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

The case involves Bryar Johnson, who was seriously injured in a traffic accident while riding his motorcycle. After the other drivers' insurance policies paid out their liability limits, Johnson sought additional uninsured motorist (UM) coverage from his parents' automobile policy with Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (MetLife). MetLife denied Johnson's claim under an exclusion in his parents' policy that denies coverage to resident-relative insureds injured while operating their own motor vehicle that is not insured by a motor vehicle insurance policy. Johnson had liability insurance on his motorcycle but had declined to purchase the offered UM coverage.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled in favor of MetLife. The court found that although Johnson was a resident relative and insured under his parents' policy, he had the opportunity to purchase his own UM coverage but declined it. The court interpreted Oklahoma law as requiring Johnson to either obtain liability insurance and UM coverage on his motorcycle policy or forego UM coverage under his parents' policy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that MetLife's exclusion does not defeat UM coverage for Johnson. Because Johnson carried liability insurance on his motorcycle, the court held that his motorcycle was "insured by a motor vehicle insurance policy." The court found that MetLife's exclusion did not require that resident-relative insureds carry UM coverage on their own motor vehicles to be eligible for UM benefits on other applicable policies. Therefore, MetLife owes Johnson UM coverage from his parents' policy. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In 2015, Jason Vincent Bradley was convicted on multiple counts related to firearm possession and drug trafficking. He was sentenced to concurrent 120-month sentences on three counts and a consecutive 60-month sentence on the fourth count, followed by three years of supervised release. In 2021, Bradley filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the need to care for his minor children due to his mother's ill health and his own health conditions that increased his risk of serious illness from COVID-19.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Bradley's motion for compassionate release. The court acknowledged Bradley's claims of extraordinary and compelling reasons for release but found that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support a sentence reduction. Bradley appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred by not considering his proffered extraordinary and compelling reasons for release as part of its § 3553(a) analysis and by not accounting for his post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Bradley had waived his first argument by not raising it in the lower court. Regarding his second argument, the court found that the district court had considered Bradley's post-sentencing conduct and rehabilitation, and it had provided a rationale for its decision. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bradley's motion for compassionate release. View "United States v. Bradley" on Justia Law

In December 2021, Kevin Alonso Zamora was discovered by law enforcement officers in Taylorsville, Utah, near a car that had been reported stolen. As officers approached, all suspects except Zamora entered the vehicle and drove off, while Zamora fled on foot. During his flight, Zamora ran through a residential neighborhood and a commercial area, eventually collapsing near a Taco Bell drive-thru. Officers found a gun tucked inside Zamora's pants, which had discharged during his flight, injuring him.Zamora was indicted and later pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement under § 3C1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which Zamora challenged as being erroneously applied. He argued that his armed flight did not recklessly create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Zamora's flight from law enforcement with a loaded gun, not carried in a holster, which discharged during his flight, constituted reckless behavior. The court also found that Zamora's actions created a serious risk of bodily injury to law enforcement. Furthermore, the court noted that Zamora ran directly in front of an occupied vehicle moments before his gun discharged, creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not err in applying the two-level enhancement under § 3C1.2. View "United States v. Zamora" on Justia Law

This case revolves around a copyright dispute between Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC and Timothy Sepi (Plaintiffs) and Netflix, Inc. and Royal Goode Productions, LLC (Defendants). Plaintiffs sued Defendants for copyright infringement, alleging that Defendants had used clips from eight videos filmed by Mr. Sepi without permission in the documentary series "Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness". The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that seven of the videos were works made for hire and thus Mr. Sepi did not own the copyrights. The court also found that the use of the eighth video constituted fair use and did not infringe on Mr. Sepi’s copyright.On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs waived their argument regarding the first seven videos as they presented a new theory not raised in the lower court. Accordingly, the appellate court upheld the district court's judgment regarding these videos. However, regarding the eighth video, the appellate court ruled that the district court erred in determining that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their fair use defense. The court concluded that the first factor of the fair use analysis favored the Plaintiffs instead of the Defendants, and that the Defendants failed to provide any evidence demonstrating the absence of a market impact, which is necessary to apply the fourth fair use factor. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment as to the first seven videos, reversed the judgment as to the eighth video, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Whyte Monkee Productions v. Netflix" on Justia Law

