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

In 2001, a company calling itself âComputer Geeks, a California corporation,â sued Plaintiff Jason Wright in Utah state court for failing to assign a domain name. Mr. Wright did not respond to the companyâs motion for summary judgment, and in 2006, the state court granted the motion and entered judgment against him. Mr. Wright hired Appellant-Attorney Russell Cline to have the judgment set aside or modified. In 2008, Appellant filed a motion to set the judgment aside. As it turns out, âComputer Geeks, a California corporationâ is not related to the company that held the Utah state judgment. Appellant was made aware of the mistaken identity soon after Appellant served âComputer Geeks, a California corporation.â Appellant represented to the clerk of the district court that he had properly served âComputer Geeks, a California corporation.â The clerk entered a default, and Appellant moved for a default judgment. Within a few weeks, Defendant CompGeeks.com moved to vacate the default judgment. At the hearing, Appellant acknowledged he knew the difference between the two companies, but that he served the correct holder of the Utah judgment. The district court found that Appellant had filed a frivolous action in violation of state law, and dismissed the case. The court referred Appellant to the state attorney disciplinary committee, and awarded attorneyâs fees to CompGeeks.com, making Mr. Wright and Appellant jointly and severally liable for the award. Appellant moved to vacate the award of attorneyâs fees, alleging the district court abused its discretion in its decision. On review, the Tenth Circuit âsympathize[d] with the district courtâs frustration with [Appellantâs] conduct,â but held that â Rule 11 does not allow a sua sponte award of attorney fees.â Accordingly the monetary sanctions order was vacated, and the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

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.

This appeal asks whether the bankruptcy court correctly determined that an operating agreement between the Debtor C.W. Mining Company (CWM) and Appellant C.O.P. Coal Development Company (COP) was property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate, and could therefore be sold off by the trustee. Appellant claims that the agreement automatically terminated shortly after the bankruptcy petition was filed, and that the bankruptcy court erred in including it. The terms of the operating agreement provided that it should cancel should CWM default on its payments to COP before the close of business on January 8, 2008. On that day, at 3:36PM, an involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed against CWM in bankruptcy court. CWM argued to the bankruptcy court that the operating agreement automatically terminated with the filing of the bankruptcy petition, but the court disagreed. The trustee assumed the operating agreement and sold mine assets. This Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the operating agreement did not automatically terminate, and could be sold by the bankruptcy trustee.

The Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant David Gerasâ contract claim for unpaid commissions and severance against his former employer International Business Machines (IBM). IBM canceled its sales incentive plan under which Geras maintained he accrued sales commissions worth over $100,000. The Court held that under Colorado law, the planâs incentive letter contained an effective disclaimer, and did not manifest an intent to be bound by the terms of its plan.