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

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

Lockheed Martin Corp. sought to set aside a decision of the Administrative Review Board of the Department of Labor (the "ARB" or the "Board") that concluded Lockheed violated Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Board affirmed the decision of an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), who concluded Lockheed violated the Act by constructively discharging employee Andrea Brown after she had engaged in protected activity. Brown worked as Communications Director for Lockheed from June 2000 to February 2008. In 2003, she became the Director of Communications in Colorado Springs, Colorado. In May 2006, Brown began having difficulty getting responses from one of her supervisors on work-related matters. She discussed the problem with Tina Colditz, a coworker and personal friend. Colditz ran a pen pals program for the company, through which Lockheed employees could correspond with members of the U.S. military deployed in Iraq. Colditz told Brown that the supervisor had developed sexual relationships with several of the soldiers in the program, had purchased a laptop computer for one soldier, sent inappropriate emails and sex toys to soldiers stationed in Iraq, and traveled to welcome-home ceremonies for soldiers on the pretext of business while actually taking soldiers to expensive hotels in limousines for intimate relations. Colditz told Brown she was concerned the supervisor was using company funds for these activities. Brown thus became concerned Owen’s actions were fraudulent and illegal and that there could be media exposure which could lead to government audits and affect the company’s future contracts and stock price. Brown brought her concerns to Jan Moncallo, Lockheed’s Vice President of Human Resources. Moncallo told Brown she would submit an anonymous ethics complaint on Brown’s behalf, and that she would be protected from retaliation because no one would know her identity. Moncallo sent an Prior to 2006, Brown received a "high contributor" or "exceptional contributor" rating in her performance evaluations. In late 2006, and thereafter, however, Brown received a lower rating of "successful contributor." In 2007, Lockheed announced to all employees it was undergoing a corporate-structure reorganization. Brown began reporting to a new supervisor, who according to Brown, had a negative attitude toward her from the beginning of their professional relationship. Shortly thereafter, Brown received a phone call from the former supervisor telling her that Brown’s job had been posted on the internet and that she should get her resume together. Brown would suffer from an emotional breakdown, fall into a deep depression, and take medical leave over the changes. Brown brought a complaint alleging violations of Sarbanes-Oxley. In his Recommended Decision and Order, the ALJ found that Brown had engaged in protected activity; she suffered materially adverse employment actions, including constructive discharge; and her engagement in protected activity was a contributing factor in the constructive discharge. The ALJ awarded reinstatement, back pay, medical expenses, and non-economic compensatory damages in the amount of $75,000. Lockheed timely appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Administrative Review Board of the Department of Labor, which affirmed. Finding no error in the Board's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Lockheed Martin v. DOL" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Lloyds of London Syndicate 2003 ("Lloyds") appealed the district court's denial of its summary judgment motion and subsequent grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Brecek & Young Advisors, Inc. ("BYA") in an action arising out of a professional liability insurance contract. The district court concluded Lloyds failed to pay sufficient indemnity to BYA for claims brought against BYA in an arbitration before the National Association of Securities Dealers. The underlying suit alleged BYA agents mismanaged and unlawfully "churned" the investment accounts of its clients. The court concluded the claims brought in the arbitration did not relate back to earlier claims brought outside the policy period and, therefore, rejected Lloyds' argument coverage was precluded altogether. Additionally, the court rejected BYA's argument that Lloyds was equitably estopped from denying coverage due to its course of conduct in receiving and defending the claims. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in its interpretation of the law of the case, and therefore abused its discretion in making its judgments in this case. Accordingly, the district court's decisions were reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Brecek & Young Advisors, Inc. v. Lloyds of London Syndicate 2003" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the federal district court found that Appellant Maggie Chapman violated the "assisting and facilitating" provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. 310.3(b). A consumer protection action was brought by the Federal Trade Commission and four states against several individual and corporate defendants who marketed and sold to consumers grant-related goods and services with false representations that the consumers were guaranteed or likely to receive grants. After the claims against the other defendants were settled or adjudicated by entry of summary judgment, the district court held a bench trial on the remaining claim against Ms. Chapman. Following the trial, the court found that Ms. Chapman violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by providing substantial assistance to telemarketing defendants while knowing or consciously avoiding knowing of their deceptive telemarketing practices. The court accordingly ordered a permanent injunction and $1,682,950 in monetary damages against Ms. Chapman. The court also denied Ms. Chapman's post-judgment motion to alter or amend the judgment or, alternatively, for remittitur. Ms. Chapman appealed both the finding she violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the denial of her post-judgment motion. Not persuaded that the district court's underlying factual findings were clearly erroneous, and concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms. Chapman's post-judgment motion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Chapman" on Justia Law