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

In August 2007, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Larry Barnes, charging him with crimes relating to the possession and distribution of methamphetamine. After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Barnes on both counts, and he was sentenced to sixty-six months’ incarceration on each count, to run concurrently, as well as a lengthy period of supervised release. While Barnes’s direct appeal was pending, the government acquired evidence indicating that material testimony offered at trial by a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) special agent, an officer of the Tulsa Police Department, and a confidential informant had been fabricated. The government responded to the newly acquired evidence by asking the court to vacate Barnes’s conviction, to dismiss the indictment against him, and to release him from incarceration. In 2009, the district court entered an order directing the Bureau of Prisons to immediately release Mr. Barnes. Following his release, Barnes and his wife, Linda filed administrative tort claims with the BATF. About a year later, in 2011, the Barneses filed a civil lawsuit against the BATF in Oklahoma state court asserting various claims sounding in tort. The Barneses appealed the dismissal of their Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), based on its finding that the Barneses’ claims were time-barred under the six-month statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b). The Barneses argued on appeal that the district court misinterpreted the statute of limitations and further erred by failing to afford the Barneses the benefit of the doctrines of relation back, equitable tolling, and equitable estoppel. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Barnes v. United States" 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

Former mayoral appointee, Wayne McDonald, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Colorado state law after he was terminated from his position with the City of Denver based on a complaint by Officer Leslie Wise that he had sexually harassed her. He sued the Mayor of Denver, the Mayor’s press secretary, and the City and County of Denver for due process violations, breach of contract, and unlawful disclosure of confidential information under the Colorado Open Records Act. He sued Wise for defamation. The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). After review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. McDonald was an at-will employee serving at the pleasure of the Mayor and had no property interest in his continued employment, thus, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections were not therefore implicated when he was terminated, and the district court was correct in dismissing this claim. The district court concluded that McDonald failed to plead facts sufficient to satisfy "Workman’s" falsity prong: "[e]ven if the Mayor only stated that Mr. McDonald was fired because of allegations of serious misconduct, his termination of Mr. McDonald due to the allegations gives the false impression that Mr. McDonald did in fact commit serious misconduct. Mr. McDonald has been unable to find employment because of the media reports of his misconduct. Given that the statements here were made publically, Mr. McDonald has sufficiently pled a deprivation of his liberty interest." The Court found that that the unemployment compensation hearing McDonald received was not an adequate substitute for the process the City owed him: McDonald was able to explain himself at the unemployment compensation hearing, that fact alone did not establish it was a name-clearing hearing. McDonald pled sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that he was deprived of a liberty interest in his good name and reputation without due process when the City made public the fact that he was terminated for serious misconduct. Thus, the Mayor was not entitled to qualified immunity. The City is therefore liable if the Mayor deprived McDonald of his liberty interest without due process. There was a reasonable inference from Wise’s behavior following the alleged sexual harassment that she did not believe McDonald had sexually harassed her. An inference and alleged awareness of falsity, coupled with the fact that Wise made the statement to their employer, were sufficient to provide a reasonable inference that Wise acted with reckless disregard of the consequences of her conduct. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred when it held that Wise was immune from liability at this early stage of the proceedings and that McDonald failed to state a viable claim for defamation. The Court reversed the district court’s order dismissing the case against Wise and remanded for further proceedings. View "McDonald v. Wise" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Corrine Kovnat was injured while horseback riding in Yellowstone National Park. Kovnat filed a diversity action alleging negligence, as well as negligent training and supervision, on the part of defendant Xanterra Parks & Resorts (Xanterra), the provider of the horseback riding services. Approximately fifteen minutes into the ride, Kovnat looked down at her saddle and "the thing in the middle, the horn, . . . started to move." Kovnat "yelled out to the wrangler," but the saddle rolled "all the way over" to the left and ended up underneath the horse. Kovnat struck her back on the ground. An emergency medical assistance team employed by the National Park Service was summoned, initiated care, and placed Kovnat on a backboard. Kovnat was then carried to an awaiting ambulance and transported to a hospital in Montana, where she was diagnosed with a fracture to her L1, L2, and L3 transverse process. The district court, in granting Xanterra's motion for summary judgment, concluded that "[t]he inherent risk issue/question, in the light most favorable to [plaintiff], is whether a saddle slipping out of position because of uneven stirrups and/or an improperly secured cinch are inherent risks of horseback riding." Kovnat argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that both of these were inherent risks of horseback riding. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Xanterra with respect to the issue of the loose cinch, but that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the uneven stirrups. The evidence indicated that, during the course of the trail ride, Kovnat and her saddle rotated to the left side of her horse, the direction of the longer stirrup. Viewing the evidence in the district court record in the light most favorable to Kovnat, the Tenth Circuit concluded a jury could have reasonably drawn two alternate inferences from it. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kovnat v. Xanterra Parks and Resorts" on Justia Law

Chris Hogan lost his job with the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency("UTOPIA"). Claiming he was fired for revealing a conflict of interest in contract awards, he threatened to sue the agency for wrongful termination. Shortly after making this threat, he was subject to several unflattering media articles about his job performance and his termination dispute with the agency’s leaders. Several of the stories claimed his threats to sue the agency amounted to extortion or blackmail. One of the stories was written pseudonymously by Michael Winder, the mayor of West Valley City where UTOPIA did much of its business. Hogan sued UTOPIA, the mayor, the City, and a number of other people he believed were involved in the publication of the articles. He claimed the articles were defamatory, portrayed him in a false light, invaded his privacy, were an intentional infliction of emotional distress, a deprivation of his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and a civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. 1985. He also sued UTOPIA for First Amendment violations, breach of contract, wrongful termination, and other violations of state law in a separate lawsuit. The district court dismissed all of the claims, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: "because the articles' critical statements are explained by their context, we agree with the district court's conclusion that the articles were neither defamatory nor otherwise tortiously offensive. And we further agree that Hogan's federal law claims cannot go forward because he has insufficiently pleaded that the defendants' actions were exercises of their power under state law and that the defendants conspired to punish Hogan for bringing his claims to court." View "Hogan v. Winder, et al" on Justia Law

