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

Ernest McKenzie’s Canadian birth certificate listed the wrong birth date. Because he used that birth certificate to become a naturalized United States citizen, his United States Certificate of Naturalization also listed the wrong birth date. After he was naturalized, he got his birth certificate corrected; he tried to amend his naturalization certificate so that his paperwork listed the correct date. Relying on 8 C.F.R. 334.16(b) (2011) to establish the district court’s jurisdiction, he filed suit requesting that the district court order United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to issue a naturalization certificate with his correct date of birth. "The request seems fair and simple enough," but the Tenth Circuit could not help: "With limited exceptions not applicable here, Congress has withdrawn jurisdiction over naturalizations from the district courts. In addition, the district court lacked jurisdiction because Dr. McKenzie’s invocation of 334.16(b) is not a colorable claim." The Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).View "McKenzie v. US Citizenship & Immigration" on Justia Law

Amber Shaw coached Plaintiff Tori Varnell in several sports while she was a student in the Dora Consolidated School District. According to Plaintiff, Shaw sexually abused her for more than a year, ending while she was in the ninth grade, (sometime in late 2006 or early 2007). When Plaintiff was 20, she sued Shaw, Dora Schools, and Dora Schools Superintendent Steve Barron under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. On Defendants' motion, the district court granted summary judgment on the federal claims as untimely, denied a proposed amendment to the complaint as futile, and dismissed the state tort claims without prejudice. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Varnell v. Dora, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant JetAway Aviation, LLC sued Defendants-Appellees Board of County Commissioners of the County of Montrose, Colorado and the Montrose County Building Authority, and nongovernmental defendants Jet Center Partners, LLC, Black Canyon Jet Center, LLC, Kevin Egan, and James Rumble, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Sherman Act. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on JetAway’s antitrust claims on multiple bases, including that JetAway did not have antitrust standing to bring its claims. JetAway appealed that decision, and the Governmental Defendants cross-appealed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on state-action immunity grounds. Acting as a quorum, Judges Tymkovich and Holmes joined this opinion and affirmed the district court's judgment, specifically, because JetAway failed to establish an antitrust injury and, consequently, lacked antitrust standing to bring this action. However, the judges employed different reasoning in reaching this conclusion. Because the Tenth Circuit fully denied JetAway relief at the threshold on the basis of its failure to establish an antitrust injury, it did not reach the Governmental Defendants' cross-appeal regarding state-action immunity and dismissed the cross-appeal as moot. In addition, the Court addressed two pending procedural matters: a motion to seal and a motion to strike. JetAway filed an unopposed motion to seal numerous documents that were under seal in the district court. The Tenth Circuit's clerk's office provisionally granted that request pending the merits panel's final determination. The Court then denied the motion, finding that JetAway did not provide any basis for sealing the documents; instead, it merely stated that the documents were filed under seal. "[A] generalized allusion to confidential information is woefully inadequate to meet JetAway's 'heavy burden.'" View "JetAway v. Board of County Commissioners, et al" on Justia Law

A Kansas jury convicted David Fuller of willfully failing to pay more than $50,000 of past-due child support. Both after the government's case-in-chief and at the close of all evidence, Fuller moved for acquittal. The district court reserved ruling on the motions and then, several weeks after the verdict, issued a single order denying both. On appeal, argued the district court erred in denying his first motion: (1) that the court erred by relying on an unconstitutional statutory presumption of his "ability to pay" child support, and (2) that without the presumption the government's evidence was insufficient to prove that he “willfully” failed to pay. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did not rely on the presumption and that the government presented sufficient evidence that Fuller had willfully failed to pay his child-support obligation. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Fuller" on Justia Law

Rockwood Select Asset Fund XI (6)-1, LLC (a Utah company), received a loan application. In considering the request, Rockwood required the borrower to obtain an opinion letter from its New Hampshire law firm, Devine, Millimet & Branch. Devine provided the letter, which was picked up by someone and forwarded to Rockwood’s owner in Utah. Rockwood concluded that the opinion letter contained falsehoods and sued Devine in Utah federal court. The district court dismissed the suit based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Rockwood appealed. The issue before the Tenth Circuit centered on whether Devine had sufficient contacts with Utah to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Devine’s contacts with Utah were insufficient, and thus affirmed the district court's decision. View "Rockwood Select Asset Fund v. Devine, Millimet & Branch" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the Clean Air Act, which requires states to adopt programs that will reduce emission of air pollutants that affect visibility. The State of Utah submitted a revised plan to the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency partially rejected the plan, and the State and one of the affected companies (PacifiCorp) filed petitions for review. Though all parties agree that the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction over this case, the Court disagreed and dismissed their petitions. View "Utah v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

