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

The issue central to this case stemmed from a contract dispute between two landowners and the City of Casper Wyoming as to whether the landowners were obligated to reimburse the City for certain street improvements. When the landowners did not comply with the City's demand for payment, the City recorded deficiency notices in the local property records on their lots. The landowners sued the City, claiming the notices violated their rights to due process and equal protection. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the ground that the landowners had not shown the existence of a protected property interest and that the deficiency notices did not constitute a deprivation of any right. Upon review by the Tenth Circuit, the Court concluded that the landowners demonstrated a disputed issue of fact as to whether the City harmed their property interests. The Court remanded the case for consideration of whether that deprivation violated the Due Process Clause. However, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the equal protection claim.

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered around the right to provide water service to certain customers in and around Guthrie, Oklahoma. Plaintiff-Appellee Rural Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Management District No. 1 claimed that its right to serve these customers was grounded in state law and protected from competition from encroaching water districts by federal statute. Plaintiff contended that Defendant-Appellants City of Guthrie and the Guthrie Public Works Authority violated the federal law by extending water service to customers located within its designated service area. The Court consolidated several challenges to multiple district court orders in this matter. In sum, the Court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings with respect to what the federal law requires in terms of water service, and for findings on the degree to which Plaintiff was compliant in terms of its service to the City.

Plaintiff Rosemary Kilinski sought social security benefits in 1999. The Commissioner determined that she was disabled as of October 2003. In this case, Plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment that upheld the Commissioner's determination that her disability onset date was in 2003 rather than 1999. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the Administrative Law Judge erred in assessing Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

The issue central to this appeal involves the Northern San Juan Basin Coal Bed Methane project (Project) which was approved by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Project contemplates the construction of numerous gas wells within the San Juan National Forest and on other federal lands. San Juan Citizens Alliance (SJCA) and four other environmental advocacy groups filed suit in district court in Colorado for alleged violations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The suit contends that the 2007 record of decision approving the Project was unlawful. Several companies holding valid leases in the area and interested in drilling for gas were permitted to intervene. The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. SJCA argued on appeal that the Project violated the NFMA because it is inconsistent with provisions of the San Juan National Forest Plan protecting old-growth ponderosa pine forests, wildlife habitat and riparian areas. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit vacated a portion of the district court judgment pertaining to the NFMA claims that challenged approval of the Project. The Court dismissed those claims without prejudice. Additionally, the Court affirmed the district court's order regarding the NEPA. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

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 Donna Butterick appealed a district court order that affirmed the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed reversible error in denying her application because he failed to follow the Commission's own procedure in examining and admitting testimony of the medical expert that testified at her hearing. Upon review of the hearing record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the alleged procedural errors at Plaintiff's hearing were "harmless." Because Plaintiff failed to show any prejudice, the Court affirmed the ALJ's decision to deny Plaintiff disability benefits.

Defendant Catherine Senninger was convicted on six counts of mail fraud and one count of making a false claim against the Government. She was acquitted on several other counts, including conspiracy and additional mail fraud counts. At trial, the Government presented evidence that Defendant, through her involvement with Olympia Financial and Tax Services, participated in a scheme to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and the Colorado Department of Revenue by preparing false tax returns. Defendant was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment, which was an upward departure from the advisory guidelines range. Defendant challenged her sentence and subsequent restitution order. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the district court "properly rejected" Defendant's arguments. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Plaintiff Melissa Qualls appealed a district Court's order that affirmed the Social Security Administration's decision to deny her application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff alleged she became disabled in 2004. Her "date last insured" was December 31, 2008, "thus she had the burden of proving that she was totally disabled on that date or before." Though Plaintiff suffered from multiple sclerosis, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that she was not disabled because "she could make a successful adjustment to other light and sedentary work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy." On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to perform a proper credibility determination prior to rendering his judgment. Upon review of the Administration's record, the Tenth Circuit found that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the the law was properly applied. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision to deny Plaintiff further insurance benefits.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with establishing national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for various air pollutants. In this case, the Tenth Circuit consolidated several petitions that challenged the EPA's inclusion of portions of Box Elder County, Utah in a "nonattainment" area to the NAAQS for fine particulate matter. The EPA moved to dismiss the petitions or to transfer the petitions to the DC Circuit Court, arguing that the Clean Air Act's judicial review provision designated the DC Circuit as the proper forum. Upon review of the briefs submitted in this matter and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit transferred the petitions to the DC Circuit Court.

The issues central to this case are whether donning doffing poultry processing workers’ personal protective equipment is "changing clothes" under 29 U.S.C. 204 and whether a turkey processing plant is a “food and beverage industry” under Colorado law. Plaintiffs/Appellants Clara Salazar and Juanita Ybarra brought suit on behalf of hourly production employees at Defendant/Appellee Butterball, LLC’s Colorado turkey processing plant. Plaintiffs claimed that Butterball’s failure to compensate them for the time spent changing in and out of their personal protective equipment violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order. The district court entered summary judgment in Butterball’s favor, holding that the donning and doffing time was excluded and that the Colorado Wage Order did not apply to Butterball. Upon consideration of the submitted briefs and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Court found that donning and doffing time is not "hours worked" as defined by FLSA. Furthermore, Butterball is a reseller, and the Colorado regulation applied only to employers "that sell food directly to the consuming public." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s decisions.