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

Plaintiff-Appellant Farrell-Cooper Mining Company and Defendant-Appellant Oklahoma Department of Mines appealed a district court's dismissal of their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Interior; the Secretary of the Interior; the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement; and the Director of OSMRE. A dispute arose over reclamation requirements contained in surface coal mine permits for Farrell-Cooper's Liberty Mine #5 and Liberty Mine #6. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal as unripe. View "Farrell-Cooper Mining Company v. US Department of the Interior, et al" on Justia Law

The issue before the Court in this matter concerned interpretation of an errors-and-omissions policy. The policy excluded coverage for claims "arising out of" bankruptcy or insolvency. The dispute grew from a stop-loss policy issued by United Re to a company that had hired Plaintiff-Appellee C.L. Frates as a broker. After the policy was issued, United filed for bankruptcy protection. When Frates learned of the bankruptcy, it learned that United had been sued in Ohio, and filed for bankruptcy to stall the litigation. Ultimately, Frates recommended to its client that it move the stop-loss insurance to another insurer. The client agreed. However, Frates had to reimburse the client for what it lost through higher deductibles. Frates then sued Westchester Fire Insurance Company under its errors-and-omissions policy. In cross-motions for summary judgment, Westchester contended that Frates's claim "arose out of" United's bankruptcy or insolvency. Frates contended that the claim "arose out of" United's deception. The district court agreed with Frates and granted its motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court. It held that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that Frates's claim arose out of United's bankruptcy or insolvency. Accordingly the Court reversed the award of summary judgment to Frates. View "CL Frates v. Westchester Fire" on Justia Law

The Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting as receiver of the New Frontier Bank, used proceeds from the sale of cattle belonging to a limited liability company (LLC) to pay down a loan of one of the two LLC members. According to the complaint, the FDIC had no authority to do so because the payment was contrary to the members' agreement. Ignoring the separate entity status of an LLC, the other LLC member brought suit in its own name against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for what it claimed to be the FDIC's wrongful disbursement of the proceeds. The LLC sued the government under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. The district judge dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. The Tenth Circuit agreed dismissal was appropriate, the Appellate Court concluded dismissal should have been for lack of jurisdiction as to the member's claims and as to the LLC's claim because the United States Court of Federal Claims had exclusive jurisdiction. View "ECCO Plains, LLC., et al v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant David Glen Heard pled guilty to two counts under Oklahoma’s lewd molestation statute. In pleading guilty, defendant admitted that he positioned himself in a Tulsa Wal-Mart store so as to be able to "look under [children's] clothes at [their] bod[ies] and at [their] undergarments." Pursuant to the plea agreement, the prosecutor recommended that defendant receive concurrent twenty-five- year prison terms. Soon after he was sentenced, defendant discovered an unpublished case out of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), which cast doubt upon whether defendant's conduct fell within the ambit of the statute. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with defendant that his attorney provided ineffective assistance in failing to advise him of viable defenses to the charges against him, and the record was clear that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, defendant would not have pled guilty to these offenses. The Court reversed the district court’s denial of defendant's habeas petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Heard v. Addison" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Bruce Mabry was arrested for a parole violation. During the arrest, officers found a sawed-off shotgun and subsequently charged defendant with its possession. He moved to suppress the evidence of the weapon on the basis that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search. The district court denied defendant's motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that defendant violated his parole. The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant's motion to suppress on the basis that it was a valid search under the totality of the circumstances. View "United States v. Mabry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Anthony Brooks was convicted of armed bank robbery. He appealed his conviction, arguing: (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient; (2) the district court erred by admitting DNA evidence linking him to the crime scene; (3) the district court abused its discretion when it refused to strike testimony of the government’s expert witness; (4) the district court abused its discretion by allowing the government to introduce evidence that Brooks possessed large amounts of cash several months following the robbery; and (5) the district court abused its discretion by denying Brooks’s motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Susan and Steven Schrock filed suit against manufacturers of the drug metoclopramide, alleging that Susan's use of the generic drug caused her to develop tardive dyskinesia. In a series of orders, the district court dismissed all claims in favor of the manufacturer. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the dismissal of their claims against PLIVA USA, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Schwarz Pharma, Inc., and Wyeth, Inc. The Tenth Circuit abated this appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in "Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett" (133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013)). In light of "Bartlett," the Tenth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' breach-of-warranty claims against PLIVA and Qualitest were preempted by federal law. The Court also agreed with the district court that plaintiffs' non-warranty claims against the generic manufacturers were barred by Oklahoma’s two year statute of limitations. With respect to the plaintiffs' claims against Schwarz and Wyeth, the Court agreed with the district court’s determination that Oklahoma tort law would not provide a remedy. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs' notice of appeal was untimely as to certain orders they sought to appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Schrock, et al v. Wyeth Inc., et al" on Justia Law

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) placed two credit unions, U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Federal Credit Union (WesCorp), into conservatorship. Then, as liquidating agent, NCUA sued 11 defendants on behalf of U.S. Central, alleging federal and state securities violations.In a separate matter, NCUA sued one defendant on behalf of U.S. Central and WesCorp, alleging similar federal and state securities violations. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas consolidated the cases. All defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that NCUA’s claims were time-barred. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the "Extender Statute" applied to NCUA’s claims. Defendants moved for an interlocutory appeal for the Tenth Circuit to determine whether the Extender Statute applied to NCUA's claims. Finding that it did, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "National Credit Union Admin. v. Nomura Home Equity Loan, et al" on Justia Law

The government sued Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellant James Holmes to collect taxes owned on his now-defunct business, Colorado Gas Compression, Inc. The district court granted final judgment in favor of the government. Defendant appealed that judgment. The government cross-appealed the district court's decision regarding the date from which prejudgment interest would be awarded. Colorado Gas made a series of distributions to defendant from 1995 to 2002 as part of its winding-down process. The government brought suit in 2008 on state counts of fraudulent conveyances, unlawful distributions and as an owner of the company who received its assets. Defendant argued the government was estopped from bringing suit under the applicable state statute of limitations because the government's suit was based on state law. The government countered by arguing its claims were subject to a ten-year federal statute of limitations. Upon careful consideration, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in ruling in favor of the government. The Court further concluded that the government did not properly preserve the issue of prejudgment interest for appeal, and declined to consider it. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Ramiro Avila was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. After the district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, he entered an unconditional guilty plea to the charge. Defendant contended that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was induced by the district court’s statement that he would "still have a right to an appeal" if the court accepted his plea. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that when a court chooses to instruct a defendant that he has a right to appeal following the entry of an unconditional guilty plea, the court materially misinforms the defendant regarding the consequences of his plea when it fails further to advise him that the plea may limit that right. Under such circumstances, if the court tells defendant without qualification that he has a right to appeal, a defendant’s plea is not knowing and voluntary. View "United States v. Avila" on Justia Law