Free Oral Argument Hearing - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00438-JLK-MEH

Document 255

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO JUDGE PHILLIP S. FIGA Courtroom Deputy: LaDonne Bush Maureen Nelson Court Reporter: Darlene Martinez Civil Action No. 04-cv-00438-PSF-OES Parties: TIMOTHY C. HOILES, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH M. ALIOTO, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. ELIZABETH DAVISON, GAIL SANCHEZ, and JILL K. HOILES, Additional Counterclaim Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ COURTROOM MINUTES _____________________________________________________________________ Hearing on Legal Questions. 2:02 p.m. Court in session. Maxwell Blecher Daniel Shulman John Andrews Ian Saffer Counsel: E. Glen Johnson Kenneth Siegel Bart Rue Pete Greenhaw Date: July 6, 2005

Also present: Plaintiff Timothy C. Hoiles and Defendant Joseph Alioto. Court' comments regarding Order Regarding Legal Questions for Court and Briefing s Schedule entered by Magistrate Judge Schlatter on June 6, 2005. Argument by Mr. Johnson.

Case 1:04-cv-00438-JLK-MEH

Document 255

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 2 of 2

2:51 p.m. 3:16 p.m. 3:21 p.m.

Argument by Mr. Blecher. Reply by Mr. Johnson. Ruling by the Court. The Court finds that the fee agreement in question between Mr. Alioto and Mr. Hoiles fails to substantially comply with Chapter 23.3 as a matter of law, which the Court has previously found applies to this Colorado client. The Court determines that quantum meruit, or the value of the services performed by Mr. Alioto, will be based on a lodestar analysis. The criteria of Rule 1.5 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct will apply, excluding the reference to contingent fee as a factor set forth in Rule 1.5. The Court having decided that Mr. Alioto's only recovery is for services rendered will be through quantum meruit, or quasi contract or implied contract, the Court further determines that the value of the services performed, including such related issues as causation, agreed upon the scope of work, and other contract interpretation issues that may bear on quantum meruit, is to be decided by a jury. Only if both sides want the Court to decide the quantum meruit issue will the Court consider a jury waiver. All remaining claims in this action, including plaintiff' claims against defendant, will be s tried as scheduled beginning Monday, August 1, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. Although the Court deems the remaining issues to be decided as to attorneys' fees " legal"or otherwise triable to a jury, to the extent such a ruling is incorrect, the Court will have an advisory jury on such issues pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 39(c).

ORDERED: 1.

2.

3.

Discussion regarding house keeping issues. Exchange of exhibits to occur by the time of the Final Trial Preparation Conference set for Friday, July 22, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. 3:39 p.m. Court in recess. Hearing concluded.

Total in court time: 1 hour 37 min.

2