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

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on a written consumer contract for the sale of goods and whether it incorporated by reference a separate document entitled "Terms of Sale" which was available on the seller's website, but that the contract stated that it was "subject to" the seller's "Terms of Sale" but does not specifically reference the website? Finding no controlling precedent, the Tenth Circuit decided to certify the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. View "Walker, et al v. BuildDirect.com Technologie" on Justia Law

While serving a long sentence in state prison for a series of armed robberies, John Grant won a job as a kitchen worker. Grant was soon fired after he was caught fighting with another inmate. He came to bear a grudge against Gay Carter, his supervisor. One morning after breakfast, Grant lingered in the dining hall. Ms. Carter passed near him and he grabbed her, put a hand over her mouth, and dragged her into a small closet and stabbed Ms. Carter sixteen times. The State of Oklahoma charged Mr. Grant with first degree murder and sought the death penalty. The jury found Mr. Grant guilty, and he was later sentenced to death. After the state Supreme Court denied relief, Mr. Grant filed a habeas petition in federal court, but the district court denied relief. The district court issued Grant a certificate of appealability that allowed him to bring this case to the Tenth Circuit. Ultimately the Tenth Circuit agreed with the state courts and federal district court, and denied Grant's request for relief. View "Grant v. Trammel" on Justia Law

Qwest Corporation and Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. appealed a district court order granting partial summary judgment. After Richard Grosvenor filed a putative class action, Qwest moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court denied Qwest’s motion and scheduled a trial to determine whether the parties had reached an agreement to arbitrate. Both parties then moved for partial summary judgment. The district court granted both motions in a single order, concluding that the parties entered into an agreement, but that the agreement was illusory and unenforceable. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Qwest argued that the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the district court's order. Finding that in order to invoke appellate jurisdiction under the FAA, Qwest did not satisfy the Act's criteria by either explicitly moving to stay litigation and/or compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, or making it unmistakably clear from the four corners of the motion that the movant sought relief provided for in the FAA. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Qwest's appeal. View "Grosvenor v. Qwest Corporation, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit in state court, alleging that the defendants had conducted non-judicial foreclosure sales that did not comply with Utah law. After removal, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that whether federal law “incorporates Utah or Texas law, Recon[Trust] had not operated beyond the law by acting as a foreclosure trustee in Utah.” On the limited record presented on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in determining it had jurisdiction to hear this case. View "Dutcher, et al v. Matheson, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Robbie Naramor pled guilty to mailing a threatening communication to a state judge. With no plea agreement to consider, the district court varied upward from the sentencing range calculated under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and sentenced Defendant to 60 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum. Defendant appealed the sentence, arguing: (1) that the district court erred in using a prior state conviction to calculate his criminal-history category; (2) the court erred in permitting the government to withdraw a motion to award Defendant a reduction to his offense level for acceptance of responsibility; (3) his sentence was procedurally unreasonable; and (4) the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Naramor" on Justia Law

Med-Systems, Inc., sells its products under the federally registered trademark SinuCleanse and two similar marks. Water Pik, Inc., which traditionally sold oral irrigators and showerheads, registered the trademark SINUSENSE with the intention of selling sinus-irrigation devices under the brand name “SinuSense.” It sued Med-Systems seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of the SinuSense brand name did not infringe on any of Med-Systems’ marks. Med-Systems counterclaimed for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. Ruling that the SinuSense brand was not likely to cause consumer confusion, the district court awarded summary judgment to Water Pik on the counterclaims and dismissed Water Pik’s declaratory-judgment claim as moot. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Carmen Talavera suffered a stroke while visiting a store, incurring permanent disabilities that she attributed to the medical malpractice of personnel at the Southwest Medical Center (SWMC). Plaintiff brought claims against a number of the medical personnel defendants alleging that they should have diagnosed and immediately treated her stroke symptoms with blood-clotting therapy or proceeded with early surgical intervention to prevent damage caused by swelling in her brain. The district court granted summary judgment finding Plaintiff failed to demonstrate their negligence caused her injuries. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err. Plaintiff failed to: establish a dispute of fact that she would have qualified for blood-clotting therapy, or show that any doctor owed her a duty of care when this therapy was still a viable treatment option. View "Talavera v. Wiley, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Edwin Sanchez, Sr. appealed his conviction on one count of possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He received a 78-month sentence. Defendant argued: (1) there were factual errors in the search-warrant affidavit, thereby entitling him to suppression of the evidence obtained in the search; (2) the telephone records should not have been admitted as evidence because they were unfairly prejudicial; (3) the district court erred by denying him a sentencing adjustment; (4) the court’s finding that he gave perjured testimony during trial was not sufficiently independent of the jury’s verdict to support a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice; and (5) his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Finding that all of defendant's assignments of error lacked merit, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff David Brown appealed the dismissal of his action challenging his ban from using public transportation provided by the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority ("MTTA"). Brown claimed violations of his federal and state constitutional rights. Brown sued the MTTA over a series of events in 2007 in which he was alleged to have been disruptive, intoxicated behaved badly. Initially Brown brought suit in state court. That case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He then refiled the case with the federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the MTTA as well as defendants J.D. Eppler, Ray Willard, Jane Doe, and Janet Doe (collectively "employee defendants"). In so doing, the court concluded Brown did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in access to MTTA services. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal on Brown's procedural due process claim; the district court judgment was affirmed in all other respects, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Eppler, et al" on Justia Law

A Kansas State Trooper monitoring traffic along I-70 spotted a minivan driving with a temporary out-of-state license tag. He called the tag in to dispatch to check its validity. When the dispatcher returned a "negatory on record, not returning," the trooper stopped the minivan. After receiving permission to search the vehicle, the trooper found over a pound of methamphetamine in a secret compartment inside the passenger area. Defendant was arrested, tried and convicted on federal drug charges. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the drugs found in the van claiming the trooper lacked probable cause to stop him. The Tenth Circuit and other courts have regularly upheld traffic stops based on information that the defendant's vehicle's registration failed to appear in a law enforcement databases. But in this case, the database's reliability was called into question. When the trooper asked about the minivan's temporary tag, the dispatcher replied not only that the tag yielded a "no return" response from the queried database, adding that "Colorado [the out-of-state tag in question here] temp tags usually don't return." Without more than the database query, defendant argued the trooper lacked probable cause to stop him. The Tenth Circuit found that the district court failed to engage in an analysis of the evidence that was presented at trial that called the database into question. Accordingly, the Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. Esquivel-Rio" on Justia Law