Kennedy v. King Soopers Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05CA1066.,05CA1066.
• Parties: Lisa T. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KING SOOPERS INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Concerning Curtis L. Kennedy, Attorney-Appellant.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

148 P.3d 385

Lisa T. KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KING SOOPERS INC., Defendant-Appellee and Concerning Curtis L. Kennedy, Attorney-Appellant.

No. 05CA1066.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

September 7, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Curtis L. Kennedy, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant and Attorney-Appellant.

Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Andrew W. Volin, Denver, Colorado; Raymond M. Deeny, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.

Opinion by Judge RUSSEL.

Plaintiff, Lisa T. Kennedy, and her attorney, Curtis L. Kennedy, appeal the trial court's order awarding attorney fees and costs against them. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.

I. Background

Plaintiff sued her work supervisor in state court. She alleged that the supervisor had tortiously interfered in her employment relationship with King Soopers Inc. (employer).

The supervisor removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff's complaint was preempted by the federal Labor Relations Management Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, et seq. Following litigation in the federal trial and appellate courts, the case was remanded to the state trial court.

On remand, the supervisor again moved for dismissal on the basis of federal preemption. On July 16, 2002, the trial court granted the supervisor's motion and dismissed plaintiff's complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). Plaintiff did not appeal the trial court's order of dismissal.

Several months later, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment under C.R.C.P. 60. The trial court denied this motion, and a division of this court affirmed the trial court's order. Kennedy v. Lubar, 2004 WL 2191213 (Colo.App. No. 03CA1879, Sept. 30, 2004) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)) (Kennedy I).

Because employer had paid for the supervisor's legal defense, it sought an award of attorney fees and costs under §§ 13-17-102 and 13-17-201, C.R.S.2005. On December 3, 2002, the court ruled that employer was entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs and ordered a hearing to determine reasonableness. On April 14, 2005, the trial court ordered plaintiff to pay $211,306.12 in attorney fees and $30,253.95 in costs, with interest to run from the date of dismissal, July 16, 2002. The court ruled that plaintiff and her attorney were jointly and severally liable for the total award.

Plaintiff and her attorney now appeal the order awarding attorney fees and costs.

II. Issues Not Raised

As a preliminary matter, we note that plaintiff's attorney does not contest the trial court's decision to impose joint and several liability. We therefore do not consider whether the court properly imposed joint and several liability under § 13-17-201 or whether plaintiff's attorney would have any defenses to liability under the facts presented. Because plaintiff's attorney does not suggest that his interests are distinct from those of plaintiff, we refer to both parties as "plaintiff" and assume that their interests are identical.

III. Liability for Fees and Costs

Plaintiff presents three arguments for reversal of the award of fees and costs: (A) the order of dismissal was improper because her claim was not preempted; (B) the order of dismissal did not trigger a mandatory award of fees and costs under § 13-17-201; and (C) the case does not warrant a discretionary award of fees and costs under § 13-17-102. We reject the first two arguments and do not reach the third.

A. Order of Dismissal

Plaintiff requests reversal of the award of attorney fees on the ground that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint. We conclude that this argument is unavailable to plaintiff.

The order of dismissal was a final, appealable judgment, even though the issue of attorney fees remained unresolved. See Baldwin v. Bright Mortgage Co., 757 P.2d 1072 (Colo.1988). Because plaintiff did not appeal the judgment, the underlying order of dismissal is final and may not be collaterally attacked. See People in Interest of E.E.A., 854 P.2d 1346, 1350-51 (Colo.App.1992); Flickinger v. Ninth Dist. Prod. Credit Ass'n, 824 P.2d 19, 23 (Colo.App.1991).

Plaintiff argues that she retains the ability under Kennedy I to contest the order of dismissal as part of her challenge to the award of attorney fees. We disagree. The division in Kennedy I stated that it would not address "whether the court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction based on the doctrine of preemption and in thus basing its award of attorney fees on § 13-17-201." The division did not suggest that plaintiff could raise the issue later. Plaintiff's argument contradicts an order issued in May 2003 by the motions division of this court. That order states: "[A]ny issues regarding the district court's order of July 16, 2002, are dismissed with prejudice."

