Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2012, appellant Charles D. Leone II resigned his position as a principal of Madison Street Partners, LLC (“MSP”). Pursuant to the terms of MSP’s Operating Agreement, fellow principals Steven Owsley and Drew Hayworth elected to buy Leone’s interest in MSP. The agreement required the purchase price to be set at fair market value, as determined in good faith by MSP’s managers, Owsley and Hayworth. After receiving valuations from two independent valuation firms, the Managers proposed a purchase price of $135,850, which Leone rejected. Leone then sued the Managers in federal district court, contending the proposed purchase price was far below market value and asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Managers moved for summary judgment on both claims, arguing Leone’s claims were barred by their good faith reliance upon the value set by the independent valuation firms. The district court granted the motion. On appeal, Leone argued: (1) the district court misapplied the law regarding express and implied good faith obligations; (2) the district court incorrectly held that bad faith requires a tortious state of mind; and (3) he presented sufficient evidence of bad faith to survive summary judgment. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Leone indeed presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment: “three different types of ‘good faith’ were at play in this case: the express contractual provision, an implied covenant of good faith, and the statutory safe harbor for good faith reliance on experts’ opinions. Regardless of which one applies, the Managers bore the burden as movants for summary judgment to establish there were no genuine issues of material fact with respect to their defense of good faith reliance on outside valuations. Although the Managers are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of good faith in relying on the outside valuations, Mr. Leone has raised genuine issues of material fact to rebut that presumption. Without the presumption and given the existence of fact issues regarding the Managers’ good faith, we conclude the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Managers on their affirmative defense.” View "Leone v. Owsley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jeffrey Weinman was the Chapter 7 Trustee for Adam Aircraft Industries (“AAI”). Defendant Joseph Walker was an officer of AAI and served as its president and as a member of its Board of Directors. Throughout his employment, Walker had neither a written employment contract nor a severance agreement with AAI. In February 2007, the Board decided it wanted to replace Walker as both president and as a board member. Since AAI did not want Walker’s termination to disrupt its ongoing negotiations for debt financing, AAI suggested that Walker could voluntarily “resign” in lieu of termination and could also continue to support the company publicly. Subsequently, Walker agreed, and the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) outlining the terms of Walker’s separation, and they also embodied these terms in two Separation Agreements and Releases. About a year after terminating Walker, AAI declared bankruptcy. It then sued in bankruptcy court to avoid further transfers to Walker, to recover some transfers previously made to Walker, and to disallow Walker’s claim on AAI’s bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court denied AAI’s claims. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirmed this ruling in its entirety. AAI appealed part of the ruling, arguing that its obligations and transfers to Walker were avoidable under the Code on two alternative bases. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the BAP's decision. View "Weinman v. Walker" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the magistrate judge that included a report of the parties’ discovery conference, the initial date agreed for disclosures was April 6, 2011. It was undisputed that plaintiff Sun River had a "D&O" insurance policy, which potentially covered securities-related counterclaims asserted by defendants, thus requiring Sun River to disclose the policy pursuant to the scheduling order. No disclosure of the policy was made until eighteen months later, only after counsel for defendants repeatedly pressed the issue based on other information raising suspicions of an undisclosed policy, and then filed a motion to compel its production. By that time coverage under this “claims made” policy had lapsed. When the omission came to light, defendants moved for an order sanctioning Sun River under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) by dismissing Sun River’s claims against defendants and entering a default judgment for defendants on their counterclaims against Sun River. The magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on the motion, taking testimony from Sun River's former attorneys, in-house counsel James Pennington and outside counsel (and counsel-of-record) Stephen Csajaghy regarding events surrounding their failure to timely disclose the policy. The magistrate judge ultimately recommended that the motion for sanctions be granted insofar as it sought a default judgment against Sun River on defendants’ counterclaims, but denied insofar as it sought dismissal of Sun River’s claims against defendants, which were not affected by the operative nondisclosure. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge about counsel’s performance with respect to disclosure of the D&O Policy, but concluded that Sun River should not be held responsible in the matter. Instead, the district court decided counsel were culpable for the disclosure violation and should be held personally liable for the attorney fees expended by defendants in pursuing the motion for sanctions. The attorneys moved for reconsideration, arguing: (1) Rule 37(c) did not authorize sanctions on counsel; (2) counsel acted with substantial justification, precluding the imposition of sanctions; (3) any sanction should have been imposed on Sun River, Pennington’s employer at the time of the initial nondisclosure, rather than on counsel; and (4) due process precluded the imposition of a sanction on Csajaghy, who had withdrawn and was not present at a July 2013 pretrial conference when the district court redirected the focus of the requested sanction from Sun River to counsel. The district court reaffirmed the sanction against both counsel and reduced it to judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed as to the sanction against Pennington, and affirmed it against Csajaghy. While the district court found that the failure to disclose the insurance policy was not substantially justified, it did not find that Pennington acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Csajaghy’s unfounded assumption about Pennington’s review of the D&O Policy was insufficient to establish a substantial justification for his failure to disclose the policy. View "Sun River Energy v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of a securities class action against ZAGG, Inc. and its former CEO and Chairman, Robert Pedersen, alleging violations of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws. The plaintiffs alleged Pedersen failed to disclose in several of ZAGG’s SEC filings the fact that he had pledged nearly half of his ZAGG shares (or approximately 9 percent of the company), as collateral in a margin account. The district court dismissed the complaint for a failure to plead particularized facts giving rise to a strong inference that Pedersen acted with an intent to defraud as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). The Tenth Circuit found that the PSLRA subjected plaintiffs to a heightened pleading requirement of alleging intent to defraud with particularized facts that give rise to an inference that is at least as cogent as any competing, nonculpable explanations for a defendant’s conduct. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs did not meet that standard here. View "Swabb v. ZAGG, Inc." on Justia Law

