Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00900-JLK (consolidated with 07-cv-00904-JLK).
April 8, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before me on the Lubell (Attorney) Defendants' Request (Doc. 56) for Ruling Regarding Lubell Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Defendants sought in that Motion an award of fees and costs associated with their defense of Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim against them, which I dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) after oral argument. Having reviewed my ruling and refamiliarizing myself with the reasoning that went into it, I DENY the Motion for Fees and Costs (Doc. 42). I am not bound by the fee-shifting provisions of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-201 because Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was premised on Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), not C.R.C.P. 12(b). Even if I were so bound, moreover, I disagree fee shifting would be mandatory under the circumstances of this case. While I expressed my distaste for Echostar's litigation tactics in suing both its adversary as well as its adversary's counsel when the parties' contractual arrangement went bad, its legal basis for doing so was not so far afield as to warrant the fee-shifting or the impositition of sanctions under any other applicable authority.
Accordingly, the Request for Ruling (Doc. 56) is GRANTED and the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (Doc. 42) is DENIED.