in paragraph four, which deals with the defendant's "intent that the plaintiff take a course of action (he)(she) might not take if (he)(she) knew the actual facts," not in paragraph five, which deals with reliance. Second, an inquiry guided by only what putative class members "might" do would allow class certification, even though evidence showed that at least some reasonable class members would do otherwise. 'Plaintiffs cite no Colorado authority, nor are we aware of any, predicating relief on unreasonable action. 1 35 Nor does the trial court's reasonableness approach lack precedential support. In Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, Inc., 263 P.3d 92, 99, 99 n. 5 (Colo.2011), the supreme court cited with approval Peterson v. H & R Block Tax Servs., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 78, 85 (N.D.Ill.1997) (<HOLDING>), and Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of of N.
holding that the amount of sanctions is appropriate only when it is the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior recognizing the  logical nexus  test as appropriate holding inference appropriate when reliance is the only logical explanation to explain behavior holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete holding that a district courts choice of deterrent is appropriate when it is the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior 