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

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

Defendants–Appellants Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., and J.M. Hollister LLC, d/b/a Hollister Co. (collectively, Abercrombie) appealed several district court orders holding that Hollister clothing stores violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff–Appellee Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (CCDC) is a disability advocacy organization in Colorado. In 2009, CCDC notified Abercrombie that Hollister stores at two malls in Colorado violated the ADA. Initial attempts to settle the matter were unsuccessful, and this litigation followed. Abercrombie took it upon itself to correct some barriers plaintiff complained of: it modified Hollister stores by lowering sales counters, rearranging merchandise to ensure an unimpeded path of travel for customers in wheelchairs, adding additional buttons to open the adjacent side doors, and ensuring that the side doors were not blocked or locked. However, one thing remained unchanged: a stepped, porch-like structure served as the center entrance at many Hollister stores which gave the stores the look and feel of a Southern California surf shack. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment: affirming the court's denial of Abercrombie's summary judgment motion and certification of a class. However, the Court reversed the district court's partial grant, and later full grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs, and vacated the court's permanent injunction: "each of the district court’s grounds for awarding the Plaintiffs summary judgment [were] unsupportable. It was error to impose liability on the design of Hollister stores based on 'overarching aims' of the ADA. It was also error to impose liability based on the holding that the porch as a 'space' must be accessible. Finally, it was error to hold that the porch must be accessible because it is the entrance used by a 'majority of people.'" View "CO Cross-Disability Coalition, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch, et al" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case were David and Barbara Green, their three children, and the businesses they collectively owned and operated: Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Mardel, Inc. As owners and operators of both Hobby Lobby and Mardel, the Greens organized their businesses with express religious principles in mind. As was particularly relevant to this case, one aspect of the Greens’ religious principles was a belief that human life begins when sperm fertilizes an egg. In addition, the Greens believed it was immoral for them to facilitate any act that caused the death of a human embryo. Plaintiffs brought an action to challenge portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) whereby employment-based group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) were required provide certain types of health services for women that implicated contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling (without cost-sharing by plan participants or beneficiaries) - all "abortifacients" that went against plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the contraceptive-coverage requirement of the ACA under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction on the basis of their RFRA and Free Exercise claims. The district court denied that motion. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the injunction. After review by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that Hobby Lobby and Mardel were entitled to bring claims under RFRA, established a likelihood of success that their rights under statute were substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and established an irreparable harm. However, the case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings on two remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction. View "Hobby Lobby Stores, et al v. Sebelius, et al" on Justia Law

J. Hoyt Stephenson incorporated National Financial Systems Management, Inc. (NFSM) in Utah. The same day, the NFSM Employee Stock Ownership Plan was created. The Plan has always owned 100% of NFSM’s stock. Stephenson was one of the Plan’s trustees. In June 2006, Stephenson, along with his wife and children, moved from Utah to Wyoming, and as a result, Stephenson became a Wyoming citizen. About a year later, Stephenson sold one of his companies, National Financial Systems, Inc. (NFS) to NFSM. Then he sold another one, Metronomics Inc. to NFSM. In June 2009, Stephenson and his family went back to Utah. The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on whether Stephenson became a Utah citizen when he moved back. Brent Middleton, the Stock Plan's trustee, and several others (all Utah citizens), brought several federal-law claims Stephenson in the federal district court. Stephenson fought back with state-law counterclaims and a third-party complaint asserting state-law claims against multiple third-party defendants. The district court dismissed those counterclaims and third-party claims, concluding that it lacked diversity jurisdiction to hear them because Stephenson also was from Utah. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Stephenson was a Utah citizen. View "Middleton, et al v. Stephenson, et al" on Justia Law

In June 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the claims of J. Hoyt Stephenson (a man the district found to be a Utah citizen), for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Less than three months later, Stephenson assigned his interests in various stock and real property to a new company of his creation, National Fitness Holdings, Inc., a Wyoming corporation of which Stephenson was the sole director, officer and shareholder. Four days later, National Fitness sued Grand View Corporate Centre, LLC in federal district court. The district court once again dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this time finding that Stephenson had impermissibly made the assignments to manufacture diversity jurisdiction. Upon review of the appeal of that decision, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in finding it lacked jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "National Fitness Holdings v. Grandview Corporate Center, et al" on Justia Law

Judy Knight appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against Mooring Capital Fund. “Most of [the Tenth Circuit’s] reasons for affirmance are routine.” But the Court took the opportunity of this case to comment on Knight’s federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims based on alleged misconduct in a prior litigation. With regard to her RICO claim, Knight argued that defendants made misrepresentations to the district court through pleadings and testimony that increased the cost of litigating her prior case, and caused the district court to rule against her. She alleged that that activity violated wire-fraud and mail-fraud statutes, thereby constituting a pattern of racketeering in violation of RICO. Because Knight did not identify any arguments she would have made regarding few and costs had it not been for defendants’ fraud, because she did not offer any specific explanation if how defendants’ litigation misconduct affected her ability to litigate he issues in the prior litigation, and because Knight did not allege there was evidence of misconduct that was unavailable while that prior litigation was pending, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on this RICO claim too. View "Knight, et al v. Mooring Capital Fund LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff–Appellant Hornady Manufacturing Company, Inc., appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to Defendant–Appellee DoubleTap, Inc., on Hornady's trademark infringement claims. Hornady manufactured and sold firearm ammunition and related products. Since 1997, Hornady sold various products under the name "TAP," short for "Tactical Application Police." Hornady acquired trademark registration for the nonstylized word mark, "TAP." Photographs in the record indicated that the packaging for Hornady's products conspicuously features the TAP mark, both as a stand-alone mark and as incorporated within a shield resembling a police officer's badge. DoubleTap has been described as a "niche" ammunition manufacturer. Photographs in the record indicated that, as of 2006, packaging for DoubleTap's products displayed its mark as two separate words, "Double Tap," within a blue oval and flanked to the left by two bullet holes. Both parties moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on whether DoubleTap infringed on Hornady's TAP mark. Reviewing the record de novo, the Tenth Circuit held hold that two factors, strength of the mark and similarity of products and marketing, favored Hornady. The remaining four factors favored DoubleTap. "The tilt of the scales does not determine the issue. However, the key inquiry, the similarity of the marks, strongly favors DoubleTap." Hornady failed to raise a genuine factual issue regarding the likelihood of confusion, and the district court properly awarded summary judgment to DoubleTap. View "Hornady Manufacturing Co. v. Doubletap" on Justia Law

The Internal Revenue Service and several oil companies agreed to settle a tax dispute over a jointly-developed pipeline system in a closing agreement. After entering the agreement, Phillips Petroleum Company (now ConocoPhillips Company) acquired Arco Transportation (one of the original signatories to the agreement). In 2000 and 2001, Conoco revisited the tax implications of its acquisition and claimed "going-forward" and "basis-increase" deductions on its amended consolidated tax returns. The IRS refunded Conoco's 2000 going-forward deductions, but disputed the remaining deductions. The parties took the dispute to federal district court, where the district court decided the issue on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court rejected Conoco's position and granted summary judgment to the IRS. Conoco appealed. After its review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that "going-forward" deductions were impermissible for interests that Arco Transportation did not own as of July 1, 1977, and "basis-increase" deductions were impermissible because the Closing Agreement did not fix the amount of a liability or exempt that liability from section 461(h) of the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, the Court held that Conoco was not entitled to the going-forward or basis-increase deductions. View "United States v. ConocoPhillips Company" on Justia Law

A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee Storagecraft Technology Corporation for $2.92 million when it found that former founder and director, defendant-appellant James Kirby misappropriated the company's trade secrets. Defendant argued on appeal that the verdict was excessive, and that the district court should have overturned it. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "StorageCraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered a novel question: Does issue preclusion apply in bankruptcy court to a final determination in district court that a party waived an issue? Upon review of the circumstances of this case and the applicable statutes, the Court concluded issue preclusion did not apply to the waiver finding here. The Court reversed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and remanded this case for the bankruptcy court to reinstate its order. View "Clark v. Zwanziger" on Justia Law