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

Plaintiff-Appellee John Niemi and several investors intended to build a large luxury ski condominium complex. Niemi was unable to find traditional financing for the project, and turned to Florida businessman, Defendant Michael Burgess. Burgess claimed to represent a European investor, Defendant-Appellee Erwin Lasshofer. As part of the funding scheme, plaintiff had to pay certain fees and pledge a collateral deposit before $250 million dollars would be loaned to him (and his business partners/investors) for the condo project. For his part, Burgess was eventually convicted and sentenced to federal prison for fraud and money laundering. Plaintiffs sued seeking return of the money they pledged, alleging the lost loan irreparably damaged its business, caused millions in lost profits, and sent its other real properties into foreclosure. Burgess maintained he took direction from Lasshofer; Lasshofer claimed he unwittingly did business with a con man. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction effectively freezing Lasshofer's worldwide assets pending final judgment. Lasshofer appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction. Upon careful review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs, Niemi and individual investors in his condo project, lacked standing to bring suit. Therefore the district court erred in granting the injunction. The injunction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Niemi, et al v. Burgess, et al" on Justia Law

The issue before the Court in this matter concerned interpretation of an errors-and-omissions policy. The policy excluded coverage for claims "arising out of" bankruptcy or insolvency. The dispute grew from a stop-loss policy issued by United Re to a company that had hired Plaintiff-Appellee C.L. Frates as a broker. After the policy was issued, United filed for bankruptcy protection. When Frates learned of the bankruptcy, it learned that United had been sued in Ohio, and filed for bankruptcy to stall the litigation. Ultimately, Frates recommended to its client that it move the stop-loss insurance to another insurer. The client agreed. However, Frates had to reimburse the client for what it lost through higher deductibles. Frates then sued Westchester Fire Insurance Company under its errors-and-omissions policy. In cross-motions for summary judgment, Westchester contended that Frates's claim "arose out of" United's bankruptcy or insolvency. Frates contended that the claim "arose out of" United's deception. The district court agreed with Frates and granted its motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court. It held that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that Frates's claim arose out of United's bankruptcy or insolvency. Accordingly the Court reversed the award of summary judgment to Frates. View "CL Frates v. Westchester Fire" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Susan and Steven Schrock filed suit against manufacturers of the drug metoclopramide, alleging that Susan's use of the generic drug caused her to develop tardive dyskinesia. In a series of orders, the district court dismissed all claims in favor of the manufacturer. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the dismissal of their claims against PLIVA USA, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Schwarz Pharma, Inc., and Wyeth, Inc. The Tenth Circuit abated this appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in "Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett" (133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013)). In light of "Bartlett," the Tenth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' breach-of-warranty claims against PLIVA and Qualitest were preempted by federal law. The Court also agreed with the district court that plaintiffs' non-warranty claims against the generic manufacturers were barred by Oklahoma’s two year statute of limitations. With respect to the plaintiffs' claims against Schwarz and Wyeth, the Court agreed with the district court’s determination that Oklahoma tort law would not provide a remedy. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs' notice of appeal was untimely as to certain orders they sought to appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Schrock, et al v. Wyeth Inc., et al" on Justia Law

The government sued Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellant James Holmes to collect taxes owned on his now-defunct business, Colorado Gas Compression, Inc. The district court granted final judgment in favor of the government. Defendant appealed that judgment. The government cross-appealed the district court's decision regarding the date from which prejudgment interest would be awarded. Colorado Gas made a series of distributions to defendant from 1995 to 2002 as part of its winding-down process. The government brought suit in 2008 on state counts of fraudulent conveyances, unlawful distributions and as an owner of the company who received its assets. Defendant argued the government was estopped from bringing suit under the applicable state statute of limitations because the government's suit was based on state law. The government countered by arguing its claims were subject to a ten-year federal statute of limitations. Upon careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in ruling in favor of the government. The Court further concluded that the government did not properly preserve the issue of prejudgment interest for appeal, and declined to consider it. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on a written consumer contract for the sale of goods and whether it incorporated by reference a separate document entitled "Terms of Sale" which was available on the seller's website, but that the contract stated that it was "subject to" the seller's "Terms of Sale" but does not specifically reference the website? Finding no controlling precedent, the Tenth Circuit decided to certify the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. View "Walker, et al v. BuildDirect.com Technologie" on Justia Law

Med-Systems, Inc., sells its products under the federally registered trademark SinuCleanse and two similar marks. Water Pik, Inc., which traditionally sold oral irrigators and showerheads, registered the trademark SINUSENSE with the intention of selling sinus-irrigation devices under the brand name “SinuSense.” It sued Med-Systems seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of the SinuSense brand name did not infringe on any of Med-Systems’ marks. Med-Systems counterclaimed for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. Ruling that the SinuSense brand was not likely to cause consumer confusion, the district court awarded summary judgment to Water Pik on the counterclaims and dismissed Water Pik’s declaratory-judgment claim as moot. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff David Newsome, a litigation trustee appointed by the bankruptcy court, administered the legal claims of Mahalo Energy (USA), Inc. He brought suit against the corporation's former directors and officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. All defendants are Canadian citizens. The defendants moved to have the case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted that motion. At issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether or not the district court erred in granting that motion. The Tenth Circuit concluded that defendants cultivated sufficient contacts with the US (specifically, Oklahoma) to justify getting sued there. Furthermore, the Court held that the "fiduciary shield doctrine" did not apply in this case. The Court reversed as to individual defendants, and remanded the case for further proceedings. However, the Court affirmed dismissal with regard to the company's law firm: as an out-of-state firm that performed all of its relevant services out-of-state on an out-of-state transaction, it did not meet the minimum threshold of contact with the forum state to justify personal jurisdiction there. View "Newsome, et al v. Gallacher, et al" on Justia Law

A dispute arose among the parties in this case over internet advertising through "AdWords," a Google program whereby companies pay the search engine to feature its ads whenever a user uses certain keywords. At issue was whether the Lanham Act was violated by one of the parties' use of keywords that resembled a competitior-party's service mark. Upon review of the keywords and service marks in question here, the Tenth Circuit found no violation of the Act. View "1-800 Contacts v. Lens.com, et al" on Justia Law

Employees of Solvay Chemicals, Inc. brought an ERISA claim against the company for what they contended was improper notice with regard to changes in the company retirement program. At one time the company offered a defined benefit plan, but changed it to a "cash balance" plan that required a defined contribution from the company (rather than defined payments to employees). While the Tenth Circuit held that the company violated its notice obligations with regard to preexisting early retirement subsidies, the notice was sufficient in all other respects. As remedy for the defective notice, employees asked that the company revert back to the abandoned defined benefit plan. The district court found that the company's notice failure was not "egregious" to grant the employees' requested relief. The employees appealed the district court's denial of their request. Agreeing that the employees were not entitled to their requested relief, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Jensen, et al v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

An Oklahoma City car dealer, Automax Hyundai South, sued its insurance company for refusing to defend it when the dealership was sued by customers. Two aggrieved customers brought claims against Automax relating to car purchases they made. The customers won their cases at the state court. The district court ruled that the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify Automax in the underlying lawsuits. Upon review of the district court record and the policy at issue, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Automax and concluded the insurance company had a duty to defend. View "Automax v. Zurich, et al" on Justia Law