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

AECOM, Inc. hired Centennial Archaeology, Inc. to perform cultural resources survey work in connection with a wind-energy project. When AECOM refused to pay Centennial for some of its work, Centennial brought suit against AECOM in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. Centennial prevailed on several claims and the parties ultimately settled on appeal the issues raised with respect to the merits of the litigation. This appeal concerned the parties' dispute about the district court's postjudgment order requiring AECOM to pay Centennial $58,361.51 in attorney fees for misconduct in the course of discovery. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: the magistrate judge and district court reasonably found that AECOM had frustrated the discovery process and stalled the resolution of this case. And the amount of the fee award was proper. In particular, Centennial was entitled to an award under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 even though its attorneys were working for a fixed fee. View "Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v. AECOM, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Flying Phoenix Corporation appealed a district court’s dismissal of its claims against Defendants North Park Transportation Company and R&L Carriers Shared Services (the carriers), with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Flying Phoenix purchased a machine designed to package fireworks for sale to end users from Defendant Creative Packaging Machinery, Inc. The machine arrived severely damaged. Creative Packaging was responsible for shipping the machine to Flying Phoenix. Creative Packaging used R&L Carriers Shared Services to ship from North Carolina to Wyoming. The bill of lading limited the period for filing claims with a carrier to nine months, and limited the time for filing civil suit to two years and one day following denial of a claim. At some point during the delivery, R&L Carriers transferred the machine to North Park Transportation Company to complete delivery to Flying Phoenix. Three days after the machine was delivered, Flying Phoenix filed a claim with North Park based on damage to the machine. Roughly two weeks later, North Park inspected the machine and confirmed that it was damaged. A little less than a month later, North Park and R&L Carriers notified Flying Phoenix that its claim was denied, citing evidence that the shipment was issued with insufficient packaging or protection. Flying Phoenix renewed its claim approximately six months later, in November 2007, and the carriers again denied the claim, asserting that the machine was "used" and inadequately packaged. On appeal, Flying Phoenix argued that the district court erred by holding that (1) its claims were based on the bill of lading, and (2) it was bound by the terms of the bill of lading even though it was not a party and did not consent. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Flying Phoenix's claims: "Flying Phoenix claim[ed] that, although it was listed as consignee on the bill of lading, it never saw the bill of lading until after the limitations period lapsed. It argue[d] that, since it did not know the terms of the carriage, it should not be bound. [The Court found] no precedent for Flying Phoenix’s position, and Flying Phoenix [did] not direct [the Court] to any. There is no suggestion in the record that Flying Phoenix ever sought a copy of the bill of lading but was denied access, and it is well-established that a party may not sit idly by, making no effort to obtain obviously necessary documents, and then claim ignorance. Lack of diligence precludes equitable intervention." View "Flying Phoenix Corp. v. Creative Packaging Machinery" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Arnold Oil Properties, LLC hired Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corp. to perform a specialized cement job on its deep-zone gas well. After Schlumberger poured too much cement into the well, Arnold sued for breach of contract and negligence. The district court concluded as a matter of law that an alleged exculpatory provision in the parties' contract was an indemnification provision and therefore did not bar Arnold's recovery. After a jury found the parties were in unequal bargaining positions, the district court denied Schlumberger's request to enforce the contractual limitation-of-liability provision. Schlumberger appealed the district court's denial of summary judgment and its denial of judgment as a matter of law. Finding that the evidence supported the jury's finding, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Arnold. View "Arnold Oil Properties LLC v. Schlumberger Technology Corp." on Justia Law

