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

Defendant Myron Harry appealed his conviction of sexual assault at the home of friends while the victim was sleeping after a party. On appeal, he argued that all but one of his text messages were used against him at trial, but none of the host’s messages were presented, therefore his right to due process was violated by the failure to preserve text messages sent to him by the host, whose cell phone had been provided to officers as evidence. The other two challenges related to the district court’s grant of the government’s pretrial motion in limine to exclude any evidence that the victim flirted with Defendant during the party. Finding no reversible error in the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Harry" on Justia Law

In 2012, O.K. Farms, Inc. hired J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc. to deliver chickens to Roger Gentry, a poultry grower with a farm near Wister, Oklahoma. Hunt, in turn, hired truck driver Troy Ford to deliver the chickens. In 2012, friends and relatives of Gentry were present to help him receive the delivery, among them, Jimmy Hill. As Ford drove into the chicken house on a Moffett (a vehicle similar to a forklift), he hit Jimmy’s leg and injured his ankle. Jimmy’s ankle became infected, and he died. Michael Hill, Jimmy’s son and the special administrator of his estate, brought a wrongful death action in Oklahoma state court against Hunt, alleging it was vicariously liable for Ford’s negligent driving. Hunt then filed a notice of removal based on diversity of citizenship, and the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Hill subsequently amended his complaint, adding O.K. Farms as a defendant. A few days before trial, Hunt’s counsel discovered Ford was unwilling to appear at trial, despite having been subpoenaed. On the second day of trial, Hunt moved the court to compel Ford to appear, or alternatively, to admit his video deposition testimony. The district court denied Hunt’s motion. The jury returned a $3.332 million verdict against Hunt. Hunt moved for a new trial or, alternatively, remittitur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) and (e), arguing: (1) the court’s decision not to compel Ford’s appearance and its exclusion of his deposition testimony prejudiced Hunt; and (2) the jury award was excessive and unsupported by the evidence. The district court denied Hunt’s motion. Hunt appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Hill v. J.B. Hunt Transport" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Michael Allman applied for Social Security disability benefits, claiming he could not work due to spina bifida, a shunt in his brain, chronic back pain, headaches, depression, and anxiety. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) permitted him to perform a number of jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy, defeating his disability claim. At step two of the applicable five-step sequential evaluation, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's headaches were not a “severe impairment” within the meaning of the Social Security Act and its corresponding regulations. Nevertheless, the ALJ discussed and considered plaintiff's headaches in assessing his RFC to work. After the ALJ denied his claim, the Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed after adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and overruling plaintiff's objections. The district court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his headaches qualified as a severe impairment and that the ALJ had provided sufficient bases for not assigning more weight to his doctor's opinion. On appeal, plaintiff challenged, among other things, the district court’s findings regarding the ALJ’s determinations at steps two and four. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Allman v. Colvin" on Justia Law

The water source at the heart of this general stream adjudication was the Nambe-Pojoaque-Tesuque Basin. The State of New Mexico was engaged in individual adjudications with parties who held permits to divert the Basin’s underground water through the use of domestic water wells. Elisa Trujillo held one such domestic well permit. During her individual adjudication, she and the State disputed her water rights. In 2010, the special master granted summary judgment in favor of the State. In 2015, the district court entered an order that adjudicated Trujillo’s water rights based on the special master’s 2010 summary judgment order. Trujillo identified only the 2015 order in her notice of appeal, which was an interlocutory order because the district court had not yet entered a final decision in the general stream adjudication. She presented no developed argument challenging the special master’s summary judgment order that served as a basis for the 2015 order. Instead, the Tenth Circuit found that she spent much of her brief challenging two orders denying her motions to quash a 1983 injunction that placed limits on the State’s issuance of domestic well permits. Finding no reason to overturn the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Trujillo's adjudication. View "New Mexico v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

Trent Lebahn sued Eloise Owens, a consultant for Lebahn’s employee pension plan, for negligently misrepresenting the amount of his monthly retirement benefits. The district court dismissed Lebahn’s negligent-misrepresentation claim, concluding it was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Lebahn then filed an untimely Rule 59 motion, arguing preemption did not apply because Owens was not a fiduciary of the pension plan. The district court construed the untimely motion as one under Rule 60(b) and denied relief, reasoning that Lebahn’s argument regarding Owens’s fiduciary status had been raised too late. Lebahn appealed. The Tenth Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider Lebahn’s challenge to the district court’s underlying judgment, so its review was limited to the district court’s denial of relief under Rule 60(b). Upon review, the Court found Lebahn did not demonstrate the district court abused its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b), and therefore the district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Lebahn v. Owens" on Justia Law

