The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued one opinion on October 30 with Colorado ties. Read the summary and full opinion, below.
Flux Drive v. Sparks, Nos. 25-1308, 26-1013 & 26-1292 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-02784-DDD-STV) (D. Colo.). Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and two subsequent orders awarding attorneys’ fees. In the underlying action, Plaintiffs (Flux Drive, Inc., et. al) allege that various individuals and entities conspired to steal their trade secrets and transfer them to a company in China that manufactures unauthorized knockoff products. Plaintiffs sued in the District of Colorado, where Defendant Mr. Sparks is a resident. Mr. Rong, his wife Ms. Wang, and their limited liability partnership Zyrcon (collectively, “the Rong Defendants”), all Illinois residents, moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The district court granted the motion and dismissed the Amended Complaint as to the Rong Defendants. Plaintiffs appealed the interlocutory order dismissing the Rong Defendants in Case No. 25-1308. The Rong Defendants then moved for attorneys’ fees under Colorado’s feeshifting statute, which mandates an award of fees when an action is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion and awarded the full lodestar amount requested by the Rong Defendants. In that same order, the district court sua sponte certified its dismissal order for immediate appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b) and entered a final judgment dismissing the Rong Defendants and awarding fees. Plaintiffs appealed the fee award in Case No. 26-1013.
The Rong Defendants later moved to supplement the fee award, seeking attorneys’ fees that they incurred after they filed their original motion. The district court granted the motion with a slight modification, and Plaintiffs appealed the supplemental fee award in Case No. 26-1292. Thus, this case involves three separate but consolidated appeals: (1) the appeal of the order of dismissal (Case No. 25-1308); (2) the appeal of the initial fee award (Case No. 26-1013); and (3) the appeal of the supplemental fee award (Case No. 26-1292). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm all three district court orders.
Judge Daniel D. Domenico and Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak
Panel: MATHESON, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. (Entered for the Court by Judge McHugh.)
Decision: We AFFIRM in full the district court’s order dismissing the Rong Defendants and its subsequent orders awarding attorneys’ fees. Read the opinion.