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

Cornhusker Casualty Company appealed a district court’s summary-judgment ruling, arguing that the district court incorrectly concluded that Cornhusker was estopped from asserting noncoverage as a defense to the claims of Shari and Steve Skaj. The Skajs cross-appealed the district court’s sua sponte entry of summary judgment against them on their counterclaim for attorneys’ fees. Vincent Rosty filed a cross-appeal too, alleging that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Cornhusker on some of his tort-based counterclaims. R&R Roofing, Inc. was a Wyoming construction company primarily operated by Randy Rosty and Steven Rosty. R&R purchased a Cornhusker commercial liability policy listing “R&R” and “Randy Rosty” as the named insureds. Vincent, who was an R&R employee at that time, did not appear as a named insured under the Policy. Vincent drove R&R’s dump truck to the Skaj home to deliver roofing supplies. The truck was accidentally knocked into second gear, rolled forward toward Ms. Skaj as she approached, and pinned her against a parked motor home, injuring her. A laboratory test performed later that day detected the presence of marijuana and methamphetamines in Vincent’s bloodstream. The Skajs ultimately sued R&R, Steven, and Vincent, asserting several negligence claims. Counsel retained by Cornhusker to defend against the Skajs’ lawsuit sought and received an extension of “the answer deadline for all defendants.” Communication related to that request indicated that defense counsel at that point “d[id] not know if [she would] be representing all of the defendants.” Defense counsel filed an answer to the Skajs’ complaint on behalf of Steven and R&R only, noting, “I do not represent Vincent Rosty.” In filing its answer, Cornhusker did not attempt to advise Vincent of its decision at that time not to represent him. An entry of default against Vincent issued, and the non-defaulting defendants were dismissed from the litigation. The Skajs sought to recover a judgment as to Vincent. Cornhusker hired separate representation for Vincent who opposed the default-judgment proceedings. The state court issued a default-judgment order assessing a total in damages and costs of $897,344.24 against Vincent. One week after the default-judgment hearing, Cornhusker sent Vincent a letter purporting for the first time to deny coverage on grounds that Vincent was not a named insured to the R&R policy. Cornhusker repeated this ground in its declaratory judgment action in federal district court. Vincent responded by counterclaiming against Cornhusker, asserting various contract and tort theories. The Skajs filed their own counterclaim, seeking a declaration “that Cornhusker [was] required to pay the judgment in the underlying action." All parties filed motions for summary judgment, but the court announced that there would be no trial. It declared that Cornhusker was estopped from denying coverage to Vincent because Cornhusker had represented that it would provide a defense, never reserved its rights, and did not advise Vincent of its decision to deny coverage until more than sixteen months after the entry of default. Cornhusker appealed the district court's judgment. But finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the court's judgment. View "Cornhusker Casualty Co. v. Skaj" on Justia Law

A New Mexico grand jury charged Clay O’Brien Mann with eight counts, including three 18 U.S.C. 924(c) violations, arising from his shooting three people on an Indian reservation. He appealed one section 924(c) conviction, arising from his assault and shooting of Paula Nez. As with the other two 924(c) counts, the government charged that Mann had knowingly discharged a firearm in relation to his assaulting Paula Nez. Under Supreme Court precedent, the discharge did not have to be done either “knowingly” or “in relation to” the underlying crime of violence. Mann did not object to the district court’s instructions ignoring these "unnecessarily charged conditions." For the first time on appeal, Mann argued that the district court constructively amended his indictment by not instructing the jury that, to convict, it needed to find these conditions were met. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no constructive amendment and thus no error. "The charged but uninstructed language was mere surplusage to the true elements of the crime." View "United States v. Mann" on Justia Law

