COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA128 

Court of Appeals No. 15CA0964 

City and County of Denver District Court No. 09CV7321 

Honorable Michael A. Martinez, Judge 

Mark L. Thompson and Rosalin Rogers, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

United Securities Alliance, Inc., 

Defendant, 

and concerning Catlin Insurance Company (UK) Ltd., Garnishee, 

Appellee. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED 

Division II 

Opinion by JUDGE HARRIS 

Ashby, J., concurs 

Webb, J., concurs in part and dissents in part 

Announced September 8, 2016 

Sherman & Howard L.L.C., Christopher R. Mosley, Jennifer M. Morris, Denver, 

Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant 

Gordan & Rees LLP, John R. Mann, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee 
1 

¶ 1 Plaintiffs Mark L. Thompson and Rosalin Rogers obtained a 

judgment against United Securities Alliance, Inc., and then 

instituted garnishment proceedings against United’s insurer, 

defendant Catlin Insurance Company (UK) Ltd. The district court 

deducted from the policy limit the amount of attorney fees incurred 

by Catlin in defending the underlying arbitrations against United, 

and entered judgment for plaintiffs for the remainder of the policy. 

¶ 2 On appeal, plaintiffs contend the district court erred in its 

determination of reasonable attorney fees and in declining to award 

pre- and post-judgment interest. Whether prejudgment interest can 

be awarded in a garnishment proceeding is an unresolved issue in 

Colorado. We affirm. 

I. Background 

¶ 3 Catlin issued a liability insurance policy to United, covering 

claims that might arise from United’s business as a securities 

broker. The policy allows Catlin to deduct from the policy’s liability 

limit the “reasonable and necessary fees and costs incurred . . . in 

the defense of a Claim.” 
2 

¶ 4 Plaintiffs received a damages award in an arbitration 

proceeding against United, which the district court confirmed. To 

collect on this judgment, plaintiffs then served a writ of 

garnishment action on Catlin as United’s insurer. 

¶ 5 In an October 2010 order, the district court ordered Catlin to 

pay the damages award and found that Catlin could deduct “zero” 

defense fees and costs from the policy’s limits. According to the 

district court, the heavily redacted invoices submitted by Catlin 

failed to establish that the fees were “reasonable and necessary.” 

¶ 6 On appeal, a division of this court affirmed the liability 

judgment, but remanded for the district court to determine the 

amount of expenses that Catlin had reasonably incurred in the 

arbitration, to deduct that amount from the $1 million policy limit, 

and to order Catlin to pay the plaintiffs, from the remaining policy 

limit, the amounts due under the judgment. Thompson v. Catlin 

Ins. Co. (UK) Ltd., slip op. at 14 (Colo. App. No. 10CA2554, Feb. 12, 

2012) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)) (Thompson I). 

¶ 7 On remand, the district court found that Catlin had 

reasonably incurred fees and costs but, faced with the same heavily 
3 

redacted invoices (which it found largely “indiscernible”), the court 

calculated Catlin’s expenses based on the amount of fees incurred 

by plaintiffs’ counsel in the underlying arbitration. Using this 

method, the court found that Catlin could deduct $320,000 in 

attorney fees from the policy limits. 

¶ 8 Catlin again appealed. A division of this court reversed a 

second time, concluding that the district court’s order did not 

include sufficient findings of facts to support its determination. 

Thompson v. Catlin Ins. Co. (UK) Ltd., slip op. at 8 (Colo. App. No. 

13CA2037, Oct. 16, 2014) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)) 

(Thompson III).1

¶ 9 Before recalculating the reasonable amount of fees and costs 

on remand, the district court accepted additional briefing from the 

parties. This time, along with its briefing, Catlin provided the 

unredacted copies of the invoices for the two arbitrations, stating 

that it had finally located them from defense counsel “[a]fter an 

 

1 In Thompson v. Catlin Ins. Co. (UK) Ltd., (Colo. App. No. 11CA1330, 

Oct. 16, 2014) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)) (Thompson 

II), Catlin appealed the trial court’s subsequent award of attorney 

fees to plaintiffs under C.R.C.P. 103, section (8)(b)(5). The fees at 

issue in Thompson II are unrelated to the attorney fees contested 

here. 
4 

exhaustive search.” Plaintiffs moved to strike the unredacted 

invoices as outside the scope of the mandate, and the court denied 

the motion. 

