for a bonus, and his suggestion that the threshold did not apply contradicts the complaint. Purvis concedes he cannot produce evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment. The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Appellants’ Colorado Labor Code claims. Appellants proffered evidence that HP was concerned about problems with its compensation system as a whole. But this evidence is not linked to Appellants. It does not show harm to them as individuals. IV Because we affirm the district court, Appellants are not entitled to an accounting. See Duggal v. G.E. Capital Commc’ns Servs., Inc., 81 Cal.App.4th 81, 95, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 383 (2000) (accounting is derivative to the underlying claims); Andrikopoulos v. Broadmoor Mgmt. Co., 670 P.2d 435, 440 (Colo.Ct.App.1983) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not
holding that the information the plaintiffs seek is available through discovery if they can plead any valid claim and the existence of this legal remedy renders an accounting unwarranted holding that an accounting is an extraordinary remedy holding that under  1981a pjunitive damages are an extraordinary remedy to be reserved for egregious eases and are not an element of recovery in every case involving an intentional tort holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy holding in review of a downward departure that an extraordinary reduction must be supported by extraordinary circumstances