Captain Heather Ortiz was an active-duty service member in the United States Air Force. In March 2009, Captain Ortiz was admitted to Evans Army Community Hospital for a scheduled Caesarean section. Complications caused by the medical staff’s administering of drugs in preparation for the surgery caused a precipitous drop in Captain Ortiz’s blood pressure, leading to hypotension. As a result of Captain Ortiz’s hypotension, her baby, “I.O.,” was deprived of oxygen in utero, leading to severe injuries. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether the federal government was immune from damages for injuries its agents caused to the baby during childbirth. Resolution of the issues in this case was controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in "Feres v. United States," which found that military service members were barred from bringing claims against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries incident to their military service. Under the Feres doctrine, federal courts lose their subject matter jurisdiction over claims like this because the Tenth Circuit concluded the injured child’s in utero injuries were unmistakably derivative of an injury to her mother, an active service-member who gave birth at an Army Base hospital. "Feres is not ours to overrule. Applying controlling law, the government is not liable under the FTCA for the claims of negligence in this case." View "Ortiz v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2013, Defendant-Appellant Michael Pettit was indicted on one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after police discovered 2.5 kilograms of cocaine hidden in a vehicle he was driving. Pettit moved to suppress that evidence, which the district court denied. A jury found Pettit guilty, and he was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment followed by eight years of supervised release. On appeal, Pettit argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the police improperly extended a lawful traffic stop based on factors failing to give rise to objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Pettit" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Derrick Jim of aggravated sexual abuse occurring in the Navajo Nation. Jim initially pled guilty to this offense, but later withdrew his plea and went to trial. On appeal, Jim claimed that the trial court erred when it let the Government present evidence of the admissions he made in his plea agreement and during his plea colloquy to the jury, despite Jim waiving his Rule 410 protections as part of the plea agreement underlying his (withdrawn) guilty plea. In its cross-appeal, the Government challenged Jim’s 360-month prison sentence, arguing that the district court erred in calculating Jim’s offense level under the sentencing guidelines. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in enforcing Jim’s Rule 410 waiver by allowing the Government to present to the jury Jim’s prior admissions of guilt. The Court agreed with the Government that the district court erred when it held that, in determining whether a two-offense-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2A3.1(b)(4)(B) for causing the victim serious bodily injury applied in Jim’s case, the court could not consider any injuries directly resulting from the sexual abuse for which Jim was convicted. Thus, the case was remanded for resentencing so the district court could determine, in the first instance, whether that enhancement was warranted in this case and, if so, the impact of that enhancement on Jim’s sentence. View "United States v. Jim" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Franklin, subscribed to a website called "GigaTribe" which allowed him to approve other subscribers as "friends," allowing them into his "tribe." For his so-called "tribe," Franklin posted previews of pornographic images of children. In posting the previews, Franklin determined which pornographic images to share and with whom. When "friends" were given access, they could choose what they liked, download the images, and share these images with other subscribers. Franklin was found guilty on five counts of possessing and distributing child pornography, including advertisement or notice of child pornography. The sentencing guidelines called for life imprisonment, and the district court imposed five consecutive sentences totaling 100 years. On appeal, Franklin argued the evidence did not support the conviction on advertisement or notice, that the total years of imprisonment involved a substantively unreasonable sentence, and that the district judge improperly found facts (without jury findings) necessary to justify the long sentence. The Tenth Circuit rejected these arguments and affirmed. View "United States v. Franklin" on Justia Law

Several voters filed a challenge to Sandoval County’s administration of the 2012 local election, and the district court concluded that the County’s election procedures were so dysfunctional that an immediate remedy was necessary to avoid voter disenfranchisement in the approaching 2014 election. To remedy the anticipated election day problems, the court entered a preliminary injunction that required the County to adhere to new regulations increasing the number of voting centers and voting machines. County election officials sought interlocutory appellate review of the preliminary injunction prior to the election, but the Tenth Circuit declined to intervene at that time. The election went off without a hitch, and the Court reviewed the County’s challenge to the injunction. In addition, the Court considered a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot presented by the voters who brought the suit. Concluding the issues raised by the grant of the preliminary injunction were mooted by the passage of the 2014 election, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Fleming v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

CE Design, Ltd. sued Custom Mechanical Equipment in 2008 after it received a junk fax. CE Design brought a class action suit of people and businesses that had also received unsolicited faxes from Custom. After Custom's insurer, Emcasco Insurance Company, declined to defend, Custom settled with CE Design for a considerable sum. In settling, CE Design agreed not to enforce the judgment against Custom but to proceed directly against Emcasco. After Emcasco refused to pay the judgment, CE Design and Emcasco filed rival declaratory judgment suits in separate federal courts (CE Design in Oklahoma, and Emcasco in Illinois). Ultimately, the federal district court in Illinois transferred its case to the federal district court in Oklahoma. Based on the insurance policy's terms, the district court held that Emcasco had no duty to defend Custom or to pay the judgment. CE Design appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Emcasco Insurance Co. v. CE Design" on Justia Law

Four Western Union customers whose wire transfers failed sued Western Union, alleging state-law claims for, among other things, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Named Plaintiffs initiated this litigation as a class action on behalf of all Western Union customers whose wire transfers failed. This class included three groups: 1) those customers who, like the named Plaintiffs, had already reclaimed their funds from Western Union; 2) those customers whose funds had already escheated to a state; and 3) those customers whose funds Western Union was currently holding. Two unnamed class members challenged the district court’s decision to certify the class and approve the settlement. They argued, among other things, that the class representatives could not adequately represent all of the class members; the settlement was unfair because it used primarily the money belonging to the class to fund the settlement; and the district court did not adequately notify absent class members of the class action and the settlement. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded their objections lacked merit. View "Tennille v. Western Union" on Justia Law

Ricky Nixon was a Denver police officer. He was involved in two high-profile incidents in which claims of excessive force generated substantial negative publicity for the Denver Police Department: a traffic stop of Alex Landau in January 2009 and an incident outside the Denver Diner restaurant later that year. Nixon would later be fired from his position, and he sued, bringing claims against his former employer, the City & County of Denver. The district court dismissed Nixon’s First Amendment and due-process claims for failure to state a claim for relief. In this appeal, counsel for appellant Nixon told a "story of injustice" and argued against positions not adopted by the district court." But the Tenth Circuit found that "Nixon’s opening brief does almost nothing to advance his cause. The first 11 of its 18 pages are devoted to the procedural background of the case and allegations in his complaint, much of which is of no apparent relevance to the appeal. That left only seven pages of the opening brief to accomplish the essential task of showing how the district court had erred in the three rulings that underlay its dismissal of Nixon’s stigma-plus due-process claim . . .and his First Amendment retaliation claim." Finding that Nixon indeed failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Nixon v. City & County of Denver" on Justia Law