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

Lead Plaintiff William Poppo filed a class action complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased Level 3 securities between October 2006 and October 2007. Plaintiff brought suit under the under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under state securities law. Plaintiff also asserted claims against individual defendants as "control persons" pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Act. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and Plaintiff appealed. "The fundamental weakness in plaintiff’s complaint is that he [gave the Tenth Circuit] a great volume of puzzle pieces that, despite [the Court's] best efforts, [the Court could not] fit together." The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint. View "In re: Level 3 Communication" on Justia Law

After Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) brought a foreclosure action against the home owned by Appellants Mark and Jamileh Miller and obtained an Order Authorizing Sale (OAS) from a Colorado court, the Millers filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Upon the filing of their petition, an automatic stay entered, halting the foreclosure proceedings. Deutsche Bank obtained an order from the bankruptcy court relieving it from the stay to permit the foreclosure to continue. The Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order granting Deutsche Bank relief from the automatic stay. The Millers appealed the BAP’s order affirming relief from stay. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether Deutsche Bank established that it was a "party in interest" entitled to seek and obtain relief from the stay. Because the Court concluded that Deutsche Bank did not meet its burden of proof on this issue, the Court reversed the BAP’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Miller, et al v. Deutshce Bank National Trust" on Justia Law

Appellant Rick Strandlof was charged under the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. 704(b)) which makes it illegal to falsely claim to have received a military award or honor. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Act is constitutional. Despite never having served in the armed forces, Appellant founded the Colorado Veterans Alliance, and frequently told veterans he graduated from the United States Naval Academy, was a former U.S. Marine Corps Captain, and had been wounded in combat in Iraq. He bragged of receiving a Purple Heart, and he boasted that he had been awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in battle. A number of local veterans found Appellant to be an unconvincing imposter. Angered by Appellant's lies, they contacted the FBI and reported their suspicion that Appellant was a phony. After military officials confirmed Appellant never attended the Naval Academy or served in the military, the government filed a criminal complaint in the District of Colorado charging him with making false claims about receipt of military decorations or medals, in violation of the Act. Reasoning that false statements are generally protected by the First Amendment, the district court declared the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against Appellant. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with that reading of Supreme Court precedent and reversed: "[a]s the Supreme Court has observed time and again, false statements of fact do not enjoy constitutional protection, except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech. Under this principle, the Stolen Valor Act does not impinge on or chill protected speech, and therefore does not offend the First Amendment." View "United States v. Strandlof" on Justia Law

Azhar Said on behalf of Plaintiff-Appellant Abbasid, Inc. sued the Los Alamos National Bank and First National Bank of Santa Fe for negligence in paying and accepting checks intended for the business but that his now ex-wife Bina Shahani had deposited in her cousin's account for personal use. The case was removed from Texas state to federal court, then removed to the U.S. District Court for the district of New Mexico. The district court dismissed the negligence claim on the grounds that the Bank owed no duty of care to Abbasid and that the claim and was preempted by statute which imposed strict liability. After trial, the jury returned a special verdict that the Bank did not convert any of Abbasid's checks. Abbasid timely filed a motion for a new trial which was denied. Among the issues Abbasid raised on appeal: (1) the district court improperly denied its motion for new trial claiming that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and (2) the court improperly excluded evidence of the Bank’s check-handling policies. Finding that most of Abbasid's claims of error were not properly preserved or that any error was mooted by the verdict, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in the case. View "Abbasid, Inc. v. First Natl. Bank of Santa Fe" on Justia Law

