Ruybalid v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of Las Animas Cnty., 2019 CO 49

Francisco (Frank) Ruybalid was Third Judicial District Attorney for Las Animas and Huerfano Counties; disciplinary complaints alleged over 150 ethics violations tied to discovery failures in prosecutions he handled or supervised.
He admitted in a stipulation to 26 ethical violations (including violations of Colo. RPC 1.3, 8.4(d), and 5.1(b)); he conceded his mental state varied across violations from negligent to knowing; 138 allegations were dismissed as part of the stipulation.
Sanctions: payment of ~ $23,000 in disciplinary costs, a six‑month suspension stayed pending 23 months’ probation; Ruybalid claims > $200,000 in private attorney’s fees defending the disciplinary proceeding because the counties refused to fund his defense.
Ruybalid sued for declaratory relief seeking reimbursement under the DA Expense Statute, § 20‑1‑303, and also invoked other authorities; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court of appeals affirmed on different grounds.
The Colorado Supreme Court considered whether attorney’s fees and costs incurred defending ethics charges are “expenses necessarily incurred in the discharge” of a district attorney’s official duties for the benefit of the counties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the American Rule bars recovery from nonparty counties for DA’s defense fees	Ruybalid contended the American Rule should not preclude county reimbursement under the DA Expense Statute	Counties relied on the American Rule presumption that each party bears its own fees absent clear statutory authority	Court: American Rule inapplicable to a claim seeking reimbursement from a nonparty public entity; rejected extension of the American Rule here
Whether § 20‑1‑303 (DA Expense Statute) covers attorney’s fees defending disciplinary/ethical charges	Ruybalid argued fees were incurred while performing official duties and thus reimbursable under the statute	Counties argued fees from ethical violations (some reckless/knowing) were not ‘‘necessarily incurred in the discharge’’ of official duties and so not covered	Court: Fees and costs stemming from reckless or knowing ethical violations are not "necessarily incurred in the discharge" of official duties; Ruybalid not entitled to reimbursement under § 20‑1‑303
Whether Ruybalid should have been allowed to amend his complaint post‑Warne pleading standard change	Ruybalid sought leave to amend because Warne adopted the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard after he filed	Counties opposed amendment, asserting no legal basis would change the outcome	Court: Refused amendment—Warne’s pleading change did not create a viable legal theory; dismissal was proper

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (discusses the American Rule and fee‑shifting principles)
Bernhard v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 915 P.2d 1285 (Colo. 1996) (Colorado treatment of attorney’s fees presumptions)
Warne v. Hall, 373 P.3d 588 (Colo. 2016) (adopts Twombly/Iqbal ‘‘plausible on its face’’ pleading standard in Colorado)
People v. Millitello, 705 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1985) (discusses prosecutor obligations to provide discovery under Crim. P. 16 and due process)
People v. Lee, 18 P.3d 192 (Colo. 2001) (sanctions for discovery violations; courts should impose least severe measures necessary)
Colorado Counties Casualty & Property Pool v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 51 P.3d 1100 (Colo. App. 2002) (held DA could be indemnified under § 20‑1‑303 for defense/settlement in a wrongful termination tort suit)