“Guardado v. Denver”: Landownership Alone Is Not a Waiver—Clarifying Sovereign-Immunity Standards under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

1. Introduction

Background. Ana Guardado, a traveler at Denver International Airport (DIA), tripped on a floor mat inside a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint and suffered serious injuries. After her initial federal-tort claims against the Department of Homeland Security were dismissed for failure to exhaust, she sued the City and County of Denver (the owner and operator of DIA) in federal court, invoking Colorado’s Premises Liability Act. Denver responded with a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, characterising the suit as barred by sovereign immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA).

Key issue. Does Denver’s status as landowner of DIA, standing alone, constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity under the CGIA’s “dangerous condition of a public building” exception (§ 24-10-106(1)(c))?

Procedural posture. The district court granted Denver’s factual attack on jurisdiction, dismissed the case with prejudice, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed on 18 June 2025. The panel (Tymkovich, Bacharach, Eid, JJ.) issued a non-precedential order under 10th Cir. R. 32.1, yet the opinion sets out a detailed analysis that will influence future litigation strategy in Colorado slip-and-fall and premises-liability cases against public entities.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that Guardado failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a waiver of Denver’s sovereign immunity.
• Landownership ≠ Waiver. Mere ownership of DIA did not satisfy Walton’s fourth factor—dangerous condition “proximately caused by the negligent act or omission” in construction or maintenance.
• The court endorsed Denver’s factual attack, crediting a declaration that Denver neither controlled the TSA site nor supplied the mat, and found Guardado’s rebuttal evidence too thin.
• Discovery limits under CGIA. Because Guardado expressly opposed a Trinity evidentiary hearing, her later complaint about lack of discovery was deemed waived.
• Dismissal with prejudice was proper; Guardado had already amended once and could not cure the jurisdictional defect.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. Walton v. State, 968 P.2d 636 (Colo. 1998)
   Established the four-part test for CGIA waiver in “dangerous condition” cases. The Tenth Circuit focused on the fourth prong.
2. Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 934 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1997)
   Rejected the “mere ownership” theory; cited to demonstrate that landowners must be linked to negligent construction or maintenance.
3. Springer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000)
   Recognised a non-delegable duty to maintain premises but still required proof of negligent act/omission; the panel distinguished Springer on similar grounds.
4. Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993)
   Governs procedures for resolving factual disputes over immunity. Its absence—by plaintiff’s own opposition—proved decisive.
5. Baker v. USD 229 Blue Valley, 979 F.3d 866 (10th Cir. 2020)
   Described facial vs. factual attacks under Rule 12(b)(1); adopted by the panel for analytic framework.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The panel proceeded in three logical steps:

1. Characterising the motion. Denver mounted a factual attack on jurisdiction. Therefore, the district court could evaluate evidence outside the pleadings without converting to summary judgment (Davis ex rel. Davis v. United States).
2. Applying the Walton test.
   • Factors 1-3 (physical condition, unreasonable risk, knowledge) were assumed arguendo, but factor 4—attribution to Denver’s negligence in maintenance—was dispositive.
   • Denver’s declaration showed it did not supply, place, inspect, or maintain TSA mats. Guardado’s evidence (website screenshot, press release, regulatory citation) did not create a genuine factual dispute.
3. Discovery & Trinity. Because CGIA automatically stays discovery once immunity is pleaded, any factual exploration must occur through a Trinity hearing. Guardado not only failed to request such a hearing—she opposed it—thereby waiving later complaints.

3.3 Impact

• Sharper burden on plaintiffs. Intended or not, the opinion signals that plaintiffs must marshal concrete, maintenance-linked evidence at the pleadings stage whenever a public entity asserts sovereign immunity.
• Strategic importance of Trinity hearings. Plaintiffs who bypass or oppose Trinity procedures risk dismissal with prejudice and may be deemed to have waived discovery complaints.
• Airport & TSA contexts. Public-private overlap at security checkpoints will not, by itself, transfer liability to municipalities without proof of direct maintenance activity.
• Federal-state interface. The Tenth Circuit re-affirmed that federal courts must apply state sovereign-immunity statutes as jurisdictional bars in diversity or supplemental-jurisdiction cases.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA)

A statute that generally shields public entities from tort liability but carves out narrow exceptions—one being injuries caused by a “dangerous condition” in a public building.

“Dangerous condition” Exception

To pierce immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy all four Walton factors, culminating in proof that the public entity’s own negligence in constructing or maintaining the facility caused the hazard.

Rule 12(b)(1) Facial vs. Factual Attack

Facial: assumes complaint’s facts are true;
Factual: introduces evidence to contradict jurisdictional facts; court need not accept complaint as true and may resolve evidentiary disputes.

Trinity Hearing

A streamlined evidentiary hearing (from Trinity Broadcasting) exclusively to decide sovereign-immunity facts. Discovery is normally frozen until such a hearing occurs.

Non-delegable Duty

A legal duty that a landowner cannot contract away (e.g., duty to keep premises reasonably safe). Yet the duty does not, by itself, waive immunity under the CGIA.

5. Conclusion

Guardado v. City and County of Denver refines CGIA jurisprudence by making explicit that public-entity landownership, without a demonstrable negligent act or omission in maintenance or construction, does not waive sovereign immunity. The case also underlines procedural rigour: when defendants lodge a factual immunity challenge, plaintiffs must (1) produce substantive evidence, and (2) embrace—not oppose—the Trinity mechanism to obtain discovery. Although the order is technically “unpublished,” its persuasive force will likely reverberate through Colorado slip-and-fall litigation and any setting in which public entities share space with federal actors. Claimants, counsel, and courts now have clearer guidance: show maintenance negligence or your claim cannot proceed.