The Colorado Court of Appeals released three opinions on Thursday, July 9. Below are the summaries with a link to the entire opinion.
Robert D. Bechtholdt, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Betty J.vBechtholdt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc., Ventana Property Owners’ Association, Ronald P. Wagner, Tammie M. Wagner, Jon David Hergert, Hereti Corporation, Inc., TLC Directional Drilling, Inc., Matthew T. Hergert, Hergert Milling, Inc., Matthew T. Hergert Trust, and C. David Hergert, Defendants-Appellees. 2026 COA 57. Keith v. Kinney, 961 P.2d 516 (Colo. App. 1997), held that a quiet title claim that was not resolved by a district court as to all parties was improperly certified as final under C.R.C.P. 54(b). This case presents a similar issue but one not addressed in Kinney: the propriety of a district court’s certification and entry of final judgment resolving certain claims pursuant to Rule 54(b) while the plaintiff’s quiet title claim remains unresolved. Under the circumstances, a division of the court of appeals concludes that the district court erred by certifying and entering a final judgment on plaintiff’s mineral trespass and unjust enrichment claims (as well
as remedial requests for accounting and restitution) because resolution of those claims directly affects what relief, if any, plaintiff or others alleging an interest in the subject property may obtain under plaintiff’s quiet title claim. Likewise, the quiet title action
must be resolved as to all parties because plaintiff’s secondary claims — such as civil theft and fraud — are “incapable of final resolution” for purposes of Rule 54(b) certification, Corinthian Hill Metro. Dist. v. Keen, 812 P.2d 721, 722 (Colo. App. 1991), as plaintiff alleges entitlement to monies involving the same subject property at issue in the quiet title action. Based on the division’s conclusions, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice. Read the opinion.
Elk Creek Ranch Owners Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elk Creek Ranch Development, Inc., a Colorado corporation; and YZ Ranch, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees. 2026 COA 58. A division of the court of appeals addresses a novel issue of finality and appellate jurisdiction in the context of postjudgment proceedings for attorney fees. In this case, in which multiple parties made multiple fee requests, the division holds that the district court’s order denying a request for attorney fees and costs against one party was not final and appealable until the district court had resolved all parties’ fee requests.
Turning to the merits, the division holds that the district court misinterpreted a contractual fee-shifting provision by equating an undefined reference to “default” with a specifically defined contractual term. The division further holds that a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing constitutes a “default” under the fee-shifting clause.
Finally, the division holds that the district court erred in its methodology for awarding attorney fees to one of the parties by calculating the lodestar amount using an unreasonable number of hours and only afterward applying a percentage reduction for
excessive, unnecessary, or overstaffed work. The division holds that this approach is inconsistent with established law, which requires excluding unreasonable hours before calculating the lodestar.
Accordingly, the division reverses the district court’s orders and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Read the opinion.
Dana Dreifus, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenarm Dining Services, Inc., d/b/a Diamond Cabaret; RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.; and Big Sky Hospitality Holdings, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. 2026 COA 59. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the EFAA) precludes a party from compelling a litigant to arbitrate sexual harassment claims based on a predispute arbitration agreement. The EFAA provides that, “at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute . . . , no predispute arbitration agreement . . . shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under . . . [s]tate law and relates to . . . the sexual harassment dispute.” 9 U.S.C. § 402(a). No reported Colorado case has addressed the extent to which the EFAA applies to a case in which some, but not all, of the allegations underlying the claims asserted by the plaintiff pertain to sexual harassment.
For the first time in a published Colorado opinion, a division of the court of appeals addresses this question. The division concludes that the EFAA applies to an entire case, rather than to individual claims, provided the claims are “relate[d] to” allegations of sexual harassment. Id. The division concludes that all the plaintiff’s claims relate to her allegations of sexual harassment and therefore affirms the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Read the opinion.