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

Dr. Charles Dahl and Ms. Kim Dahl divorced in 2010. Ms. Dahl filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, alleging federal-law and state-law claims stemming from the terms of the divorce: (1) that Dr. Dahl improperly administered the pension trust of his medical practice to deny her funds and an accounting and (2) that her telephone conversations with the Dahls’ minor children were unlawfully monitored, recorded, and disclosed by Dr. Dahl, his attorney, and the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) in the divorce proceedings. The district court dismissed the federal-law pension claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted summary judgment against Ms. Dahl on the federal-law wiretapping claims. It then declined to exercise jurisdiction on the state-law claims. Ms. Dahl appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit: affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Ms. Dahl’s pension claims on the ground that the pension trust did not qualify as an employee benefit plan under ERISA, but that the claim should have been on the merits rather than for lack of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "Dahl v. Dahl, et al" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals from two Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the Debtors challenged the district court’s order reversing confirmation of their reorganization plans and remanding their cases to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider these appeals, the Court dismissed them. View "Gordon, et al v. Bank of America, N.A., et al" on Justia Law

Appellant First National Bank of Durango appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP's) decision to affirm the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy plan of Appellees Reson and Shaun Woods. Although First National Bank raised several issues on appeal, the Tenth Circuit only reached the first: whether the Debtors were permitted to seek relief under Chapter 12 as "family farmers." The issue was one of first impression for the Tenth Circuit: when does a debt "for" a principal residence "arise[] out of a farming operation"? Upon review, the Court concluded that such a debt so arises if it is directly and substantially connected to any of the activities constituting a "farming operation" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 101(21). If the loan proceeds were used directly for or in a farming operation, the debt "arises out of" that farming operation. Because the Court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not apply the proper legal standard and test in its analysis of Debtors' eligibility for Chapter 12 relief, the Court remanded the case back to the bankruptcy court so that the correct law could be applied to the facts of this case. View "First National Bank of Durango, et al v. Woods, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Dennis Augustine was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Before trial, he filed two separate motions to suppress evidence: (1) one to quash a warrant to search Defendant’s residence and to suppress evidence found in that search which led directly to his arrest; and (2) one to suppress Defendant’s statements to law enforcement officials after his arrest. The district denied both motions. After the subsequent trial, the jury found Defendant guilty on both counts of conspiracy. View "United States v. Augustine" on Justia Law

United Parcel Service (UPS) fired Jeff Macon for dishonesty. He claimed that reason was a pretext; he was actually fired in violation of his rights under the Kansas worker’s compensation statute. The district court concluded the uncontested facts showed UPS to have honestly believed Macon was dishonest and discharged him in good faith. Accordingly, it granted UPS' motion for summary judgment. Irrespective of his complaints about pretext and disparate treatment by supervisors, a regional independent union/management grievance panel for UPS conducted an investigation and decided discharge for dishonesty was appropriate. Based upon that independent and informed decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "Macon v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Pro se defendant-appellant Charles Baldwin was convicted for violating two federal regulations: failing to comply with directions of federal police officers, and for "loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct" on federal property that "imped[ed] or distrup[ed] the performance of official duties by" government employees. Defendant worked as an attorney for the Department of the Interior. The charges arose when, leaving for work, defendant sped through the parking lot, and swerved to miss hitting a bicyclist. A Federal Protective Service officer wanted to issue defendant a warning, but before he could finish, defendant drove off, ignoring the officer's commands to stop. The officer followed defendant off federal grounds, stopped defendant again, and asked for license, registration and proof of insurance. Defendant refused to comply, had to be forced from his vehicle, and was eventually restrained with handcuffs. Among other things, defendant argued that violating the two federal regulations wasn't a crime; they were administrative rules or policies that carried no penalty. And that even if they were crimes, defendant contended he didn't act with the sufficient mens rea to be held criminally culpable. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the circumstances of this case. And while the regulations "certainly do delineate policy, . . .that isn't all they do. Another section of the same regulatory 'subpart' expressly provides that the very sections Mr. Baldwin violated can be enforced through criminal sanctions." Furthermore, the Court found that "a law's silence about mens rea doesn't necessarily mean violating it isn't a crime." The Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Defendants Eddie Serrato and Sotero Negrete were drug dealers. They both were found guilty of multiple counts related to their involvement in a methamphetamine trafficking conspiracy centered in Wyoming. On appeal, Serrato challenged his conviction and sentence: (1) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct that violated his constitutional rights; (2) there was an unconstitutional variance between the crime charged (a single conspiracy) and the evidence presented at trial (two separate conspiracies); (3) the district court abused its discretion in its calculation of his offense level; and (4) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop that constituted an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Negrete raised essentially the same first two arguments that Serrato raised, adding the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of using or carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions. View "United States v. Serrato" on Justia Law

A bank purchased insurance on a commercial property mortgaged to it by a borrower. The policy prohibited an assignment "of this Policy" without the insurer's consent. After the property was damaged, the bank assigned its loss claim to the borrower. The insurer refused to pay the borrower's claim because of the nonassignment provision, and the borrower sued. The district court held that the suit was barred and awarded judgment for the insurer. The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on whether the nonassignment provision was enforceable. The Court concluded, after review of the provision in question, that the provision did not apply to the assignment of a postloss claim, so the Court did not determine the enforceability of a provision prohibiting such assignments. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "City Center West v. American Modern Home Insurance" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered a novel question: Does issue preclusion apply in bankruptcy court to a final determination in district court that a party waived an issue? Upon review of the circumstances of this case and the applicable statutes, the Court concluded issue preclusion did not apply to the waiver finding here. The Court reversed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and remanded this case for the bankruptcy court to reinstate its order. View "Clark v. Zwanziger" on Justia Law

THI of New Mexico at Hobbs Center, LLC and THI of New Mexico, LLC (collectively THI) operate a nursing home in Hobbs, New Mexico. When Lillie Mae Patton's husband was admitted into the home, he entered into an arbitration agreement that required the parties to arbitrate any dispute arising out of his care at the home except claims relating to guardianship proceedings, collection or eviction actions by THI, or disputes of less than $2,500. After Mr. Patton died, Mrs. Patton sued THI for negligence and misrepresentation. THI then filed a complaint to compel arbitration of the claims. The district court initially ruled that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and ordered arbitration. Under New Mexico law a compulsory-arbitration provision in a contract may be unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable, if it applies only, or primarily, to claims that just one party to the contract is likely to bring. The question before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted the state law for contracts governed by the FAA. The Court held that New Mexico law was preempted in this case and the arbitration clause should have been enforced. View "THI of New Mexico at Hobbs v. Patton" on Justia Law