14. These Chillers are trade fixtures and thus not part of the Premises, as defined by
Section 15 of the Lease and Colorado law.
15. Defendant Sterling Pharms contends that Scott’s Roofing’s conduct in repairing
the roof damaged its Chillers, thus impacting Defendant Sterling Pharms’
business operations and otherwise impacting the leased Premises.
16. If Scott’s Roofing harmed Defendant Sterling Pharms’ property, Defendant
Sterling Pharms needed to seek relief from Scott’s Roofing.
17. Instead, Defendant Sterling Pharms has been unlawfully withholding and
otherwise not paying rent owed under the Lease.
2
18. This constitutes a default under the Lease. Defendant Sterling Pharms received
notice of this default and has not cured this default. Thus, Defendant Sterling
Pharms remains in default.
19. As a result of not paying rent owed under the Lease, Defendant Sterling Pharms
is harming Plaintiff Sterling Building Company in an amount to be determined at
trial.
20. Thus, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company brings this action for beach of contract
and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment.
21. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company reserves the right to amend this Complaint to
assert a claim for forcible eviction and detainer to return possession of the
Premises to Plaintiff Sterling Building Company.
First Claim for Relief
(Breach of Contract)
22. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company incorporates by reference the above
paragraphs one through 21 as if set forth fully herein.
23. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company and Defendant Sterling Pharms entered into a
Lease. This Lease constitutes a valid and binding contract.
24. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company has performed under the terms of the Lease,
including, but not limited to, allowing Defendant Sterling Pharms to utilize the
Premises.
25. Defendant Sterling Pharms has failed to perform under the Lease by failing to
pay rent due under the Lease. Accordingly, Defendant Sterling Pharms has
breached and remains in breach of the parties’ Lease.
26. As a result of this breach, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company has been damaged
in an amount to be proven at trial representing its contractual damages,
consequential damages, interest, penalties, late fees, attorneys’ fees, costs, and
what further damages are authorized by the terms of the parties’ contract.
Second Claim for Relief
(Unjust Enrichment – In the Alternative)
27. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company incorporates by reference the above
paragraphs one through 26 as if set forth fully herein.
28. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company delivered a benefit of value to Defendant
Sterling Pharms in the form of the ability to occupy and make use of the
Premises.
3
29. Defendant Sterling Pharms accepted occupancy and use of the Premises, but
Defendant Sterling Pharms is not compensating Plaintiff Sterling Building
Company for its occupancy and use of the Premises.
30. Defendant Sterling Pharms has been unjustly enriched by accepting this benefit
of value without paying just compensation to Plaintiff Sterling Building Company.
31. Thus, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company asserts this claim in the alternative for
unjust enrichment, seeking to be made whole in an amount to be proven at trial
representing what just compensation is owed to Plaintiff Sterling Building
Company.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company,
LLC prays for the following relief:
A. That the Court find in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on all claims
asserted herein and enter a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor accordingly.
B. That the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on
all claims asserted herein and award Plaintiff damages in an amount to be
proven at trial representing Plaintiff’s economic losses, including, but not
limited to, contractual damages, consequential damages, interest, penalties,
late fees, attorneys’ fees, costs, and what further damages are authorized by
the terms of the parties’ contract.
C. That the Court award Plaintiff its reasonable costs as a prevailing party under
Rule 54 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure;
D. That the Court award Plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts
owed at the contract rate of 18% per annum, as provided by the terms of the
parties’ contract, or in the alternative at 8% as provided by statute;
E. That the Court grant Plaintiff what further relief it deems just and appropriate
under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of February, 2023,
LYONS GADDIS, PC
By:
Jeffrey S. Rose, #40607
Erin C. Pierce, #52525
Attorneys for Plaintiff
4
Preview
BOULDER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT 1777 6th St. PO Box 4249 DATE FILED: February 9, 2023 11:02 AM Boulder, CO 80306 FILING ID: 2E0BFA2AFCC4E (303) 441-3750 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30099 Plaintiff: STERLING BUILDING COMPANY, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, v. Defendant: STERLING PHARMS, INC., a Colorado COURT USE ONLY Corporation. Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey S. Rose, #40607 Case Number: Erin C. Pierce, #52525 Lyons Gaddis P.C. P.O. Box 978 Div.: Longmont, CO 80502 303-776-9900 jrose@lyonsgaddis.com; epierce@lyonsgaddis.com COMPLAINT Plaintiff Sterling Building Company, LLC, through its undersigned counsel, Lyons Gaddis, PC, for its Complaint states as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue 1. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company, LLC (“Plaintiff” and / or “Sterling Building Company”) is a Colorado limited liability company located at 1377 Tamarack Avenue in Boulder, Colorado 80304. 2. Defendant Sterling Pharms, Inc. (“Defendant” and / or “Sterling Pharms”) is a Colorado corporation located and headquartered at 3065 Sterling Circle in Boulder, Colorado 80301. 3. The Court has jurisdiction over this dispute under Article VI, Section 9 of the Colorado Constitution and Paragraph 22 of the parties’ lease (the “Lease”) attached as Exhibit A. 4. Venue is proper in the Boulder County District Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(c) because the contract is to be performed in Boulder County, Colorado and Defendant is located in Boulder County, Colorado. 