Weidner, III v. McHale
1:23-cv-00339
D. Colo.Nov 14, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Gary Weidner, III, alleged that Defendant Claire McHale falsely accused him of sexual assault, resulting in criminal prosecution, incarceration, and significant damages; prosecution was dropped mid-trial after withheld evidence surfaced.
- Weidner sued McHale and Detective Ames, raising federal § 1983 and state tort claims, including malicious prosecution, false arrest, conspiracy, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- All claims against McHale were dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage; Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint despite opportunity and appealed the dismissal.
- McHale moved for attorneys' fees and costs under Colorado statutes and federal law; Weidner did not respond to the fee motion.
- The Court considered McHale's entitlement to fees under multiple legal grounds, including state statutes for tort claims, Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law, and federal fee-shifting statutes.
- The Court undertook a lodestar analysis, evaluated reasonableness of fee requests, and apportioned fees between federal and state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-201 | Not directly contested; no response filed | All claims sound in tort, so McHale is entitled to all her fees | Fees awarded for state tort claims (Counts IV–VIII), not § 1983 claims due to preemption |
| Application of Colorado anti-SLAPP statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-1101) | No substantive argument; no response filed | Entitled to attorneys’ fees for state constitutional tort claims under anti-SLAPP | Anti-SLAPP not analyzed separately since fees already mandatory for those claims under § 13-17-201 |
| Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for § 1983 claims | Claims were not frivolous or vexatious | § 1983 claims lacked merit, so McHale should recover fees | Court declined to award fees: claims not frivolous, unreasonable, or vexatious |
| Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for multiplying litigation | Prosecution not wholly baseless; no bad faith | Plaintiff’s counsel multiplied proceedings unreasonably | Court declined to award sanctions; record did not meet extreme standard required |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (standard for awarding fees to prevailing defendants in § 1983 suits — only when suit is frivolous, vexatious or brought to harass)
- Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (prevailing defendant may only receive fees on groundless or frivolous § 1983 claims)
- Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337 (Rule 12(b)(6) motions address only allegations within the complaint)
- Hewitt v. Rice, 154 P.3d 408 (Colorado recognizes malicious prosecution and false arrest as state law torts)
- Allen v. City of Aurora, 892 P.2d 333 (false arrest is a tort under Colorado law)