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

Lynn Becker contracted with the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Tribe) to provide services related to the Tribe's development of its energy and mineral resources. Following a dispute concerning Becker's compensation under the contract, Becker brought breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and accounting claims against the Tribe in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. All of Becker's claims were state law claims. Nevertheless, Becker's complaint asserted that the district court had federal question jurisdiction because the case raised substantial issues of federal law. Becker appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah" on Justia Law

In October 2004, Cellport Systems, Inc. and Peiker Acustic GMBH & Co. KG entered into an agreement concerning Cellport’s technology for the hands-free use of cellphones in cars. In 2009, Cellport filed suit against Peiker, alleging breach of that agreement and sought royalties for seven Peiker products. The district court awarded Cellport royalties on only two of the products, interpreting an acknowledgment in the license agreement as "a rebuttable presumption." Cellport appealed, and Peiker filed a conditional cross-appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Court found that section 1.17(i) of the License Agreement created a category of products on which royalties are due regardless of whether any of Cellport’s patents were infringed; Peiker owed Cellport royalties on those products. On remand, the district court was directed to calculate the damages due Cellport for those two products. Because the district court only briefly addressed the relationship between the "BTPSC" and the "'456 Patent" the Tenth Circuit remanded to allow the district court to determine whether additional royalties were owed to Cellport. With respect to Peiker's cross-appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Cellport that the issue was not ready for appellate review and further held that it was not ripe for review by the district court. View "Cellport Systems v. Peiker Acustic" on Justia Law

David Richison began a payroll processing company in the 1990s in Oklahoma with his niece and nephew, Shannon and Chad Richison. The company was called "Ernest Group, Inc." and did business under the name "Paycom Payroll." David wrote two software programs for use at the company. The first program, ("BOSS") was assigned to Ernest Group in 1999. The second was called "Independence." David left Ernest Group and moved to Maryland where he formed his own payroll company, "Period Financial Corporation." David wrote a third program, "Indy," based in part on Independence. In 2009, Ernest Group filed a copyright infringement suit against David and Period, alleging that Indy infringed on Ernest Group's copyright in BOSS. Shortly after filing its complaint, Ernest Group registered a copyright in Independence, calling it a work-for-hire. By 2011, David had written a fourth program, "Cromwell," which would become a new basis for Ernest Group's lawsuit. The parties ultimately settled and agreed to the entry of a consent decree. All of Ernest Group's claims were released, except a claim for injunctive relief based on infringement. All rights to Independence were assigned to Ernest Group, and the parties agreed that a special master be assigned to determine whether Cromwell infringed on BOSS or Independence. The parties could not agree, however, which version of Cromwell should have been the subject of the special master's analysis. The special master ultimately found copyright infringement occurred, and the district court adopted the special master's report. David and his company appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the special master did not document his application of each step of the abstraction-filtration-comparison test, and that "[h]is report reads consonantly with the misconception that an infringement analysis begins and ends with 'copying in fact.'" The Court therefore vacated the district court's order adopting the report and remanded with instructions for the district court to request a more thorough report with which to analyze Ernest Group's infringement claim.View "Paycom Payroll, et al v. Richison, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this complaint on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Chesapeake common stock from 2009 to 2012, and who were damaged from those purchases/acquisitions. The complaint alleged that Defendants materially misled the public through false statements and omissions regarding two different types of financial obligations: (1) Volumetric Production Payment transactions (under which Chesapeake received immediate cash in exchange for the promise to produce and deliver gas over time); and (2) the Founder Well Participation Program (under which Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon was allowed to purchase up to a 2.5% interest in the new gas wells drilled in a given year). With respect to the "VPP program," Plaintiffs alleged Defendants touted the more than $6.3 billion raised through these transactions but failed to disclose that the VPPs would require Chesapeake to incur future production costs totaling approximately $1.4 billion. Plaintiffs contended the failure to disclose these future production costs was a material omission that misled investors into believing there would be no substantial costs associated with Chesapeake’s obligations to produce and deliver gas over time. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Viewing all of the allegations in the complaint collectively, the Tenth Circuit was not persuaded they gave rise to a cogent and compelling inference of scienter. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Weinstein, et al v. McClendon, et al" on Justia Law

