Skip to main content

Selco Community Credit Union v. Noodles & Co.

D. Colo.July 21, 2017No. Civil Action No. 16-cv-02247-RBJ Consolidated with 16-cv-02497-RBJ and 16-cv-02632-RBJCited 19 times
Defendant WinNoodles & Company
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Jackson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court granted defendant Noodles & Company's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs' negligence claims were barred by the economic loss rule because their alleged duties arose from contractual obligations rather than independent tort duties.

What This Ruling Means

**Selco Community Credit Union v. Noodles & Company** This case involved a dispute between Selco Community Credit Union and restaurant chain Noodles & Company. The credit union sued Noodles & Company for negligence, claiming the restaurant company failed to meet certain duties that caused financial harm to the credit union. The court ruled in favor of Noodles & Company and dismissed the case entirely. The judge found that the credit union couldn't sue for negligence because the duties they claimed Noodles & Company violated were actually based on a contract between the two businesses, not on general legal obligations. Under a legal principle called the "economic loss rule," when problems arise from contractual relationships and only cause financial losses (not physical injuries or property damage), parties must resolve disputes through contract law rather than negligence claims. **What this means for workers:** This ruling reinforces that employment disputes involving wages, benefits, or other workplace obligations typically must be handled through employment contracts, company policies, or specific employment laws rather than general negligence claims. Workers experiencing workplace issues should focus on violations of employment contracts, labor laws, or workplace safety regulations rather than trying to prove their employer was simply "negligent."

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.