Background
Preston Nunn sued Aurora police officer Gabriel Nestor under Colorado’s Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act after a 2021 traffic stop during which Nestor pointed a firearm at Nunn and later deployed a Taser. A jury found Nestor liable for excessive force, rejected Nunn’s failure-to-intervene and equal-protection claims, and awarded Nunn $200,000 in noneconomic damages.
As the prevailing plaintiff, Nunn requested $261,888 in attorney fees and $32,489.58 in costs. Nestor timely requested an evidentiary hearing and submitted an expert report challenging the reasonableness of the fees. The district court struck portions of the expert’s opinions but considered others, denied the hearing request, and awarded Nunn $169,006 in attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion by denying Nestor an evidentiary hearing. Binding Colorado precedent establishes that a party who timely requests a hearing concerning the reasonableness of claimed attorney fees is entitled to one, particularly where an expert affidavit raises disputed factual issues and a significant amount of fees is at stake.
The district court’s observation that its award was close to the amount Nestor proposed did not establish that a hearing would provide no material assistance. The appellate court separately upheld the district court’s decision to strike portions of the expert report because some opinions did not apply relevant market rates or account for counsel’s experience, while others offered impermissible legal conclusions. It reversed the fee judgment and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Nunn’s claimed attorney fees.
Key Takeaways
- A party who timely contests a substantial attorney-fee request and asks for an evidentiary hearing is entitled to that hearing under controlling Colorado precedent.
- A court may not deny the hearing merely because its eventual fee award is close to the amount advocated by the objecting party.
- Courts retain discretion under CRE 702 to exclude fee-expert opinions that are unsupported, unhelpful, or constitute legal conclusions.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces procedural protections for parties disputing attorney-fee awards, including in civil-rights litigation where fee requests may be substantial. A written submission and expert report do not necessarily substitute for the requested opportunity to test disputed fee evidence at a hearing.
The ruling also confirms that obtaining a hearing does not guarantee admission of every expert opinion. Fee experts must ground their analyses in relevant market evidence, the professionals’ experience, and appropriate billing considerations without intruding on the court’s role in deciding legal questions.