¶ 10 In a thorough and carefully reasoned opinion, the district 

court relied on record evidence, including the unredacted invoices, 

to calculate Catlin’s reasonable attorney fees and costs, making 

specific deductions for redundant entries, excessive hours, and 

other discretionary factors. The court found $452,107.15 of 

Catlin’s requested $545,136.27 reasonable and necessary and 

deducted this amount from the policy limit. After subtracting 

amounts Catlin had previously paid plaintiffs, the court ordered 

Catlin to pay $96,287.68. It denied plaintiffs’ requests for pre- and 

post-judgment interest. 

¶ 11 On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the district court acted 

beyond the scope of the mandate in Thompson III by considering the 

unredacted invoices, and that it erred in denying interest to which 

they are statutorily entitled. 
5 

II. Unredacted Invoices 

¶ 12 Plaintiffs contend that the district court acted beyond the 

scope of the Thompson III mandate because, by considering the 

unredacted invoices, the district court expressly disregarded the 

mandate’s instruction to review “the existing record.” In light of the 

unusual circumstances of this case, we disagree. 

¶ 13 Trial courts have no discretion to disregard binding appellate 

rulings. Consequently, we review de novo whether a trial court has 

complied with a prior appellate ruling. City Council of City of Cherry 

Hills Vill. v. S. Suburban Park & Recreation Dist., 219 P.3d 421, 423 

(Colo. App. 2009). 

¶ 14 When determining the meaning of a remand order, we 

consider the disposition and context of the entire opinion. See In re 

Marriage of Balanson, 107 P.3d 1037, 1044 (Colo. App. 2004) 

(interpreting remand order “in the context of the entire opinion”); In 

re Marriage of Ashlock, 663 P.2d 1060, 1062 (Colo. App. 1983) (“The 

meaning of a remand is to be determined from the reviewing court’s 

disposition of the issues before it.”). 
6 

¶ 15 We acknowledge that, in most cases, an instruction to the 

district court to “review the existing record,” and to make a 

determination “from this record,” would amount to an order 

prohibiting the district court from considering additional evidence. 

But given the unusual procedural posture of this case, we construe 

the language as permissive rather than restrictive — in our view, 

the remand order meant that the district court could rely exclusively 

on the existing record to calculate reasonable fees, not that it had

to. 

¶ 16 The division’s opinion in Thompson III was the second reversal 

of the district court’s attorney fees order. Twice the district court 

had essentially disregarded the redacted invoices, complaining that 

it was impossible to determine the reasonableness of the fees and 

costs from those invoices. 

¶ 17 The division in Thompson I, No. 10CA2554, slip op. at 12, 

noted that the redacted invoices “amply demonstrate[d]” that the 

expenses were incurred and that at least some were incurred for 

legitimate reasons. It remanded the case to the district court to 
7 

calculate Catlin’s reasonable fees, but did not expressly restrict or 

authorize the consideration of additional evidence. 

¶ 18 On remand, Catlin continued to rely on the redacted invoices 

— though, had it presented the unredacted invoices then, the 

remand order would not have precluded the court’s consideration of 

them, see In re Marriage of Ashlock, 663 P.2d at 1062 (where 

reviewing court does not include in its mandate a direction 

concerning additional proceedings, it is within the trial court’s 

discretion to receive additional evidence) — and the court continued 

to declare them unhelpful in evaluating Catlin’s fee request. 

Consequently, as it had the first time, the district court chose an 

alternative methodology to compute Catlin’s expenses. Instead of 

analyzing the unredacted entries on the invoices, the district court 

imputed to Catlin the same amount of fees claimed by plaintiffs’ 

lawyers for their services in connection with the arbitration. 

¶ 19 On appeal for the second time, the Thompson III division 

acknowledged the district court’s struggle to decipher the largely 

“indiscernible” invoices, but nonetheless directed the court to 

provide more specific reasoning to support its fee determination, 
8 

suggesting that it start with the invoices in the record. The division 

then laid out the precise analytical path for the district court: after 

determining the lodestar amount, the court could deduct any hours 

not reasonably expended, including hours that were not sufficiently 

documented in the redacted invoices. Next, the district court was 

told to adjust the lodestar amount after considering six factors 

relevant to the litigation. The division warned the district court not 

to cut corners in its analysis by reverting to its earlier method of 

comparison with opposing counsel’s request or by “eyeball[ing]” the 

fee request and cutting it by some arbitrary percentage. Thompson 

III, No. 13CA2037, slip op. at 13-14. 

¶ 20 After providing this guidance, the division directed the district 

court to “make a more specific determination of the reasonable 

costs and fees that Catlin may deduct.” Id. at 14. To accomplish 

this task, the division instructed the district court to review the 

existing record, calculate the expenses Catlin had incurred, identify 

any factors used in making the calculations, and then deduct that 

amount from the policy limit and order Catlin to pay plaintiffs the 

amount owed under the judgment. 
9 

¶ 21 In our view, having outlined the requisite procedure, the 

division’s reference to the “existing record,” id. at 15, was merely a 

way to reassure the district court that it need not start from scratch 

but could instead perform the necessary factfinding and 

calculations based on the indisputably less-than-ideal evidence in 

the record. We do not interpret the order to preclude the district 

court’s reliance on better information, if such information became 

available on remand. Cf. Moland v. People, 757 P.2d 137, 141 (Colo. 

1988) (remand order instructing that defendant had present need 

for postconviction relief and ordering district court to resolve motion 

on the merits did not preclude district court’s subsequent 

determination, based on consideration of new facts, that defendant 

did not have present need for relief). After all, the first division, in 

Thompson I, had not limited the court’s ability to consider 

additional evidence. It is not clear from the second remand order 

why the Thompson III court would have changed course and 

required the district court to ignore the unredacted invoices. 

¶ 22 Our interpretation of the remand order also gives effect to 

evidentiary rules that favor consideration of all relevant evidence, 
10 

see CRE 402, with the goal of promoting the “truth-seeking 

purposes of our judicial system,” Garrigan v. Bowen, 243 P.3d 231, 

238 (Colo. 2010). Over the course of this protracted litigation, two 

divisions of this court have remanded to the district court to make a 

specific, record-based calculation of the reasonable amount of 

attorney fees Catlin could deduct from the policy limit. But an 

accurate determination has been hampered by the redactions to the 

invoices. Now that the unredacted invoices have been recovered, we 

are reluctant, absent some explanation from the division, to read 

the remand order to limit the district court’s wide discretion to 

consider this superior evidence in making the required calculations. 

¶ 23 The dissent suggests that we have placed too much emphasis 

on the truth-seeking function of the court, reminding us that each 

day trial courts properly exclude evidence. That is undoubtedly 

true, but only when some greater interest outweighs the benefit of 

admitting all of the information that will help the district court to 

arrive at a reasoned and thorough decision. We agree with the 

dissent that adherence to remand orders is necessary to ensure 

finality. But because we do not read the Thompson III remand order 
11 

to prohibit the district court’s consideration of the unredacted 

invoices, we do not perceive adherence to the order as an interest 

that outweighs (or is even in competition with) the obvious benefit 

of the complete invoices. 

¶ 24 Nor do we perceive any manifest unfairness to the plaintiffs 

that might outweigh the interest in admitting the unredacted 

invoices. The plaintiffs did not assert, and the district court did not 

find, that the delay in producing the unredacted invoices stemmed 

from Catlin’s bad faith or even an attempt to gain some strategic 

advantage in the litigation. Rather, the district court accepted 

Catlin’s explanation that unredacted versions of the invoices were 

discovered only “after an exhaustive search,” and then were 

produced promptly. We are in no position to second-guess the 

district court on this finding of fact. See In re Estate of Ramstetter, 

2016 COA 81, ¶ 52. 

¶ 25 The dissent says we give short shrift to the fairness issue, but 

we are unwilling to press an argument that the plaintiffs themselves 

never made in the district court or on appeal. In the district court, 

the plaintiffs complained that reliance on the unredacted invoices 
12 

violated the remand order, not that admission of the invoices gave 

Catlin some unfair advantage or, as the dissent puts it, an 

impermissible “second bite at the apple.” Even on appeal, plaintiffs 

did not protest the unfairness of the court’s reliance on the 

unredacted invoices; they contended that the district court should 

have given them an opportunity to challenge those invoices at a 

second hearing. It was not until oral argument that plaintiffs first 

invoked fairness, suggesting that Catlin’s belated filing of the 

unredacted invoices should have been precluded as the product of 

strategic gamesmanship. We would find the argument more 

persuasive if it were raised in the district court and supported by 

evidence in the record but, as counsel conceded at oral argument, 

the record is devoid of such evidence. 

¶ 26 As for plaintiffs’ argument that they did not have an 

opportunity to challenge the unredacted invoices, we perceive no 

error. Plaintiffs contend that the district court should have 

authorized additional discovery and held a second hearing on the 

unredacted invoices. But plaintiffs never asked for a hearing or for 

leave to reopen discovery; they merely asked the district court to 
13 

strike the invoices from the record on the ground that their 

admission violated the court of appeals’ mandate. Because 

plaintiffs never asked for this relief, we cannot say that the district 

court erred in failing to sua sponte reopen the proceedings. Zeke 

Coffee, Inc. v. Pappas-Alstad P’ship, 2015 COA 104, ¶ 36 (“[A] court 

ordinarily ‘will not sua sponte afford a party relief that it has not 

requested.’” (quoting Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. 

Comm’r, Ind. Dep’t of Health, 64 F. Supp. 3d 1235, 1257 n.7 (S.D. 

Ind. 2014))). 

¶ 27 Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in 

considering the unredacted invoices. 

III. Prejudgment Interest 

¶ 28 Plaintiffs next contend that the district court erred in declining 

to award prejudgment interest pursuant to section 5-12-102(1), 

C.R.S. 2015. We disagree. 

¶ 29 Because prejudgment interest is a question of statutory 

interpretation, we review it de novo. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. 

Holmes, 193 P.3d 821, 825 (Colo. 2008). 
14 

¶ 30 Section 5-12-102(1)(a) provides for the award of prejudgment 

interest “[w]hen money or property has been wrongfully withheld 

. . . from the date of wrongful withholding to the date of payment or 

to the date judgment is entered.” This statute, however, does not 

apply to garnishment proceedings; rather, it governs contract and 

property damage cases. See Beren v. Beren, 2015 CO 29, ¶ 45 

(Section 15-12-102 did not apply because “this case is not a 

contract or property damage case; it is a probate case.”).2 

¶ 31 Further, we agree with the district court that, because 

garnishment actions do not result in damages to the garnishor, 

prejudgment interest is not appropriate. Prejudgment interest is a 

component of compensatory damages, meant to make the plaintiff 

whole and fully compensate for the loss. Seaward Constr. Co. v. 

 

2 We recognize that some cases have applied section 5-12-102(1) in 

equitable actions, but we find those cases inapplicable. For 

example, in Safeco Insurance Co. v. Westport Insurance Corp., 214 

P.3d 1078, 1080 (Colo. App. 2009), a division of this court 

determined that a plaintiff could collect prejudgment interest in a 

contribution action. However, interest was appropriate in that case 

because the purpose of contribution is to prevent unjust 

enrichment and “the unjustly enriched party is generally liable for 

interest on the benefits received.” Id. (quoting Martinez v. Cont’l 

Enters., 730 P.2d 308, 317 (Colo. 1986)). In contrast, a garnishee is 

not unjustly enriched because it possesses assets of a third-party 

debtor. 
15 

Bradley, 817 P.2d 971, 978 (Colo. 1991); Watson v. Pub. Serv. Co. of 

Colo., 207 P.3d 860, 867 (Colo. App. 2008). Absent an express 

indication of legislative intent to deviate from the principle that 

prejudgment interest is compensatory, it may be awarded only on 

compensatory damages. Seaward Constr. Co., 817 P.2d at 978; 

Watson, 207 P.3d at 867. A garnishment proceeding, however, is 

not a “suit involving money damages”; rather it is an ancillary 

proceeding to enforce a judgment. Commercial Claims, Ltd. v. First 

Nat’l Bank of Glenwood Springs, 649 P.2d 736, 736 (Colo. App. 

1982) (citation omitted). Accordingly, because compensatory 

damages are not awarded in garnishment proceedings, prejudgment 

interest is not appropriate. 

¶ 32 Moreover, a plaintiff is only entitled to prejudgment interest 

where there has been a wrongful withholding. “Our case law 

clarifies that, as a precondition to a wrongful withholding, there 

must be a party who has acted wrongfully in the legal sense, e.g., a 

party has breached a contract.” Beren, ¶ 45. Catlin neither 

breached a contract with plaintiffs nor damaged physical property, 

see id., and no court has determined Catlin’s conduct to be 
16 

wrongful. Garnishment actions do not determine liability in the 

sense of a legal wrong — they simply reach assets of a judgment 

debtor in the hands of third parties. § 13-54.5-103, C.R.S. 2015; 

C.R.C.P. 103; Idaho Pac. Lumber Co., Inc. v. Celestial Land Co. Ltd., 

2013 COA 136, ¶ 8. Before the garnishment action, Catlin had no 

legal duties to plaintiffs, and thus the proceeds of the insurance 

policy cannot have been wrongfully withheld. See Mesa Sand & 

Gravel Co. v. Landfill, Inc., 776 P.2d 362, 364-65 (Colo. 1989) 

(collecting cases). 

IV. Postjudgment Interest 

¶ 33 Finally, plaintiffs contend that an award of postjudgment 

interest was mandatory under section 5-12-106(1)(b), and the 

district court erred by denying their request. We disagree. 

¶ 34 When a judgment is appealed by a judgment-debtor, section 5-

12-106(1)(b) provides for an award of postjudgment interest from 

the date judgment was first entered in the trial court if “the 

judgment is modified or reversed with a direction that a judgment 

for money be entered in the trial court.” 
17 

¶ 35 However, under C.A.R. 37(b), “[i]f all or part of a judgment is 

. . . modified, [or] reversed[] . . . with a direction that a money 

judgment be entered in the lower court, the mandate must contain 

instructions with respect to allowance of interest.” This rule 

provides the appellate courts with exclusive authority to determine 

the propriety of an award of postjudgment interest. In re Marriage 

of Gutfreund & Hughes, 148 P.3d 136, 142 (Colo. 2006). As a 

result, “if the mandate does not contain instructions regarding the 

award of postjudgment interest from some date prior to the entry of 

the judgment on remand, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to award 

such interest.” Westec Constr. Mgmt. Co. v. Postle Enters. I, Inc., 68 

P.3d 529, 535 (Colo. App. 2002). 

¶ 36 Accordingly, because the Thompson III mandate did not direct 

the district court to award postjudgment interest, the district court 

correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to make such an award. 

See id.; Sperry v. Field, 186 P.3d 133, 141 (Colo. App. 2008). The 

only way to invest the district court with the necessary jurisdiction 

is to file a request with the court of appeals to amend its mandate. 

Westec Constr., 68 P.3d at 535; Boryla v. Pash, 17 P.3d 833, 835 
18 

(Colo. App. 2000). But plaintiffs did not request this relief. And 

because the district court had no jurisdiction to award interest, we 

need not decide whether postjudgment interest would have been 

proper under section 5-12-106(1)(b). Boryla, 17 P.3d at 834-35; see 

also Pet Inc. v. Goldberg, 37 Colo. App. 257, 259, 547 P.3d 943, 945 

(1975) (if a mandate issues that fails to direct the trial court with 

respect to the award of interest, or even if it contains an erroneous 

direction upon the subject, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant 

an award of interest inconsistent with the appellate court’s 

mandate). 

¶ 37 We are not persuaded by plaintiffs’ argument that this reading 

of Rule 37 would create an impermissible conflict with section 5-12-

106(1)(b). Rather, the statute merely “states the circumstances 

wherein interest shall be allowed to a creditor or on a judgment, 

[while] C.A.R. 37 requires and empowers the appellate court to 

make the determination of interest to be allowed, if any,” and to 

include appropriate instructions in its mandate. Pet Inc., 37 Colo. 

App. at 259, 547 P.2d at 944-45. Thus, we perceive no conflict. 
19 

V. Conclusion 

¶ 38 The judgment is affirmed. In their briefs, plaintiffs requested 

attorney fees pursuant to either C.A.R. 39.5 (now renumbered as 

C.A.R. 39.1) or C.R.C.P. 103, section 8(b)(5). In light of our opinion, 

we decline to award attorney fees on either basis.3

JUDGE ASHBY concurs. 

JUDGE WEBB concurs in part and dissents in part. 

 

3 Catlin filed a motion to strike plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees, 

noting that they did not raise the C.R.C.P. 103, section 8(b)(5) basis 

in their opening brief. Since we decline to award attorney fees, this 

motion is denied as moot. 
20 

JUDGE WEBB, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 

¶ 39 I concur in all but Part II of the majority opinion. There, the 

majority concludes that on remand the district court properly 

allowed Catlin to supplement the record by replacing numerous 

previously redacted invoices with unredacted versions. But in 

doing so, the district court departed from plain language of the 

mandate in Thompson v. Catlin Insurance Co. (UK) Ltd., (Colo. App. 

No. 13CA2037, Oct. 16, 2014) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 

35(f)) (Thompson III). Therefore, and with respect, I dissent. 

¶ 40 Everyone would agree that on remand a district court must 

follow the mandate of an appellate court. See, e.g., City Council of 

City of Cherry Hills Vill. v. S. Suburban Park & Recreation Dist., 219 

P.3d 421, 423 (Colo. App. 2009). The majority recognizes, as do all 

those who appeared before us, that the remand instruction in 

Thompson III directed the district court to “review the existing 

record, and from this record, calculate the amount of expenses that 

Catlin reasonably incurred” in the underlying arbitrations. 

Thompson III, No. 13CA2037, slip op. at 15. This language is clear. 

And because it is clear, I decline to join the majority in wondering 
21 

“why the Thompson III court would have changed course and 

required the district court to ignore the unredacted invoices.” 

¶ 41 Yet, instead of following the plain meaning of this clear 

language, the majority dismisses it as “merely a way to reassure the 

district court that it need not start from scratch but could instead 

perform the necessary factfinding and calculations based on the 

indisputably less-than-ideal evidence in the record.” But what 

more could the mandate have said? Must a mandate say not only 

what the district court shall do — “from the existing record” — but 

also what the court may not do — “without taking additional 

evidence?” Surely not, as additional language is not necessary if 

the meaning is otherwise clear. BMD Contractors, Inc. v. Fid. & 

Deposit Co. of Md., 679 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2012). And therein 

lies the problem with the majority’s reliance on the lack of “some 

explanation from the division.” 

¶ 42 One might well ask whether this case — now in its fourth 

appeal — cries out for a final resolution. It does. But that outcry 

cannot license appellate disregard of yet another error. 
22 

¶ 43 To begin, the majority notes, “we consider the disposition and 

context of the entire opinion,” citing In re Marriage of Ashlock, 663 

P.2d 1060, 1062 (Colo. App. 1983). But this principle only frames, 

it does not decide, the question of how the Thompson III mandate 

should be read. And unlike the direction in the mandate here —

“review the existing record” — the Ashlock division pointed out that 

“the reviewing court [did] not include in its mandate a direction 

concerning additional proceedings.” Id. 

¶ 44 Taking up how to read the mandate, I, too, view the remand 

instructions through the prism of the entire opinion. This broad 

perspective does not show us anything in Thompson III that even 

hints at an opportunity to present additional evidence on remand. 

To the contrary, the division said that the district court had already 

“reviewed all the evidence.” Thompson III, No. 13CA2037, slip op. at 

14. Given this statement, one might wonder why the district court 

considered more — but not “newly discovered,” as Catlin conceded 

at oral argument — evidence than it already had. 

¶ 45 The division observed that while the district court had 

identified testimony of Catlin’s counsel in the underlying arbitration 
23 

“as supporting the basis for the award,” the court had “not 

connect[ed] her testimony to the $160,000 amount awarded in each 

arbitration.” Id. at 10. Of course, this testimony was in the record. 

¶ 46 Next, the division noted that a remand for further findings was 

necessary because the district court’s “order does not specify 

whether the court used the lodestar amount as a starting point 

before reducing the fee. We also do not know if the court 

considered whether Thompson’s counsel requested $160,000 as a 

lodestar amount or as a contingency fee.” Id. And this testimony 

was also in the record. 

¶ 47 Then the division summarized the familiar lodestar 

methodology — including the factors used to adjust the lodestar up 

or down1 — and directed the district court to “make a more specific 

determination of the reasonable costs and fees that Catlin may 

deduct.” Id. at 14. But the division did not suggest that applying 

 

1 “Factors that the district court may consider include: (1) the 

amount in controversy; (2) the time required to represent the client 

effectively; (3) the complexity of the case; (4) the value of the legal 

services to the client; (5) the existence of a fee arrangement, 

whether fixed or contingent; and (6) the customary practice in the 

legal community regarding fees in similar actions.” Thompson v. 

Catlin Insurance Co. (UK) Ltd., slip op. at 12 (Colo. App. No. 

13CA2037, Oct. 16, 2014) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)). 
24 

those factors would require the court to look beyond the “existing 

record,” such as moving from the redacted invoices to their now 

conveniently available unredacted counterparts. 

¶ 48 Considering the division’s reference to evidence already in the 

record and its lack of reference to new evidence, by any fair reading 

the problem in Thompson III was insufficient explanation, not a lack 

of evidence. Thus, on remand, the division’s concerns over 

inadequate findings should have been resolved with further 

scrutiny of the invoices already in the record — both redacted and 

unredacted — as well as of the testimony given by arbitration 

counsel for both parties in the attorney fees hearing. 

¶ 49 Then the district court could have provided the additional 

explanation that the division sought. And the district court could 

still have concluded — as it had concluded once before — that gaps 

created by the extensive redactions on many invoices left plaintiffs’ 

fees of $160,000 in each of the arbitrations as the most reliable 

measure of reasonableness. After all, as the division also held, “no 

language in Thompson I specifically instructed the district court to 

use the lodestar method.” Id. at 6. 
25 

¶ 50 The majority’s stated deference to “the truth-seeking purposes 

of our judicial system,” Garrigan v. Bowen, 243 P.3d 231, 238 (Colo. 

2010), does not tip the scales in favor of admitting the unredacted 

invoices, for three reasons. 

¶ 51 First, the issue before us is not an evidentiary ruling, in which 

district courts enjoy considerable discretion. See, e.g., People v. 

Helms, 2016 COA 90, ¶ 45 (We review “evidentiary rulings for an 

abuse of discretion.”). Instead, the issue is whether the district 

court adhered to the plain language of the mandate. And the 

mandate rule is just that: a rule, not a discretionary option. 

¶ 52 Second, every ruling excluding evidence on procedural 

grounds compromises truth seeking. See People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 

68, 76 (Colo. 2001). Yes, as the majority points out, “all of the 

information . . . will help the district court to arrive at a reasoned 

and thorough decision.” Even so, district courts routinely exclude 

evidence on procedural grounds, at least where — as here — the 

countervailing interest is not constitutional. See People v. 

Pronovost, 773 P.2d 555, 558 (Colo. 1989). 
26 

¶ 53 Third, and to me most important, in many remands and with 

the invariably perfect wisdom of hindsight, creative counsel can 

identify additional evidence — available, as here, but not presented 

before the appeal — that might tilt the playing field toward a more 

favorable outcome on remand. But creativity does not beget 

unbridled opportunity. Our supreme court has been reluctant to 

allow any party “a second bite at the apple.” People v. Null, 233 

P.3d 670, 681 (Colo. 2010) (quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 

1, 17 (1978)). As well, allowing counsel to do so would protract 

remand proceedings and imperil finality. See In re Marriage of 

Wolford, 789 P.2d 459 (Colo. App. 1989) (noting that a definite 

public interest exists in assuring the finality of civil judgments). 

¶ 54 Finally, and to no one’s surprise, I take issue with the 

majority’s inability to “perceive any manifest unfairness to the 

plaintiffs that might outweigh the interest in admitting the 

unredacted invoices.” A close look shows that the unfairness stems 

from allowing Catlin to escape the strategic decision that it made — 

long ago and presumably for good reason — to rest its fees claim on 

the many redacted invoices from which the district court found it 
27 

“impossible to determine in any manner the activities performed 

with respect to those entries.” Catlin neither suggests that the 

unredacted invoices are “newly discovered” evidence, nor does it 

offer any reason why it should be allowed to escape that choice on 

remand. And for these reasons, I do not see why the burden should 

be shifted to plaintiffs — as the majority does — to show an 

insufficient “opportunity to challenge those invoices at a second 

hearing.” The majority does not cite authority — nor am I aware of 

any — softening the binding effect of remand instructions by 

engrafting lack of prejudice on to the analysis. 

¶ 55 In the end, I would reverse in part because the district court 

departed from the mandate in Thompson III and again direct the 

court to reconsider the attorney fees issue solely on the basis of the 

invoices and other information in the record when the mandate 

issued.