In April 2013, plaintiffs filed a complaint in Utah state court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint sought a declaration as to the authority of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (the "Tribe") over non-Indian businesses operating on certain categories of land. It also alleged that Dino Cesspooch, Jackie LaRose, and Sheila Wopsock (individuals affiliated with the Ute Tribal Employment Rights Office ("UTERO")), had harassed and extorted plaintiffs in violation of state law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in state court by way of a special appearance, arguing that service of process had been insufficient, that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the absence of a valid waiver of tribal sovereign immunity, that the Tribe and its officers were immune from suit but were necessary and indispensable parties, and that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies in tribal court. Cesspooch and LaRose were properly served. Two attorneys for the defendants moved for pro hac vice admissions. The motions were granted. Following a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the state court ordered further briefing on whether defendants' motion constituted a general appearance and authorized substituted service on the Tribe and Wopsock. The court then granted plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint adding additional defendants. The Tribe, Cesspooch, LaRose, and Wopsock were served the amended complaint. The Tribe filed a notice of removal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In its notice, the Tribe stated that Cesspooch, LaRose, and Wopsock consented to removal, and that the remaining defendants would consent. The remaining defendants (save one) filed consent and joinders to removal. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the initial defendants waived their right to removal (or to consent to removal) by litigating in state court, removal was untimely, the defendants had not unanimously consented to removal, and that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to remand. The Tribe appealed the remand order. The Tenth Circuit dismissed this appeal, finding that under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d), a district court order remanding a case to state court was "not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." Further, the Court held that a district court order remanding because the defendants did not unanimously join or consent to removal was patently "not reviewable." In addition, the Court concluded that the remand order in this case was colorably characterized as being based on lack of unanimity. View "Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe" on Justia Law

Cox Enterprises was the defendant in a class-action antitrust suit. Shortly before trial was set to begin, Cox moved to arbitration. Cox' request came after considerable discovery, potentially dispositive motions, and a petition to the Tenth Circuit. The district court determined that Cox’s assertion of its right to arbitrate was "overly late" and inconsistent with its conduct in litigating the case, and thus held that Cox had waived its right to compel arbitration. After applying the six factors outlined by the Tenth Circuit in "Peterson v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc.," (849 F.2d 464 (10th Cir. 1988)) for determining whether a party has waived its right to compel arbitration, the Court concluded that Cox did waive its right to compel arbitration. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "In re: Cox Enterprises" on Justia Law