Former New Mexico state treasurer Defendant-Appellee Robert Vigil and his former deputy, co-Defendant Ann Marie Gallegos allegedly hatched a plan to find work for his political rival's wife so that the rival couldn't challenge him in the next election. According to the complaint, Defendants solicited bids for a state contract and insisted that any interested contractor hire Samantha Sais (the wife) on any terms she wished. Plaintiff SECSYS agreed to the plan in principle, but ultimately could not come to terms with Ms. Sais. When negotiations broke down, Defendants allegedly chose another contractor who agreed to Ms. Sais' terms. Mr. Vigil was ultimately indicted, convicted, and sentenced to prison for his role in this scheme. Plaintiff sought damages from Mr. Vigil and Ms. Gallegos in their individual capacities for violating its Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection for discriminating against the company when it refused to acquiesce to Ms. Sais' demands: "So that leaves SECSYS with the remarkable argument that it was discriminated against in violation of the federal Constitution not because it was unwilling to pay, but because it was willing to pay only some of an allegedly extortionate demand." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no evidence that Defendants enforced Ms. Sais' demands with the purpose of discriminating against those who failed to meet them: "every indication in the record before [the Court] suggest[ed] the defendants would have been just as happy if SECSYS had met its full demand as it was when another bidder eventually did so." The Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants. View "SECSYS, LLC v. Vigil" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Miguel Games-Perez was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon. Claiming that he was unaware that he was actually a felon, he filed a motion in limine, seeking a pre-trial ruling that the government was required to prove that he actually knew he was a felon. When that motion was denied, Defendant filed a motion to enter a conditional guilty plea, asking to reserve the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion in limine. The district court granted Defendant's motion, pursuant to which he entered his conditional guilty plea. The district court sentenced him to fifty-seven months' imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that his case was distinguishable from established case law that held scienter was not required to be convicted of possession as a convicted felon. Upon review of Defendant's criminal history and his then-current probation, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendant had a constructive knowledge of having been a felon: "it was pellucidly clear to him that he could not violate his probation, by possessing a firearm, and escape the consequences of his felony conviction. Thus, Mr. Games-Perez knew, as a matter of fact, that he was losing the benefit of his bargain when he picked up a gun while on probation. He just did not know the legal consequences of it–up to ten years in federal prison." The Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Games-Perez" on Justia Law

This was a case of first impression for the Court. John Doe, a registered sex offender, brought a facial challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to a ban enacted by the City of Albuquerque that prohibited registered sex offenders from entering the City's public libraries. The district court denied a motion to dismiss brought by the City and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Doe. The court concluded that the ban burdened Doe's fundamental right to receive information under the First Amendment and that the City failed sufficiently to controvert Doe's contention on summary judgment that the ban did not satisfy the time, place, or manner test applicable to restrictions in a designated public forum. The City appealed both the denial of its motion to dismiss and the grant of Doe's summary judgment motion. The City, relying on a mistaken interpretation of case law regarding facial challenges, erroneously contended that it had no burden to respond to Doe's motion. Consequently, the City failed to present any reasons for its ban. "Had the City done so, it is not difficult to imagine that the ban might have survived Doe's challenge," because the Court recognized the City's "significant interest in providing a safe environment for its library patrons, especially children." However, with no response, the Court was "bound by the record" and affirmed the district court's decision in favor of Doe. View "Doe v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Sonja Morris appealed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings on her First Amendment retaliation claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and grant of summary judgment on her claim for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in favor of Defendant Memorial Health System. Plaintiff worked as a registered nurse for Memorial and in 2007 joined the "Heart Team" which was performed all heart surgeries at the hospital. During her time with the Team, Plaintiff contended that the lead surgeon harassed her on multiple occasions. Despite participation in a teambuilding program, Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Claim on Memorial in 2008. The hospital removed Plaintiff from the Heart Team and into a more "comfortable" work environment. In 2009, Plaintiff filed suit against Memorial claiming her First Amendment rights were violated when she was removed from the Heart Team because she submitted her Notice of Claim. The district court granted Memorial's motion on the First Amendment claim on the ground that the notice did not contain "speech" as determined by case law. Furthermore, the court held that Plaintiff could not establish that the alleged harassment was based on her gender or pervasive enough to affect her work environment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in affirming the district court. View "Morris v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

Relying on "Atkins v. Virginia" (536 W.S. 304, 321 (2002)), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) granted Petitioner-Appellant George Ochoa a post-conviction jury trial to determine whether he was mentally retarded. The jury found Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was mentally retarded, and the OCCA affirmed. The Tenth Circuit granted Petitioner permission to file a second 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition to raise his "Atkins" claims in federal court. After the district court denied Petitioner's second 2254 habeas petition on the merits, Petitioner appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Petitioner contended Oklahoma law, which focuses on whether a defendant is mentally retarded at the time of trial, instead of whether he was mentally retarded at the time of the commission of the crime, is "contrary to, or . . . an unreasonable application of" "Atkins." Furthermore, Petitioner contended his trial was fundamentally unfair. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the district court properly resolved Petitioner's case, and that none of the alleged errors at trial entitled him to habeas relief. View "Ochoa v. Workman" on Justia Law

In August 2010, Defendant Byron Ventura-Perez pled guilty in Colorado to illegal reentry after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated-felony conviction. Defendant raised two issues on appeal: (1) he contended the district court miscalculated his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) he contended that when the court imposed his sentence, it improperly refused to consider sentencing disparities created by fast-track programs in other districts. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Ventura-Perez" on Justia Law