This case involved competing claims to the ownership of Alderney Investments, LLC by relatives of Rudolf Skowronska (Rudolf), a Polish national. The initial filing with the Wyoming Secretary of State identified two Panamanian corporations as Alderney’s only two members: Nominees Associated Inc. and Management Nominees Inc. (MNI). In the years that followed, the beneficial ownership of Alderney went through a series of transformations: Rudolf initially held beneficial ownership of Alderney through a series of intermediary entities, including MNI and Nominees Associated Inc., as well as UEB Services, LTD and Morgan & Morgan Corporation Services S.A. In August 1999, Rudolf, although not individually a member of Alderney, purported to transfer ownership of Alderney to his half-sister, Dagmara Skowronska. Alderney’s managers subsequently voted to give Dagmara “power of attorney” over Alderney’s affairs. The Appellee, MNI, was Belizean corporation also named Management Nominees Inc., which contended that in 2003, Dagmara transferred her interest in Alderney to Rico Sieber, her husband and MNI’s sole shareholder. The Appellants, Alderney and Edyta Skowronska, Rudolf’s wife, contend that Dagmara transferred 90% of her interest to Edyta and her two children after Rudolf’s disappearance in 2005. Further complicating matters, in 2012, Alderney’s members, Management Nominees Inc. and Nominees Associated Inc., transferred their membership interest in Alderney to MNI, making MNI the sole member of Alderney. The dispute over ownership of Alderney came to a head in 2013, when Edyta sought to dissolve Alderney. Edyta, on behalf of Alderney, filed articles of dissolution with the Wyoming Secretary of State. The Secretary issued a certificate of dissolution for Alderney in March 2013, and this lawsuit followed. This case raised a dispute regarding the citizenship Alderney and whether, in light of the Tenth Circuit's decision in "Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Surety Co.," (781 F.3d 1233 (2015)), the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Alderney was an unincorporated association for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, with its citizenship therefore determined by that of its members. Because Alderney’s members were foreign corporations, there was not complete diversity between Alderney and MNI. As a result, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The trial court's grant of summary judgment was vacated and the case remanded for dismissal. View "Management Nominees v. Alderney Investments" on Justia Law

C.V. was a seven-year-old second grade student at an elementary school operated by Albuquerque Public Schools (“APS”). He was eligible for special education benefits for autism. One morning in 2011, C.V. disrupted his class, ran away from APS staff, kicked an APS social worker, and kicked and shot rubber bands at APS School Security Officer Xiomara Sanchez. To protect C.V. and others, Officer Sanchez handcuffed him to a chair. Before doing so, Officer Sanchez had called C.V.’s mother, who granted permission to restrain him, and repeatedly warned C.V. to calm down. Officer Sanchez was unaware of C.V.’s disability. C.V.’s parents sued under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), claiming APS denied C.V. a protected benefit and discriminated against him. The district court granted summary judgment to APS. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision. View "J. V. v. Albuquerque Public Schools" on Justia Law

In 2015, Petitioner Embry Loftis received a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his section 2254 habeas petition as time-barred. The Tenth Circuit considered the merits of Petitioner’s argument that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations under the unique circumstances of this case. After review, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner made reasonable, diligent efforts to comply with state law under the unique circumstances he faced, and the state district court “led [him] to believe that he . . . had done all that [wa]s required under the circumstances” by granting his request for an extension of time to file his appeal. "The record clearly shows that Petitioner did not sleep on his federal rights, but rather diligently pursued his habeas claims through a state process that he reasonably believed to be sufficient." The Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s request for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in this case. Accordingly the district court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s habeas petition as time-barred was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Loftis v. Harvanek" on Justia Law

Jesus Munoz was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He pled guilty and was sentenced to time served or thirteen days, whichever was less, and two years of supervised release. The term of the supervised release included twelve “standard” conditions of supervised release and two “special” conditions. On appeal, Munoz raised substantive and procedural challenges to twelve of the fourteen conditions. Rejecting all, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Munoz" on Justia Law

In 2011, Samuel Pauly was shot to death through the window of his New Mexico home by one of three state police officers investigating an earlier road rage incident on Interstate 25 involving his brother. His father, on behalf of Samuel Pauly’s estate, filed a civil rights action against the three officers, the State of New Mexico Department of Public Safety, and two state officials, claiming defendants violated his son’s Fourth Amendment right against the use of excessive force. The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied their motions, and they appealed. Taking the facts as the district court determined them, in the light most favorable to plaintiff estate, the issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was: whether an officer outside someone’s home in the dark of night with no probable cause to arrest anyone and behind the cover of a wall 50 feet away from a possible threat, with no warning shot a man pointing his gun out of his well-lighted window at an unknown person in his yard while the man’s brother fired protective shots in the air from behind the house, a reasonable jury could find that one of the officers was not in immediate fear for his safety or the safety of others. The Court concluded that any objectively reasonable officer in this position "would well know" that a homeowner has the right to protect his home against intruders and that the officer had no right to immediately use deadly force in these circumstances. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the officer. View "Pauly v. White" on Justia Law