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

Daniel Cook appealed a district court's order that awarded fees and costs to his opponents Wells Fargo Bank and Scott and Pamela Garrett. The case stemmed from a 2003 lawsuit initiated by the Garretts as trustees of the Scott and Pamela Garrett Family Trust. The Trust was a shareholder in Hydroscope Group, Inc. and sued Mr. Cook for actions he took as an officer and director of HGI and its subsidiaries. A state district court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo and the Garretts on its claims against HGI. Mr. Cook filed several post-judgment motions, but before they could be heard, he appealed the state district court's decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. That court dismissed his appeal and remanded the case to the district court for disposition of the outstanding motions. Meanwhile, Mr. Cook filed a complaint against the Garretts and Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo replied with an application for an injunction to enjoin Mr. Cook from filing further pleadings. The court eventually enjoined Mr. Cook from filing anything else because he had "engaged in a pattern of litigation activity that [was] abusive and vexatious such that his access to [the Court] should be restricted." Mr. Cook subsequently filed a notice of removal of the case to federal court. He sought to remove all the cases pending before the state district court, arguing that the judge presiding over them was racially biased against him. The federal district court found that removal was not objectively reasonable. Accordingly, the district court awarded fees and costs to the Garretts and Wells Fargo. Upon review of the lengthy and complicated procedural history of this case and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and costs to the Garretts and Wells Fargo. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Plaintiff ClearOne Communications, Inc. (ClearOne) filed suit against Defendants Andrew Chiang, Jun Yan, Lonny Bowers, WideBand Solutions, Inc. and Versatile DSP, Inc. (collectively the WideBand Defendants), alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. Mssrs. Chiang, Yan and Bowers are all former engineers of ClearOne who had a hand in developing "acoustic echo cancelling" technology. The court ordered an injunction against the former engineers for their part in transferring the assets of WideBand to a "new, sham company" under the control of Donald Bowers. In this case, Donald Bowers as an Interested Nonparty appealed from an order of contempt issued against him by the district court for violation of the injunction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Mr. Bowers made no attempt to explain how the court abused its discretion in issuing the contempt order. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court.

Avalon Correctional Services, Inc., a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma, operates for-profit correctional facilities. Ravenswood Investment Company (RIC) and Ravenswood Investments III (RIII), shareholders of Avalon, are both New York limited partnerships. In 2005, RIC and RIIII alleged that Avalon deregistered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and ceased filing financial reports. In 2008, RIC and RIII demanded inspection of Avalon's books and records, asserting a right provided to shareholders under Oklahoma law. Rather than supply the requested information, Avalon sued RIC and RIII in federal court to seek a declaration that Avalon was not subject to Oklahoma law with respect to the records. Avalon alleged diversity of citizenship as basis for jurisdiction. After the district court entered interim orders dismissing many claims, entering summary judgment on another, and resolving various discovery disputes, the parties discovered that complete diversity never existed and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Rather than dismiss the case in its entirety, the court severed some previously decided claims between diverse parties and made their final dispositions. The court then dismissed the remainder of the claims. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that although dismissing a nondiverse party is an available procedure for curing a lack of complete diversity in some circumstances, the district court's order in this case failed to create complete diversity. Therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case to be dismissed in its entirety.

Plaintiff ClearOne Communications, Inc. (ClearOne) filed suit against Defendants Andrew Chiang, Jun Yan, Lonny Bowers, WideBand Solutions, Inc. and Versatile DSP, Inc. (collectively the WideBand Defendants), alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. Mssrs. Chiang, Yan and Bowers are all former engineers of ClearOne who had a hand in developing "acoustic echo cancelling" technology. Prior to their departure, the technology had been licensed from ClearOne by WideBand. When WideBand ended its licensing agreement with ClearOne, ClearOne became suspicious and conducted an internal investigation to find that its former engineers were now associated with WideBand. Furthermore, WideBand was using the proprietary technology it had once licensed. The case proceeded to trial, and ClearOne prevailed on all of its claims. The district court entered a final judgment, as well as a permanent injunction in favor of ClearOne. The court later learned that the Defendants along with several interested parties violated the terms of the injunction. The WideBand Defendants and the interested parties filed a number of appeals. The Tenth Circuit consolidated twelve cases into its holding, taking each Defendant-Appellant's arguments in turn. After careful consideration of the parties' arguments, the Court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of ClearOne.

BancInsure, Inc. appealed a declaratory judgment in favor of Columbian Financial Corporation and a former director, Carl McCaffree (collectively the Insureds). The insurance policy at issue here was a "claims-made" policy covered any claim made to BancInsure against any Columbian officer or director for a "Wrongful Act" as defined by the policy. A disputed provision of the policy pertained to the scope of coverage if Columbian was placed in receivership or otherwise ceased to engage in active banking business. The parties interpreted the provision differently. The Insureds contended that if Columbian went into receivership, the policy covered all claims made through the end of the original policy period, although only for Wrongful Acts committed before the receivership. BancInsure contended that the policy covered only claims made before the receivership. The operation of the disputed provision became relevant in August 2008 when the Kansas State Bank Commissioner declared Columbian insolvent and appointed the FDIC as its receiver. Soon thereafter, Columbian’s management sent BancInsure a letter to notify it of potential claims by the FDIC and others. The parties disputed many of the claims against Columbian which led to Columbian filing suit to the district court to determine which claims were covered under the policy. The sole issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether the district court had jurisdiction. Though no party disputed jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit found that there was no actual controversy between the parties when the district court below rendered its judgment. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded to case with instructions to the court to vacate its judgment.

Plaintiffs Markyl Lee and Promises to Keep, LLC, failed to produce documents in response to a discovery request. They then proceeded to violate two judicial orders compelling production of those documents. After âpatiently affording the plaintiffs chance after chance,â the district court dismissed the case as a sanction against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that â[o]ur justice system has a strong preference for resolving cases on their merits whenever possible, but no one. . .should count on more than three chances to make good a discovery obligation.â The Court affirmed the lower courtâs dismissal of Plaintiffsâ case.