In 2009, Bancorp sought to conduct a secondary stock offering to raise about $90 million. In its securities filings the company alerted potential investors that it had significant investments in mortgage backed securities, and that these investments had suffered badly during the financial crisis of 2008. The company stated that it had conducted internal analyses and consulted independent experts and now expected the level of delinquencies and defaults to level off and the market for its securities to rebound soon. But the company also stressed that if adverse market conditions persisted longer than the company expected it would have to recognize further losses. Bancorp’s opinion about the immediate future didn’t bear out. In the fifteen months after the offering, the company had to recognize about $69 million more in losses. Plaintiffs alleged in their lawsuit against Bancorp that the statements rendered in the offering statement about the prospects for its securities portfolio was false and should have given rise to liability under section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The district court disagreed, holding that Bancorp’s failed market predictions, without more, weren’t enough to trigger liability. "To establish liability for an opinion about the future more is required. But what?" Agreeing with the district court, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.View "MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, et al v. Sandler O'Neill & Partners, et al" on Justia Law

Tyrone Clark and his company, Brokers' Choice of America, sued NBC Universal, Inc. and some of its employees after it aired a "Dateline" segment titled "Tricks of the Trade." The aired segment featured snippets of Clark taken from one of his two-day seminars for insurance brokers on BCA’s property in Colorado. The crew surreptitiously filmed the seminar. Using select words from the two-day seminar, the aired program depicted Clark as one who teaches insurance agents how to employ misrepresentations and other questionable tactics in order to dupe senior citizens into purchasing inappropriate annuity products. BCA's complaint alleged several state-law claims: defamation, trespass, fraud, and intrusion. It also alleged three violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, a Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure violation and two Fourteenth Amendment violations, invasion of privacy and stigmatization. Dateline moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Applying the Colorado Shield Law, specifically the Colorado's newsperson's privilege, the magistrate judge stayed discovery. The district court later granted the motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint. BCA's amended complaint raised only the defamation claim and the 1983 claims, both of which were ultimately dismissed too. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings: the Court affirmed the dismissal of BCA's Fourth Amendment and 1983 privacy and stigmatization claims. The Court reversed the dismissal of the defamation claim. View "Broker's Choice of America, et al v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Maria Gallardo and her child, who was born with cerebral palsy, filed suit against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiffs claimed that the performance of Ms. Gallardo's attending obstetrician, Dr. Jeffery McCutcheon, fell below the applicable standard of care during the labor and delivery of the child. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the United States. On appeal, plaintiffs asserted seven separate challenges to the district court's order finding in favor of the government. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that all seven challenges lacked merit. And, for that reason, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the United States. View "Gallardo v. United States of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Higby Crane Service, LLC (Higby) entered into a Contract with Defendant DCP Midstream, LP that covered crane work to be done at the gas processing plant of DCP's wholly owned subsidiary National Helium, LLC (collectively, "DCP"). A fire negligently started by DCP damaged Higby's crane. The other Plaintiff, National Interstate Insurance Co. had issued Higby a commercial inland marine (CIM) policy covering direct physical loss to certain property. National paid Higby under the policy, and Plaintiffs then sued DCP for the loss. DCP counterclaimed that Higby had breached the contract by failing to obtain a commercial general liability (CGL) policy that would have indemnified DCP for its negligence and therefore Higby should bear the loss from the damage to the crane. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs, and DCP appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the required CGL policy would have protected DCP from liability. View "National Interstate Insurance, et al v. National Helium, et al" on Justia Law

Mid-Continent Casualty Company brought a declaratory judgment action to settle an issue with its commercial commercial general liability (CGL) policy issued to Pennant Service Company. In 2001, True Oil Company, an owner and operator of oil and gas wells, entered into a master service contract (MSC) with Pennant for work on a well in Wyoming. The MSC included a provision whereby Pennant agreed to indemnify True Oil resulting from either Pennant or True Oil's negligence. In July 2001, Christopher Van Norman, a Pennant employee, was injured in an accident at True Oil's well. Van Norman sued True Oil in Wyoming state court for negligence. In accordance with the MSC's indemnity provision, counsel for True Oil wrote to Pennant requesting indemnification for its defense costs, attorney fees, and any award that Van Norman might recover against it. Mid-Continent refused to defend or indemnify True Oil based on Wyoming's Anti-Indemnity Statute, which invalidates agreements related to oil or gas wells that "indemnify the indemnitee against loss or liability for damages for . . . bodily injury to persons." In May 2002, True Oil brought a federal action against Mid-Continent for declaratory relief, breach of contract (CGL policy), and other related claims. In February 2005, the district court granted Mid-Continent summary judgment, determining that the MSC's indemnity provision, when invoked with respect to claims of the indemnitee's own negligence was unenforceable as a matter of public policy. The court held that Mid-Continent was not required to defend or indemnify True Oil in the underlying suit as it then existed because "where an indemnification provision in a MSC is void and unenforceable, the insurer never actually assumed any of the indemnitee's liabilities under the policy." The district court granted summary judgment to True Oil, determining Mid-Continent breached its duty to defend and indemnify True Oil. As damages, the court awarded True Oil the amount it paid to settle the underlying suit and the attorney fees and costs incurred in defending itself. Mid-Continent appealed the district court's judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Mid-Continent v. True Oil Company" on Justia Law