UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 11, 2025

Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________

DAVID KNELLINGER; ROBERT STOREY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. No. 23-1018

DAVID YOUNG, in his individual and official capacities as Colorado State Treasurer, Colorado Office of Treasury; BIANCA GARDELLI, in her individual and official capacities as Director of Colorado Department of Treasury, Unclaimed Property Division,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-01379-CNS-STV) _________________________________ Richard M. Paul III, Paul, LLP, Kansas City, Missouri (Jonathan Greiner and Christopher Ross, Griener & Associates, PLLC, San Antonio, Texas; and Laura C. Fellows and David W. Bodenheimer, Paul, LLP, Kansas City, Missouri; with him on the briefs), for Plaintiffs-Appellants LeeAnn Morrill, First Assistant Attorney General (Amy Colony and Jennifer H. Hunt, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, with her on the briefs), Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Appellate Case: 23-1018 Document: 59 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 2

EID, Circuit Judge. _________________________________

This case concerns the application of Colorado’s Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (“RUUPA”), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 38-13-201–220, and its interaction with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

After learning that the state of Colorado took possession of specific property under RUUPA, David Knellinger and Robert Storey (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Colorado’s unclaimed property scheme violated the Takings Clause. The district court dismissed their claims for lack of standing. In its view, they failed to sufficiently allege ownership of the property at issue, in part because Plaintiffs never filed an administrative claim to establish ownership as required by RUUPA.

Knellinger and Storey now appeal that decision, arguing that they alleged facts sufficient to state a claim that Colorado took their property for public use without just compensation. We agree. Property owners who plausibly allege that Colorado has taken custody of their property under RUUPA, and used it for public purposes, need not file administrative claims with Colorado before they may sue for just compensation. The moment a state takes private property for public use without just compensation, a property owner has an actionable claim under the Takings Clause. At this phase in the litigation, it is premature to decide whether any such taking occurred here. However, taking the allegations of the complaint as true and viewing

2 Appellate Case: 23-1018 Document: 59 Date Filed: 04/11/2025 Page: 3

them in the light most favorable to the non-movant, we hold that the property owners in this case stated a plausible claim for damages and therefore adequately pleaded an injury sufficient to confer standing. The district court, however, properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ equitable claims because § 1983 provides an adequate basis for Knellinger and Storey to obtain just compensation for any taking.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Plaint