MMS Construction & Paving, L.L.C. entered into a subcontract with Head, Inc. to pave asphalt runway shoulders at Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma. The project was delayed and MMS, expressing concern that Head had not been making agreed payments, quit the job. MMS also complained that completing the job would be more expensive than it originally believed because certain requirements were being imposed that Head said would be waived. After MMS quit, Head finished the job, relying on other subcontractors. MMS sued Head on state-law claims of breach of contract, tortious breach of contract, quantum meruit, and misrepresentation, and brought a claim under the federal Miller Act on Head’s surety bond for the project. Head filed a counterclaim, alleging that MMS breached the contract. After a jury trial, MMS was awarded damages and attorney fees. Head filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial, both of which the district court denied. Head appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to show that Head breached the contract; (2) if there was a breach, it was not material; (3) an Oklahoma statute limited MMS’s breach-of-contract damages to the amount unpaid plus interest; (4) the evidence was not sufficient to establish MMS’s alleged lost-profits damages for breach of contract; (5) MMS did not present sufficient evidence to prove misrepresentation or any damages from misrepresentation, MMS waived the misrepresentation claim, and the award of misrepresentation damages duplicated the award of damages for breach of contract; and (6) MMS was not entitled to attorney fees from Head because the Miller Act does not allow recovery of those fees. Upon careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit reversed damages award based on the misrepresentation claim because the jury’s award was not supported by any evidence at trial. On all other issues, the Court affirmed. View "MMS Construction & Paving v. Head, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

The contracts at issue in this case related to Z3 Technology's design and manufacturing of circuit board modules for use in Digital Ally, Inc.'s products. The first contract, called for Z3 to design, manufacture, and deliver to Digital 1,000 modules incorporating Texas Instruments' DM355 computer chip. The second contract involved a larger quantity of modules that would use Texas Instruments' next-generation DM365 chip. Both contracts were signed by Robert Haler, who was then Digital's Executive Vice President of Engineering and Production. The contracts were described as "Production License Agreement[s]," and they expressly provided that the modules would be licensed, not sold, to Digital. The contracts both stated they would "be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Nebraska, without reference to conflict of laws principles." Upon review of the contracts at issue in this case, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for the district court to award prejudgment interest to Z3 on a damages award and unpaid design fees. All other portions of the district court's judgment were affirmed. View "Digital Ally, et al v. Z3 Technology, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Higby Crane Service, LLC (Higby) entered into a Contract with Defendant DCP Midstream, LP that covered crane work to be done at the gas processing plant of DCP's wholly owned subsidiary National Helium, LLC (collectively, "DCP"). A fire negligently started by DCP damaged Higby's crane. The other Plaintiff, National Interstate Insurance Co. had issued Higby a commercial inland marine (CIM) policy covering direct physical loss to certain property. National paid Higby under the policy, and Plaintiffs then sued DCP for the loss. DCP counterclaimed that Higby had breached the contract by failing to obtain a commercial general liability (CGL) policy that would have indemnified DCP for its negligence and therefore Higby should bear the loss from the damage to the crane. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs, and DCP appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the required CGL policy would have protected DCP from liability. View "National Interstate Insurance, et al v. National Helium, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., and Chesapeake Investments appealed a district court judgment awarding Plaintiff-Appellee BP America Production Company $22,265,302 plus interest, and a district court order compelling Chesapeake to pay $1,403,669.38 in attorneys' fees and disbursements. BP cross-appealed the district court order confirming an arbitration award. This dispute arose out of a purchase and sale agreement ("PSA") entered into by Chesapeake as seller and BP as purchaser of oil and gas properties for $1.75 billion. The PSA contained three arbitration provisions. After closing, the parties agreed on title defects. Less the aggregate threshold, the parties agreed BP was owed $81,234,556. At the same time, disputed title defects and benefits were submitted to title arbitration. BP sought approximately $46 million for disputed title defects, and Chesapeake sought approximately $22 million for disputed title benefits and "credits." While the title arbitration was pending, BP submitted a proposed final accounting statement reflecting the agreed title defects of approximately $80 million. Chesapeake responded with an exception report changing the $80 million to $58 million. When BP asked why, Chesapeake responded that it had applied a $22 million offset based on its pending claims in the title arbitration; Chesapeake did not dispute the $80 million in agreed title defects, but temporarily withheld the $22 million because it might recover that amount in title arbitration. Though the accounting arbitration ended, the title arbitration continued. The arbitration panel issued an award finding $11,526,434 in title defects (favoring BP), and $3,727,031 in title benefits (favoring Chesapeake). The arbitration panel noted that it made no determination of whether these amounts exceeded the aggregate threshold, or whether its ruling would actually cause any money to exchange hands. If the parties could not agree on the effect of the panel's ruling on the ultimate purchase price adjustment, they could submit their positions on that issue to further arbitration. Shortly thereafter, BP requested payment from Chesapeake. Because a $3 million in title benefits awarded to Chesapeake did not exceed the aggregate threshold, Chesapeake received no price adjustment to offset the $22 million it previously withheld. The parties filed competing motions to confirm in the district court. The court ultimately entered judgment in favor of BP for $22,265,302 plus interest. Chesapeake appealed that judgment. The district court later granted in part BP's motion for attorneys' fees and costs and awarded $1,403,669.38 against Chesapeake for fees and disbursements. Chesapeake appealed that judgment too. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit affirmed both awards in Chesapeake's direct appeals and dismissed BP's cross-appeal. View "BP America Production Company v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Mid-Continent Casualty Company brought a declaratory judgment action to settle an issue with its commercial commercial general liability (CGL) policy issued to Pennant Service Company. In 2001, True Oil Company, an owner and operator of oil and gas wells, entered into a master service contract (MSC) with Pennant for work on a well in Wyoming. The MSC included a provision whereby Pennant agreed to indemnify True Oil resulting from either Pennant or True Oil's negligence. In July 2001, Christopher Van Norman, a Pennant employee, was injured in an accident at True Oil's well. Van Norman sued True Oil in Wyoming state court for negligence. In accordance with the MSC's indemnity provision, counsel for True Oil wrote to Pennant requesting indemnification for its defense costs, attorney fees, and any award that Van Norman might recover against it. Mid-Continent refused to defend or indemnify True Oil based on Wyoming's Anti-Indemnity Statute, which invalidates agreements related to oil or gas wells that "indemnify the indemnitee against loss or liability for damages for . . . bodily injury to persons." In May 2002, True Oil brought a federal action against Mid-Continent for declaratory relief, breach of contract (CGL policy), and other related claims. In February 2005, the district court granted Mid-Continent summary judgment, determining that the MSC's indemnity provision, when invoked with respect to claims of the indemnitee's own negligence was unenforceable as a matter of public policy. The court held that Mid-Continent was not required to defend or indemnify True Oil in the underlying suit as it then existed because "where an indemnification provision in a MSC is void and unenforceable, the insurer never actually assumed any of the indemnitee's liabilities under the policy." The district court granted summary judgment to True Oil, determining Mid-Continent breached its duty to defend and indemnify True Oil. As damages, the court awarded True Oil the amount it paid to settle the underlying suit and the attorney fees and costs incurred in defending itself. Mid-Continent appealed the district court's judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Mid-Continent v. True Oil Company" on Justia Law

