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

For a second time, Dustin Eastom attempted to appeal a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the City of Tulsa and Jeffrey Henderson, a Tulsa police officer. Eastom attempted to appeal the same order in 2014, but the Tenth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit again dismissed Eastom’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s order was still not final. View "Eastom v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law

Multiple plaintiffs, including ConAgra Foods, Inc. and Swift-Eckrich, Inc., brought suit in Kansas state court against Americold Logistics, LLC and Americold Realty Trust (the “Americold entities”). The Americold entities removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. As the basis for removal, the Americold entities asserted the parties were completely diverse. No party challenged the propriety of removal; the district court did not address the issue. The merits of the suit were submitted to the district court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Americold entities. ConAgra and Swift-Eckrich appealed. After the parties filed their merits briefs, the Tenth Circuit noted a potential jurisdiction defect in the notice of removal. The issue this case presented was how the citizenship of a trust is determined: by exclusive reference to the citizenship of its trustees? The Tenth Circuit held that citizenship of a trust, just like the citizenship of all other artificial entities except corporations, is determined by examining the citizenship “of all the entity’s members.” That being the case here, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit underlying this appeal. The Tenth Circuit remanded the matter to the district court to vacate its judgment on the merits and remand the matter to state court. View "Conagra Foods v. Americold Logistics" on Justia Law

The Miss Dixie was a cargo line boat operated by defendant-appellant Jantran, Inc., a company involved in maritime transportation on the Verdigris River in Oklahoma. The Miss Dixie struck and extensively damaged a lock maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. After repairing the lock, the Corps sued Jantran for the costs of repair. The district court dismissed the Corps' suit, concluding that federal law did not allow the Corps to seek in personam damages directly from the owners of a vessel that damages a structure on navigable waters. As the court found, the applicable statute, the Rivers and Harbors Act, only allowed in rem claims against the vessel that caused the damage. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Act did not authorize in personam actions against the owners of the vessel. The Act only allowed the Corps to proceed in rem against the vessel itself. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's ruling. View "United States v. Jantran" on Justia Law

This appeal centered on an environmental challenge to a federal agency's decision to grant inspection services for the slaughter and processing of horses and other equines at three slaughterhouses. The district court affirmed the agency's grants of inspection. Plaintiffs, various organizations and individuals opposed to horse slaughter, appealed. One slaughterhouse subsequently withdrew its application for inspection; a second slaughterhouse surrendered its grant of equine inspection in order to obtain a grant of inspection for cattle slaughter, and the third slaughterhouse failed to successfully challenge a state permitting decision to allow only non-equine slaughter at the facility. Moreover, the Tenth Circuit found that the then-current congressional appropriations act prohibited funding for equine slaughter inspections. The Tenth Circuit therefore dismissed this appeal and vacated the district court's decision for mootness. View "Front Range Equine v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Intervenor-Appellant, the Committee to Elect Pete Dinelli Mayor appealed a district court's ruling that a provision of the Albuquerque City Charter limiting campaign contributions was unconstitutional. The original defendants chose not to appeal. The Committee, an intervenor whose interests were aligned with the original defendants, filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, Giant Cab Company moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Committee lacked standing because it did not have a direct stake in the outcome of the appeal. The Committee argued it had the right to enforce the limitation on campaign contributions, giving it a personal stake in the outcome. The Tenth Circuit, after review, concluded that the citizen-complaint provision of the Albuquerque Election Code did not give the Committee a personal stake in the litigation. Accordingly, the Court granted Giant Cab's motion and dismissed the appeal. View "Greenbaum v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on a dispute over insurance coverage following a private airplane crash. Garmin International, Inc., purchased an insurance policy from Appellees (the insurance companies). In 2008, while the insurance policy was in effect, Appellant Henry Bartle, an individual who had some dealings with Garmin, crashed while piloting his malfunctioning personal aircraft, injuring himself and his passengers. Bartle sought coverage under Garmin’s insurance policy for indemnification from claims brought against Bartle by his injured passengers. Appellees, the insurers, brought suit federal district court seeking a declaration under the Declaratory Judgment Act that Bartle did not qualify as an "Insured" under Garmin’s policy. Bartle submitted evidence to the district court to demonstrate he was indeed an "Insured," but the district court refused to consider much of the evidence because the evidence failed to conform to district court rules regarding proper citation. Without considering this evidence, the district court granted summary judgment to the insurers, finding that Bartle was not an "Insured" under the policy. Bartle appealed both the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurers and its refusal to consider the excluded evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: "[t]he district court concluded, and Mr. Bartle acknowledged, that the exhibits submitted could not be feasibly used by the district court without great difficulty. The district court cannot be expected to review evidence, evaluate arguments, or arrive at reasoned conclusions without usable citations. In this case the merits cannot be separated from the process, and ultimately Mr. Bartle bore the responsibility to present evidence that would allow a rational trier of fact to find in his favor." View "Certain Underwriters v. Bartle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant National Credit Union Administration Board ("NCUA") appealed the district court's order dismissing as untimely its complaint against defendants-appellees Barclays Capital Inc., BCAP LLC, and Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC. This case arose from the failure of two of the nation's largest federally insured credit unions: U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Federal Credit Union. The NCUA was appointed conservator and later as their liquidating agent. The NCUA determined that the Credit Unions had failed because they had invested in residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") sold with offering documents that misrepresented the quality of their underlying mortgage loans. The NCUA set out to pursue recoveries on behalf of the Credit Unions from the issuers and underwriters of the suspect RMBS, including Barclays, and began settlement negotiations with Barclays and other potential defendants. As these negotiations dragged on through 2011 and 2012, the NCUA and Barclays entered into a series of tolling agreements that purported to exclude all time that passed during the settlement negotiations when "calculating any statute of limitations, period of repose or any defense related to those periods or dates that might be applicable to any Potential Claim that the NCUA may have against Barclays." Significantly, Barclays also expressly made a separate promise in the tolling agreements that it would not "argue or assert" in any future litigation a statute of limitations defense that included the time passed in the settlement negotiations. After negotiations with Barclays broke down, the NCUA filed suit, more than five years after the RMBS were sold, and more than three years after the NCUA was appointed conservator of the Credit Unions. Barclays moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on several grounds, including untimeliness. Barclays initially honored the tolling agreements but argued that the NCUA's federal claims were nevertheless untimely under the Securities Act's three-year statute of repose, which was not waivable. While Barclays's motion to dismiss was pending, the district court in a separate case involving different defendant Credit Suisse, granted Credit Suisse's motion to dismiss a similar NCUA complaint on the grounds that contractual tolling was not authorized under the Extender Statute. Barclays amended its motion to dismiss asserting a similar Extender Statute argument. The district court dismissed the NCUA's complaint, incorporating by reference its opinion in Credit Suisse. The NCUA appealed, arguing that its suit was timely under the Extender Statute. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded: "while it is true that the NCUA's claims are outside the statutory period and therefore untimely, that argument is unavailable to Barclays because the NCUA reasonably relied on Barclays's express promise not to assert that defense." View "National Credit Union v. Barclays Capital" on Justia Law