5. Venue is proper in the Boulder County District Court pursuant to Paragraph 22 of the Lease. General Allegations 6. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company owns real property located at 3065 West Sterling Circle in Boulder, Colorado 80301 (the “Premises”). 7. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company leased the Premises to Defendant Sterling Pharms pursuant to the Lease attached as Exhibit A. 8. The Lease began on November 1, 2021 and runs through October 31, 2026. 9. The terms of the Lease require Defendant Sterling Pharms to pay base rent and additional rent to Plaintiff Sterling Building Company on a monthly basis. 10. The terms of the Lease also entitle Plaintiff to late charges of 5% of the amount due or $250, whichever is greater. 11. The roof of the Premises suffered damage due to weather in January, 2022. As a result, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company hired a roofer, Scott’s Roofing, LLC (“Scott’s Roofing”) to undertake repairs in a workmanlike manner. 12. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company entered into a commercial construction contract with Scott’s Roofing on or about February 4, 2022, following which Scott’s Roofing undertook repairs. 13. Defendant Sterling Pharms installed certain equipment (the “Chillers”) on the roof of the premises. 14. These Chillers are trade fixtures and thus not part of the Premises, as defined by Section 15 of the Lease and Colorado law. 15. Defendant Sterling Pharms contends that Scott’s Roofing’s conduct in repairing the roof damaged its Chillers, thus impacting Defendant Sterling Pharms’ business operations and otherwise impacting the leased Premises. 16. If Scott’s Roofing harmed Defendant Sterling Pharms’ property, Defendant Sterling Pharms needed to seek relief from Scott’s Roofing. 17. Instead, Defendant Sterling Pharms has been unlawfully withholding and otherwise not paying rent owed under the Lease. 2 18. This constitutes a default under the Lease. Defendant Sterling Pharms received notice of this default and has not cured this default. Thus, Defendant Sterling Pharms remains in default. 19. As a result of not paying rent owed under the Lease, Defendant Sterling Pharms is harming Plaintiff Sterling Building Company in an amount to be determined at trial. 20. Thus, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company brings this action for beach of contract and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. 21. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company reserves the right to amend this Complaint to assert a claim for forcible eviction and detainer to return possession of the Premises to Plaintiff Sterling Building Company. First Claim for Relief (Breach of Contract) 22. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company incorporates by reference the above paragraphs one through 21 as if set forth fully herein. 23. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company and Defendant Sterling Pharms entered into a Lease. This Lease constitutes a valid and binding contract. 24. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company has performed under the terms of the Lease, including, but not limited to, allowing Defendant Sterling Pharms to utilize the Premises. 25. Defendant Sterling Pharms has failed to perform under the Lease by failing to pay rent due under the Lease. Accordingly, Defendant Sterling Pharms has breached and remains in breach of the parties’ Lease. 26. As a result of this breach, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial representing its contractual damages, consequential damages, interest, penalties, late fees, attorneys’ fees, costs, and what further damages are authorized by the terms of the parties’ contract. Second Claim for Relief (Unjust Enrichment – In the Alternative) 27. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company incorporates by reference the above paragraphs one through 26 as if set forth fully herein. 28. Plaintiff Sterling Building Company delivered a benefit of value to Defendant Sterling Pharms in the form of the ability to occupy and make use of the Premises. 3 29. Defendant Sterling Pharms accepted occupancy and use of the Premises, but Defendant Sterling Pharms is not compensating Plaintiff Sterling Building Company for its occupancy and use of the Premises. 30. Defendant Sterling Pharms has been unjustly enriched by accepting this benefit of value without paying just compensation to Plaintiff Sterling Building Company. 31. Thus, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company asserts this claim in the alternative for unjust enrichment, seeking to be made whole in an amount to be proven at trial representing what just compensation is owed to Plaintiff Sterling Building Company. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Sterling Building Company, LLC prays for the following relief: A. That the Court find in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on all claims asserted herein and enter a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor accordingly. B. That the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on all claims asserted herein and award Plaintiff damages in an amount to be proven at trial representing Plaintiff’s economic losses, including, but not limited to, contractual damages, consequential damages, interest, penalties, late fees, attorneys’ fees, costs, and what further damages are authorized by the terms of the parties’ contract. C. That the Court award Plaintiff its reasonable costs as a prevailing party under Rule 54 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure; D. That the Court award Plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts owed at the contract rate of 18% per annum, as provided by the terms of the parties’ contract, or in the alternative at 8% as provided by statute; E. That the Court grant Plaintiff what further relief it deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted this 9th day of February, 2023, LYONS GADDIS, PC By: Jeffrey S. Rose, #40607 Erin C. Pierce, #52525 Attorneys for Plaintiff 4