B. Mandatory Award Under § 13-17-201

Section 13-17-201 mandates an award of fees and costs against any plaintiff whose tort action is dismissed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b):

In all actions brought as a result of a death or an injury to person or property occasioned by the tort of any other person, where any such action is dismissed on motion of the defendant prior to trial under rule 12(b) of the Colorado rules of civil procedure, such defendant shall have judgment for his reasonable attorney fees in defending the action.

Plaintiff argues that § 13-17-201 is inapplicable here for two reasons: (1) when it dismissed plaintiff's complaint, the trial court effectively determined that plaintiff' sanction was grounded, not on tort law, but on the federal laws governing collective bargaining agreements; and (2) § 13-17-201 is itself preempted by federal law.

We reject both of these arguments:

1. The intent of the general assembly in enacting § 13-17-201 was to discourage the institution or maintenance of unnecessary tort claims. Employers Ins. v. RREEF USA Fund[-]II (Colo.), Inc., 805 P.2d 1186 (Colo.App. 1991). For purposes of applying the statute, we rely on the plaintiff's characterization of the claims in the complaint and do not consider what should or might have been pled. See Sweeney v. United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc., 119 P.3d 538, 541 (Colo.App.2005). Because plaintiff's claims were pled as torts, the dismissal of plaintiff's case triggered a mandatory award under § 13-17-201.

2. "[F]ederal preemption is grounded in the Supremacy Clause and voids the applicability of a state statute to the extent that the statute conflicts with federal law." State v. Golden's Concrete Co., 962 P.2d 919, 926 (Colo.1998). Here, unlike in State v. Golden's Concrete Co., supra, there is no conflict. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, it does not matter whether federal statutes authorize attorney fees for collective bargaining disputes because § 13-17-201 applies only to state tort actions.

We therefore conclude that the trial court properly awarded attorney fees and costs under § 13-17-201.

C. Discretionary Award Under § 13-17-102

Because we conclude that the award of attorney fees and costs was proper under § 13-17-201, we do not consider whether the award was also justified as a sanction for frivolous litigation under § 13-17-102.

IV. Amount of Fees and Costs

Plaintiff presents several arguments contesting the amount of fees and costs. We reject most of these arguments, but we conclude that the trial court erred in awarding interest from the date of dismissal.

A. Work in Federal Court

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in awarding fees and costs for unsuccessful work performed on the supervisor's behalf in the federal courts. We disagree.

A state court may award attorney fees for work in federal court if the work produced during the federal proceedings is also used in the state court proceedings. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Kraft Bldg. Contractors, 122 P.3d 1019, 1025-26 (Colo.App.2005).

Here, the trial court found that the federal court work product was used and was helpful in the state court action. The record supports this finding. Employer's attorney testified that the federal litigation centered on the issue of preemption. Although the federal courts declined to rule on this issue and remanded the case to state court, the federal court work product formed the basis of the motion that ultimately was dispositive in state court.

Because the court's finding is supported by the record, it is binding on review. See Bohrer v. DeHart, 969 P.2d 801, 803 (Colo.App.1998) (trial court's findings of fact are binding on review unless they are clearly erroneous and not supported by the record). In light of this finding, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees for work performed in federal court.

For the same reasons, we find no abuse of discretion in the award of costs for the federal proceedings.

B. State Court Costs

Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding certain costs to employer. An award of costs is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Ballow v. PHICO Ins. Co., 878 P.2d 672, 685 (Colo.1994). We perceive no abuse of discretion here.

1. Depositions and Computer Research

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in awarding costs of depositions and computer research because the case never went to trial. We disagree.

Deposition costs are allowed when the taking of the deposition and its general content were reasonably necessary for the development of the case in light of facts known to counsel when the deposition was taken. Wark v. McClellan, 68 P.3d 574 (Colo.App.2003). Trial is not necessary for an award of these costs. See, e.g., Terry v. Sullivan, 58 P.3d 1098 (Colo.App.2002). The trial court made the appropriate findings, and we perceive no abuse of discretion.

A party seeking to recover computerized legal research costs must show that (1) the client was billed for computerized legal research...