The case involves statements made by plaintiff Vehicle Market Research, Inc. (VMR) in a breach of contract case that were allegedly inconsistent with earlier statements by its sole owner, John Tagliapietra. VMR developed and owned certain intellectual property, including a software system to calculate the value of a total loss of an automobile for the purposes of the automobile insurance industry and certain “pre-existing software tools, utilities, concepts, techniques, text, research or development” used in the development of the software. When Mr. Tagliapietra filed for personal bankruptcy, he asserted that his shares in VMR were worth nothing. A few years later, as the bankruptcy was winding down, VMR sued Mitchell International, Inc., a company which held an exclusive license to VMR's technology. That case sought $4.5 million in damages for the alleged misappropriation of that technology. The question this case presented to the Tenth Circuit was whether the statements by VMR and Mr. Tagliapietra in the litigation against Mitchell were so clearly contrary to the statements made by Mr. Tagliapietra in his bankruptcy proceeding that VMR should have been judicially estopped from proceeding with its suit against Mitchell. After review, the Court concluded that neither VMR’s litigation claim for payments nor Mr. Tagliapietra’s deposition testimony in that lawsuit was clearly inconsistent with his valuation of 0.00 for his VMR stock at the time of his bankruptcy petition in 2005, the date when the initial bankruptcy representations were made. "If there were grounds for judicial estoppel, it would have to be based on a duty by Mr. Tagliapietra to amend his bankruptcy pleadings to report a possible increased value for his VMR stock at least as of the time that VMR filed its suit against Mitchell in 2009. However, our precedent is not clear on whether a debtor has a continuing duty to amend his bankruptcy schedules when the estate’s assets change in value. Given our reluctance to invoke judicial estoppel, and keeping in mind that judicial estoppel is an affirmative defense that its proponent must prove, we conclude that in this case Mitchell has not met its burden of showing any clearly inconsistent statements that would warrant that relief." View "Vehicle Market Research v. Mitchell International" on Justia Law