779 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2015), 14-1125, David v. Sirius Computer Solutions, Inc.
|Citation:||779 F.3d 1209|
|Opinion Judge:||GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||DIANE DAVID, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SIRIUS COMPUTER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant - Appellee|
|Attorney:||Danielle C. Jefferis (Darold W. Killmer, with her on the briefs), Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Ian S. Speir of Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Colorado Springs, Colorado (David M. Hyams of Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Denver, Colorado, and William D. Nelson o...|
|Judge Panel:||Before TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 10, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
Defendant-appellee Sirius Computer Solutions, Inc. recruited plaintiff-appellant Diane David as a salesperson for the company's computer equipment. The Company promised that David could continue serving her existing customers after she worked for Sirius. After she agreed to work for Sirius on those terms, Sirius changed its mind and refused to allow David to conduct business with her outside... (see full summary)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02030-RPM).
Diane David sold computer equipment and she was good at it. She had a lucrative
nationwide client base. No surprise, then, that Sirius Computer Solutions came knocking on her door, asking her to take a job selling its equipment. The company promised Ms. David that she could continue to serve her existing customers even after she went to work for Sirius. On this understanding, Ms. David signed up. But soon enough Sirius backtracked, refusing to allow Ms. David to conduct business with her outside clients. So Ms. David sued, alleging that the company's recruiting promises negligently misrepresented the actual terms of employment -- and that the company's misrepresentations took a toll on her both financially and emotionally. A jury mostly agreed with Ms. David, returning a verdict for her on the negligent misrepresentation claim and awarding damages of $231,665 in " economic losses or injuries" but declining any damages for " noneconomic losses or injuries."
After trial, Ms. David filed a motion under § 13-21-101 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which guarantees prejudgment interest " [i]n all actions brought to recover damages for personal injuries." Because the jury found Ms. David suffered only economic losses, the district court seemed to assume she had suffered no " personal injur[y]" and denied her motion for prejudgment interest. And that's the nub of the matter now before us. Ms. David argues that her suit was brought to recover damages for a personal injury and that the district court was wrong to equate personal injuries with...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP