Opinion ID: 6934948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Commission of a Tortious Act

Text: The tort provision of the long-arm statute provides that, by the commission of a tortious act within Colorado, a person submits to the jurisdiction of Colorado courts concerning any cause of action arising from that act. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-1-124(1)(b) (Supp.1994). In defining the contours of subsection (l)(b), the Colorado Supreme Court has stated that “in order to satisfy the statutory standard for assertion of long arm jurisdiction ... it is not necessary that both the tortious conduct constituting the cause and the injury constituting the effect take place in Colorado.” Classic Auto Sales, 832 P.2d at 235. Instead, Colorado courts have held that the statute may be satisfied when (1) tortious conduct occurs in Colorado, or (2) when tortious conduct initiated in another state causes injury in Colorado. See id. at 235-36. Despite Colorado’s broad interpretation of subsection (l)(b), our review of Wenz’s allegations, as supported by affidavits, leads us to conclude that Wenz has failed to allege or establish a prima facie case under either. First, Wenz has failed to allege any tortious conduct occurring in Colorado. Wenz repeatedly frames the transaction at issue as one in which he voluntarily sent money to London, and then after the money was placed in his client account in London, the defendants tortiously disbursed the funds. The general allegations in Wenz’s complaint explicitly provide that the “tortious conduct” complained of consisted exclusively of the defendants’ “disbursement of funds ... without Mr. Wenz’s knowledge, consent or authorization.” See Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16, 19 (emphasis added). Additionally, each of Wenz’s claims for relief-negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, theft — also list, as the sole basis for recovery, the defendants’ wrongful disbursal of funds in the London account. See id. ¶¶ 22, 26, 30, 32, 37; see also Plaintiffs Resp. to Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss at 2 (including in what plaintiff entitles the “only relevant facts” the allegation that “[t]he funds were then intentionally disbursed ... without authorization from Wenz. These intentional disbursements from Wenz’ client trust account constituted not only theft of Wenz’ property, but fraud upon Wenz and a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to Wenz by Conniek and the Defendant law firm” (emphasis added)). Moreover, Wenz’s affidavit also focuses exclusively on the defendants’ lack of authorization to disburse the funds in his account. See Wenz Aff. ¶ 8 (“At no time ... did I instruct Conniek or anyone else a Memery Crystal to disburse or otherwise utilize the funds placed in my client trust account.”). Even looking at Wenz’s factual allegations in the best light they demonstrate that this was a tort caused by unauthorized disbursements from a London account. Consequently, the alleged wrongful conduct — the tor-tious disbursal — occurred in London, not Colorado. Therefore, we conclude that Wenz has failed to allege that the defendants engaged in any tortious conduct in Colorado. Second, not only has Wenz failed to allege any tortious conduct in Colorado, he has also failed to demonstrate that he suffered an injury in Colorado that is sufficient to invoke long-arm jurisdiction under subsection (l)(b). Not all alleged “injuries” that result from tortious conduct in a foreign state will trigger long-arm jurisdiction. See McAvoy v. District Court, 757 P.2d 633, 635 (Colo.1988). In interpreting what type of injury is sufficient under subsection (l)(b) the Colorado Supreme Court has stated that “the injury itself must have occurred in Colorado.” Id. at 635. Further, the injury in Colorado “must be direct, not consequential and remote.” Amax Potash Corp. v. Trans-Resources, Inc., 817 P.2d 598, 600 (Colo.Ct. App.1991). Only tortious conduct which “proximately” results in injury in Colorado constitutes a tortious act within the meaning of the long-arm statute. See Texair Flyers, Inc. v. District Court, 180 Colo. 432, 506 P.2d 367, 370 (1973). “Hence, when both the tor-tious conduct and the injury occur in another state, the fact that plaintiff resides in Colorado and experiences some economic consequences here is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on a Colorado court.” Amax Potash Corp., 817 P.2d at 600 (citing McAvoy v. District Court, 757 P.2d 633 (Colo.1988); Shon v. District Court, 199 Colo. 90, 605 P.2d 472 (1980)). Accepting Wenz’s allegations as true, the unauthorized disbursals occurred in London and were from a London account, not a Colorado account. Accordingly, the loss or injury occurred in London where the account was located, not in Colorado. That Wenz may be economically impacted in Colorado, simply because he lives there, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under subsection (l)(b) of the Colorado long-arm statute. See McAvoy, 757 P.2d at 636 (where Colorado resident was injured in accident with Washington resident, in Washington, due to alleged negligent actions in Washington, the allegations of subsequent treatment for the injury in Colorado, and effects of the accident which were manifest in Colorado, were not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in Colorado under the long-arm statute); Amax Potash Corp., 817 P.2d at 600 (where both conduct and injury occur out of state, fact that plaintiff lives in Colorado and suffers economic consequences in Colorado is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction); GCI 1985-1 LTD. v. Murray Properties Partnership, 770 F.Supp. 585, 589-90 (D.Colo.1991) (where plaintiff alleged economic injury resulting from defendant’s tortious conduct in North Carolina, court responded, “the lost revenue ... injured GCI in Colorado only as a result of the fortuitous circumstance that GCI maintained its headquarters in Colorado,” and concluded personal jurisdiction in Colorado not proper); Ruggieri v. General Well Serv., Inc., 535 F.Supp. 525, 536 (D.Colo.1982) (concluding personal jurisdiction in Colorado on conversion claim not proper where all of defendants actions were in Montana and “[t]he only possible damage to plaintiff was to his money that was already in Montana”). Wenz’s purported economic injury in Colorado is indirect and remote. We, therefore, conclude that Wenz has failed to allege an injury in Colorado sufficient to invoke personal jurisdiction under subsection (l)(b).