Azhar Said on behalf of Plaintiff-Appellant Abbasid, Inc. sued the Los Alamos National Bank and First National Bank of Santa Fe for negligence in paying and accepting checks intended for the business but that his now ex-wife Bina Shahani had deposited in her cousin's account for personal use. The case was removed from Texas state to federal court, then removed to the U.S. District Court for the district of New Mexico. The district court dismissed the negligence claim on the grounds that the Bank owed no duty of care to Abbasid and that the claim and was preempted by statute which imposed strict liability. After trial, the jury returned a special verdict that the Bank did not convert any of Abbasid's checks. Abbasid timely filed a motion for a new trial which was denied. Among the issues Abbasid raised on appeal: (1) the district court improperly denied its motion for new trial claiming that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and (2) the court improperly excluded evidence of the Bank’s check-handling policies. Finding that most of Abbasid's claims of error were not properly preserved or that any error was mooted by the verdict, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in the case. View "Abbasid, Inc. v. First Natl. Bank of Santa Fe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Ute Indian Tribe challenged three amendments to the articles of incorporation of Defendant Ute Distribution Corporation (UDC). UDC represents former members of the tribe and jointly manages assets with the Tribe's leadership. Perceiving a takeover threat from the Tribe, the UDC board of directors proposed (and the shareholders adopted) the amendments in question, which prohibited persons affiliated with the Tribe from serving on the board. The Tribe sued, arguing the amendments violated Utah state law. The district court granted summary judgment to the UDC. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the amendments were reasonable as a matter of law, and that the UDC board of directors did not violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in proposing the amendments or adopting them. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of UDC's motion for summary judgment. View "Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Ute Distribution Corp." on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Jean Mathia is the widow of Doyle Mathia, who was a limited partner in Greenwich Associates. Greenwich was a partnership that incurred losses that were passed through to the couple’s income tax returns for the years 1982–84. After an investigation of numerous related tax shelters, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed these losses. Petitioner was assessed more than $150,000 in taxes following lengthy administrative and judicial proceedings involving the partnership. Petitioner appealed to the United States Tax Court to challenge the assessments as untimely, and to assert that the government bore the burden of proof in establishing timeliness. The Tax Court denied the appeal. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner contended the tax assessments were untimely because the relevant statute of limitations had run. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner's contention turned on whether Mr. Mathia entered into a settlement agreement under the tax code that resolved his partnership tax liability on an individual basis. The Court agreed with the tax court that he entered into no such agreement which would have qualified under the tax code as a settlement of Mr. Mathia's liability as an individual partner. Therefore, the Court concluded the assessments were timely and properly applied by the IRS. View "Mathia v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC (KPG), a limited liability corporation formed by Penn National Gaming, Inc. (Penn National), entered into a real estate sale contract with HV Properties of Kansas, LLC (HV), pursuant to which KPG purchased from HV parcels of land in southeast Kansas for $2.5 million for the purpose of seeking to develop a lottery gaming facility on the land. KPG ultimately chose not to develop a lottery gaming facility on the land. HV thus did not receive $37.5 million of payments that it had hoped to receive from KPG under the contract. KPG filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not breach the terms of the contract. HV filed a counterclaim alleging that KPG breached the terms of the contract. HV also filed a separate action against Penn National alleging breach of Penn National’s obligation as guarantor to make the payments due under the contract between KPG and HV. The district court consolidated the two cases and granted summary judgment in favor of KPG and Penn National. Following the entry of judgment, the district court awarded attorneys' fees and expenses to KPG and Penn National. HV appealed these rulings. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order.

Okmulgee Inn Venture, LLC (Okmulgee) leased space to a nightclub-bar and was a named insured on a liquor liability insurance policy. Okmulgee’s insurer, Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company (Mt. Vernon), assumed a duty to defend Okmulgee against suits seeking damages for injuries covered by the policy. In 2006, three bar patrons sustained gunshot wounds during a fight at the nightclub and sued Okmulgee, alleging, among other things, that Okmulgee failed to ensure the safety of the bar’s patrons, properly train the bar's staff, or investigate the bar’s operator. The only specific allegations pertaining to alcohol were that two of the three victims were under-age but were admitted to the bar and served alcohol. Mt. Vernon refused to defend Okmulgee in these suits. Mt. Vernon asserted there was no coverage under the policy, and thus no duty to defend or indemnify, because the allegations did not indicate the injuries were caused by the selling, serving, or furnishing of alcoholic beverages. Mt. Vernon then initiated this declaratory judgment action to determine its obligations. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of Mt. Vernon. Okmulgee insisted Mt. Vernon owed it a duty to defend because the facts showed that coverage was provided by the policy. Because the victims had yet to establish Okmulgee’s liability for any claims, the Tenth Circuit concluded after its review that the question of Mt. Vernon’s duty of indemnification was not ripe for adjudication. Mt. Vernon is obligated to defend its insured, and Okmulgee was entitled to summary judgment on the duty-of-defense issue.

In 2005, Appellant CCCOK, Inc. filed a complaint at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) against Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P.(SWBT). CCCOK sought an order directing SWBT to pay it over two-million dollars in compensation for SWBT's alleged breach of a contract between them. The OCC rejected CCCOK’s claim, concluding that CCCOK was not entitled to compensation under the "clear and unambiguous" language of the Parties' contract. The federal district court affirmed the OCC's ruling. CCCOK appealed. On appeal, CCCOK contended that the OCC's ruling was arbitrary and capricious because it: (1) disregarded the terms of the parties' contract; (2) contradicted record evidence; and (3) violated CCCOK's rights under state and federal law. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the OCC's ruling was not arbitrary and capricious and it affirmed the district court's decision.

Plaintiff John Ensey was employed by both Defendant Ozzie’s Pipeline Padder, Inc. (Ozzie’s) and Rockford Corporation when he was severely injured. He sued Ozzie’s but was denied relief on the ground that Ozzie’s was protected by the exclusive-remedy provision of the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act. Plaintiff appealed, contending that Ozzie’s could not invoke the exclusivity provision because it failed to show that it contributed to paying for the workers’ compensation policy obtained by co-employer Rockford. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under New Mexico law Ozzie’s was protected by the exclusivity provision because its contract with Rockford required Rockford to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff failed to produce evidence to overcome the inference that Ozzie’s therefore contributed to paying the insurance premium. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment that denied him relief.