Appellants William Karl Jenkins and M. Earlene Jenkins (collectively, Mr. Jenkins) appealed an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) that affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of their claim for the payment of certain secured promissory notes. Alternate Fuels, Inc. (AFI) was a Kansas corporation that formerly engaged in surface coal mining operations. On December 9, 1992, AFI filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the District of Kansas. AFI briefly continued its coal mining operations under the terms of a confirmed plan of reorganization. At that time, John Warmack acquired 100% of the stock of AFI and assumed control. Mr. Warmack then formed Cimarron Energy Co., LLC to handle the mining operations for which AFI still held permits. Mr. Warmack owned 99% of Cimarron. Twenty-four certificates of deposit, valued at approximately $1.4 million, were pledged to secure multiple reclamation bonds. Then, Cimarron recommenced mining operations. AFI’s equipment was released to AFI’s secured creditors, who ultimately foreclosed and sold the equipment back to Cimarron. Mr. Jenkins entered into an agreement to purchase Mr. Warmack’s interest in AFI. Mr. Jenkins did not intend to resume mining operations or otherwise operate AFI. Instead, Mr. Jenkins believed that, through his political connections, he could fulfill AFI’s remaining reclamation obligations and obtain the proceeds of the release of the 24 certificates of deposit and the sale of Cimarron’s mining equipment. Mr. Jenkins testified that he knew AFI had no prospect of repaying two promissory noted from its own funds; his only prospects for future payment were the certificates of deposit. The bankruptcy court found that Mr. Jenkins’ claims were not allowed claims because the transfers alleged to be consideration for the notes should have been recharacterized as equity contributions. In the alternative, the court found that Mr. Jenkins failed to sustain his burden of proof as to the validity and amount of his claim, or that Mr. Jenkins putatively secured claim should have been subordinated to the status of an unsecured claim. The Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that Mr. Jenkins' transfers did not meet the criteria for either recharacterization or equitable subordination, and he satisfied his burden of proof as to the validity and amount of his claim. View "Redmond v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the district court's grant of summary judgment to the court-appointed receiver for Winsome Investment Trust, a business entity whose founder, Robert Andres, caused it to illegally distribute funds as part of a Ponzi scheme. The court found that Andres had fraudulently transferred funds from Winsome to William Cornelius and his law firm, Cornelius & Salhab, and that the receiver could recover these funds on Winsome's behalf under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). Cornelius, who was unaware of the fraud, raised several challenges to the district court's jurisdiction and its judgment on the merits. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: the receiver was entitled to sue Cornelius in Utah, and no federal jurisdictional impediments prevent the district court from reaching the UFTA claim. The district court also correctly concluded the payments to Cornelius violated the UFTA and the four-year statute of limitations did not bar the receiver's claim. View "Klein v. Cornelius" on Justia Law

CE Design, Ltd. sued Custom Mechanical Equipment in 2008 after it received a junk fax. CE Design brought a class action suit of people and businesses that had also received unsolicited faxes from Custom. After Custom's insurer, Emcasco Insurance Company, declined to defend, Custom settled with CE Design for a considerable sum. In settling, CE Design agreed not to enforce the judgment against Custom but to proceed directly against Emcasco. After Emcasco refused to pay the judgment, CE Design and Emcasco filed rival declaratory judgment suits in separate federal courts (CE Design in Oklahoma, and Emcasco in Illinois). Ultimately, the federal district court in Illinois transferred its case to the federal district court in Oklahoma. Based on the insurance policy's terms, the district court held that Emcasco had no duty to defend Custom or to pay the judgment. CE Design appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Emcasco Insurance Co. v. CE Design" on Justia Law

Western Insurance Company was insolvent and was being liquidated in Utah state court pursuant to the Utah Insurer Receivership Act. As a part of that liquidation, the Liquidator brought an ancillary proceeding against several of Western's "affiliates" to recover funds Western had transferred to them. The Defendants removed the ancillary proceeding to federal district court pursuant to the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The Liquidator responded by seeking a remand, which the district court granted. Defendants appealed, but concluding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Western Insurance v. A & H Insurance" on Justia Law