Background
Furtado Law PC represented Park Rise Homeowners Association in insurance litigation over hail damage under a contingent-fee agreement. After former Furtado attorneys formed MoGo, LLC, Furtado reduced its fee through a new agreement with Park Rise. Attorney Matthew Hamblin subsequently resigned from Furtado, Park Rise terminated Furtado without cause, and Park Rise retained MoGo.
Furtado alleged that Hamblin shared confidential information and that Hamblin and Tom Sedwick helped induce Park Rise to replace the firm. It sued them for intentional interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective business advantage, civil conspiracy, and, as to Hamblin, breach of the duty of loyalty. The district court dismissed the claims under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) and awarded attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Furtado’s intentional-interference claim expressly alleged interference with the April fee agreement, but its own complaint alleged that the October agreement superseded that contract. Because Furtado did not meaningfully challenge the district court’s independent ruling that this made the claim facially defective, that ground for dismissal remained undisturbed. The court declined to consider the prospective-business-advantage claim because Furtado did not develop an argument about it in its opening brief.
The civil-conspiracy claim necessarily failed because it was derivative of the dismissed interference claims. The duty-of-loyalty claim also failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege that Hamblin personally benefited, competed with Furtado, or disclosed information covered by a duty owed to Furtado. Any professional duty concerning Park Rise’s confidential information was owed primarily to Park Rise as Hamblin’s client, not to Furtado.
Because Sedwick and Hamblin successfully defended the dismissal of Furtado’s tort claims, the court held that they were entitled to reasonable appellate attorney fees under section 13-17-201(1), C.R.S. 2025. It remanded for the district court to determine the amounts and permitted that court, in its discretion, to consider reasonably related fees from two earlier, prematurely filed appeals.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must challenge every independent ground supporting dismissal; leaving one ground unanswered may require affirmance regardless of alleged error elsewhere.
- A civil-conspiracy claim cannot survive when the causes of action underlying the alleged conspiracy have been dismissed.
- An employee-attorney’s duty of loyalty to a law firm does not displace the attorney’s primary duties to the client, and a complaint must plausibly allege conduct benefiting the attorney or competing with the employer.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates the importance of tying an interference claim to the operative contract and fully developing each appellate argument in the opening brief. It also shows that a former law firm cannot transform client-related information into a viable employee-loyalty claim without alleging facts connecting the disclosure to competition, personal benefit, or a duty owed to the firm.
The fee ruling raises the consequences of an unsuccessful appeal from a Rule 12(b) dismissal of tort claims: prevailing defendants may recover reasonable appellate fees, potentially including fees from related earlier appeals.