The widow of Sherman Shatwell sued her husband's medical care providers for negligence after a missed diagnosis. Shatwell complained of neck pain, and was sent home with antibiotics. By the time he learned the pain was caused by cancer, it was too late to treat it. Two weeks before trial, some of the medical providers settled out of court. Dr. Kenneth Phillips remained a party to the case. Days before jury selection, Phillips sought permission from the court to amend the pretrial order so he could amend his trial strategy, including adding new jury instructions, exhibits, and witnesses to support his new defense. The district court denied the motion, and the doctor was ultimately found liable for damages totaling over $1 million. On appeal Phillips argued the district court erred by not allowing him to amend the pretrial order. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Monfore v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Multiple plaintiffs, including ConAgra Foods, Inc. and Swift-Eckrich, Inc., brought suit in Kansas state court against Americold Logistics, LLC and Americold Realty Trust (the "Americold entities"). The Americold entities removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. As grounds for removal, the Americold entities argued the parties were completely diverse. No party challenged the propriety of removal; the district court did not address the issue. The merits of the suit were submitted to the district court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Americold entities. ConAgra and Swift-Eckrich then appealed. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Americold entities to file a supplemental brief addressing whether the citizenship of a trust was determined by exclusive reference to the citizenship of its trustees? According to "Carden v. Arkoma Associates," (494 U.S. 185 (1990)), the answer to this question was "no:" the citizenship of a trust, just like the citizenship of all other artificial entities except corporations, is determined by examining the citizenship "of all the entity's members." That being the case, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit underlying this appeal. The case was remanded back to the district court for vacation of its judgment on the merits and for remand of the matter to state court. View "Conagra Foods v. Americold Logistics" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kathryn Kipling sued State Farm Automobile Insurance Company in Colorado federal district court for breach of contract because it did not pay her benefits under four insurance policies issued in Minnesota. The court determined that she would be entitled to benefits under Colorado law but not under Minnesota law. It then applied tort conflict-of-laws principles to rule that Colorado law governed. After its review, the Tenth Circuit held that the court erred by not applying contract conflict-of-laws principles. The district court was reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration. View "Kipling v. State Farm Mutual Automobile" on Justia Law