This case involved the interpretation of an offer of judgment in a lawsuit where a prisoner, Samuel Lee Dartez, II, sued state officers for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The state officers offered a judgment of $60,000 “plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs allowed by law, if any.” The district court interpreted this offer as allowing attorneys’ fees exceeding the statutory cap and waiving the plaintiff's obligation to contribute to these fees.On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's interpretation. The court determined that the offer of judgment was ambiguous in its language pertaining to the statutory cap on attorney fees and the requirement for the plaintiff to contribute to those fees. The ambiguity was resolved against the defendants, who had drafted the offer, and found that the defendants had waived the statutory cap and the plaintiff's contribution requirement.In Dartez's cross-appeal, he argued that the district court wrongly applied a statutory cap on hourly rates. The Tenth Circuit agreed, reversing the district court's application of the cap and remanding for recalculation of the fee award without this cap. The court did not address Dartez's arguments that the statutory limitations on fees did not apply due to his obtaining non-monetary relief and because he received an agreed settlement amount rather than a monetary judgment. View "Dartez v. Peters" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by Jamaryus Moore against his sentence imposed following a probation violation. Moore had initially pleaded guilty to a Hobbs Act robbery and, despite facing a sentencing guideline range of 51 to 63 months, requested probation. The court gave Moore a choice of a 51-month imprisonment or probation, with the understanding that a violation would lead to an 84-month sentence. Moore opted for probation, but he subsequently violated its terms, and the court imposed the previously agreed 84-month sentence. On appeal, this sentence was reversed, with a two-step sentencing process proposed. On remand, the district court applied this two-step process, resulting in an 80-month sentence. Moore appealed, arguing that the district court was wrong in applying the two-step process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the two-step process was not dicta and could not be disregarded under the clearly erroneous/manifest injustice exception to the law of the case doctrine. The court noted that the two-step process was integral to the initial appeal's holding that the district court had plainly erred and that the error affected Moore’s substantial rights. The court concluded that Moore had not shown that the previous decision was clearly erroneous or that applying it would result in manifest injustice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court's ruling regarding a veteran, Bruce Hay, who was convicted of ten counts of stealing government property and six counts of wire fraud. The case centered around Hay's alleged exaggeration of his disability to gain benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA conducted a six-year investigation, even installing a pole camera that recorded Hay's daily activities outside his house for 68 days.Hay appealed his conviction on three grounds: insufficient evidence supporting his conviction, violation of his Fourth Amendment rights by the VA's installation of the pole camera, and wrongful admission of evidence by the district judge. The court rejected all three arguments.First, the court ruled that Hay's fraudulent acquisition of government property constituted "stealing" under 18 U.S.C. § 641 and that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support his conviction for stealing government property and wire fraud.Second, the court held that the use of the pole camera did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment as it only captured his activities in public view.Lastly, the court rejected Hay's claim that evidence post-dating the charging period was improperly admitted, finding that the district court acted within its discretion.In conclusion, the court affirmed the district court's denial of a judgment of acquittal and the admission of contested evidence. View "United States v. Hay" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dealt with the appeal of Youlian Zhong, who contested her mandatory minimum sentences for crimes related to her participation in a conspiracy to manufacture and distribute large quantities of marijuana. Zhong argued that the district court erred in finding that she did not qualify for the statutory safety valve for mandatory minimum sentences.Zhong and her husband, Housheng Xian, were found guilty of conspiring to grow more than 1,500 marijuana plants in their residence, intending to process and sell the marijuana. They were convicted on three counts: conspiring to manufacture and possess with the intent to distribute 1,000 and more marijuana plants, manufacturing and possessing with intent to distribute 1,000 or more marijuana plants, and using and maintaining their house for the purpose of manufacturing and distributing marijuana.Before sentencing, Zhong and Xian requested a non-guideline sentence of time served plus five years of supervised release, arguing that they met the requirements of the safety valve provisions. However, the court found that they did not provide all necessary information to the government, particularly regarding their mens rea, or intent, for the crimes for which they were convicted.On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appeals court held that a defendant must provide the government with information sufficient to prove the mens rea required for the crimes of conviction to meet the requirement of providing “all information and evidence” concerning the offense for the safety valve provision to apply. The court concluded that Zhong did not provide sufficient information about her intent to commit the crimes for which she was convicted, and thus, did not meet her burden to prove that she qualified for safety-valve relief. View "United States v. Zhong" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Joshua Young, an employee of the Colorado Department of Corrections, claimed that mandatory Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) training he was subjected to created a hostile work environment. Young resigned from the Department and filed a lawsuit claiming violations of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. He alleged that the training program violated Title VII by creating a hostile work environment and violated the Equal Protection Clause by promoting race-based policies. The district court dismissed both claims without prejudice. Young appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit examined Young's allegations and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Young's claims. The court found that while Young had plausibly alleged he was subjected to unwelcome harassment, he failed to adequately allege that the harassment was so severe or pervasive that it altered the terms of his employment and created an abusive working environment.The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of Young's equal protection claim, agreeing that Young lacked standing to pursue the claim since he was no longer employed by the Department of Corrections and had not asked for reinstatement as part of his equal protection claim.Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to grant Young leave to amend his complaint, noting that Young neither requested leave to amend in his briefing nor filed a separate motion to amend. View "Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

In a complex and long-running series of legal disputes over attorney fees, two law firms, Shields Law Group and Paul Byrd Law Firm, and another firm, Hossley-Embry LLP, (collectively referred to as the "Objecting Firms") challenged the district court's approval of a settlement agreement among other firms involved in the litigation. The dispute arose from a class action lawsuit against Syngenta, an agricultural company, which was settled for $1.51 billion in 2018. One-third of the settlement was allocated for attorneys' fees, but the distribution of these fees among the numerous law firms involved in the case led to additional litigation.The district court approved a settlement agreement in which a group of firms (the Appellee Parties) agreed to pay $7 million to another firm, Watts Guerra. The Objecting Firms challenged this decision, arguing that it effectively reallocated money among the various pools of attorney fees. However, the Appellate Court concluded that the Objecting Firms lacked standing to challenge the district court's approval of the settlement agreement because they were not affected by it. The court also found that the Objecting Firms' challenges to the disbursement orders were moot. As a result, the court dismissed the appeals. View "SHIELDS LAW GROUP, LLC v. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP" on Justia Law