An election dispute arose about which individuals were properly elected or appointed to govern the Thlopthlocco people. The Tribal Town filed suit in the tribal court of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and, accordingly, voluntarily submitted to that court's jurisdiction. The Tribal Town subsequently concluded it did not want to maintain its suit in tribal court and dismissed its claims. But the defendant in that suit had, by that time, filed cross-claims. Arguing that the Tribal Town's sovereign immunity waiver did not cover proceedings on the cross-claims, the Tribal Town attempted to escape Muscogee court jurisdiction, but, in various decisions, several judges and justices of the Muscogee courts held that they may exercise jurisdiction over the Tribal Town without its consent. The Tribal Town then filed a federal action in the Northern District of Oklahoma against those Muscogee judicial officers, seeking to enjoin the Muscogee courts' exercise of jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case, finding that the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction, defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity, the Tribal Town had failed to join indispensable parties, and the Tribal Town had failed to exhaust its remedies in tribal court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded, however, that the Tribal Town presented a federal question and that the other claims do not require dismissal. But the Court agreed the Tribal Town should have exhausted its remedies in tribal court while its federal court action was abated. View "Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham, et al" on Justia Law

Legina and Todd Thomas, parents of M.T., a twelve-year-old girl at the time of the events at issue in this case, placed M.T. in the University of New Mexico Children's Psychiatric Center after she revealed suicidal tendencies during a police investigation of a potential sexual assault. Doctors diagnosed her as exhibiting several serious psychiatric problems and recommended a prescription of psychotropic drugs. The Thomases resisted the doctors' diagnoses and recommendations. M.T. was evaluated for several weeks until Mrs. Thomas decided to remove her from the hospital. Concerned about her safety, M.T.'s doctors and therapist placed M.T. on a medical hold and pursued an involuntary residential treatment petition in state court. After a seven-day hold, M.T. was released before the involuntary commitment proceedings began. The Thomases claimed the doctors and the hospital violated their constitutional right to direct M.T.'s medical care and their right to familial association when they placed a medical hold on M.T. and when they filed the petition for involuntary residential treatment in state court. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting absolute and qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion on qualified immunity grounds, and the Thomases appealed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the district court that the Thomases did not stated a claim for a violation of their right to direct M.T.'s medical care. But the Court held that the Thomases stated a claim for a violation of the right to familial association for the defendants' placing a medical hold on M.T. and seeking an order for involuntary residential treatment in state court. The Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Thomas, et al v. Kaven, et al" on Justia Law

The Robert L. Kroenlein Trust owned and operated J&B Liquors. In 2005, a salesman for one of J&B's beer distributors, Gary Kirchhefer, began stealing beer from J&B's account and reselling the stolen beer to other bars and liquor stores in Wyoming, including those owned by the defendants. One of the owners of J&B discovered Kirchhefer's theft in 2007, and Kirchhefer was eventually prosecuted and convicted of the crime. Seeking recovery of its losses, Kroenlein filed suit in 2011 against Kirchhefer, two of the bars to which he sold the stolen beer, and the owners of the bars. The suit asserted several claims alleging that the defendants had violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute. The defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including that Kroenlein's RICO claims were barred by RICO's four-year statute of limitations. The district court granted summary judgment on the grounds that all of Kroenlein's RICO claims were time-barred. In the alternative, the district court also found that the undisputed evidence could not support Kroenlein's RICO claims. The Tenth Circuit agreed that Kroenlein's RICO claims were time-barred and affirmed the district court's dismissal of its claims. View "Robert L. Kroenlein Trust, et al v. Kirchhefer, et al" on Justia Law

A group of employees filed class and collective actions against Tyson Foods, Inc., seeking unpaid wages for time spent on pre- and post-shift activities. After the employees obtained a sizeable verdict and fee award, Tyson unsuccessfully moved for judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, Tyson: (1) challenged the judgment and denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law; and (2) argued the fee award was excessive. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded, after review, that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of undercompensation and the district court acted within its discretion in setting the fee award. View "Garcia, et al v. Tyson Foods, et al" on Justia Law