Colorado § 6-4-119 - Statute of limitations.

§ 6-4-119. Statute of limitations.

(1) Any civil action commenced pursuant to this article 4 must be brought within four years after the date that the cause of action accrued. For purposes of this article 4, a cause of action accrues:

(a) When the circumstances giving rise to the cause of action are discovered or should have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence; or

(b) On the date that the last in a series of acts or practices in violation of this article 4 occurred, including any acquisitions or series of acquisitions that, in the aggregate, may constitute a violation of this article 4.

(2) Any criminal proceeding brought pursuant to this article 4 must be commenced within six years after the alleged criminal act occurred.

(3) If the attorney general commences a proceeding or action for any violation of this article 4, the running of the statute of limitations with respect to every cause of action that is based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in the proceeding or action is suspended during the pendency of the proceeding or action and for one year after the conclusion of the proceeding or action.

(4) Whenever any civil or criminal proceeding is brought by the United States to prevent, restrain, or punish violations of any federal antitrust laws, the running of the statute of limitations with respect to any action under this article 4 that is based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in the federal proceeding is suspended during the pendency of the federal proceeding and for one year after the conclusion of the federal proceeding.

(5) Except as expressly provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, no other limitation terminates the period within which the attorney general may file an action for a violation of this article 4.

Source: L. 2023: Entire article R&RE, (HB 23-1192), ch. 427, p. 2517, § 2, effective June 7.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 6-4-118 as it existed prior to 2023.

ANNOTATION

Federal cases construing the Sherman and Clayton Acts, although not controlling, are entitled to careful scrutiny in resolving issues arising under Colorado's antitrust statute. Smalley & Co. v. Emerson & Cuming, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Colo. 1992).

A municipality and cooperative electric association are immune from state antitrust liability when it is shown that the anticompetitive conduct at issue was undertaken pursuant to clearly articulated state policy. City of Colo. Springs v. Mtn. View Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 925 P.2d 1378 (Colo. App. 1995).