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

Plaintiffs DISH Network Corporation and DISH Network LLC sought a declaratory judgment that their commercial general liability and excess liability insurers (collectively the Insurers), Arch Specialty Insurance Company, Arrowood Indemnity Company, Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, XL Insurance America, Inc., and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in an underlying patent infringement action. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Insurers, plaintiffs appealed, and the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the Insurers moved again for summary judgment, but on different grounds. The district court granted the Insurers’ motions, and plaintiffs appealed. Finding no reversible error this time, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Dish Network v. Arch Specialty Insurance" on Justia Law

Mike Ward was an employee of the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Ward once held a supervisory position; but during a department reorganization in 2005, he was demoted and given only technical duties. When the department began a second reorganization in 2008, Ward asked for a position with his old supervisory responsibilities. But those responsibilities were then being handled by another employee. Without a vacancy, Ward had to remain in his nonsupervisory job. In 2010, Ward applied for a managerial position in Provo, Utah. The application process included interviews with a panel and the person who would ultimately make the hiring decision. After interviewing with the panel and the decision-maker, however, Ward did not get the job. He blamed his employer (the Department of Interior), invoking Title VII and claiming retaliation for the refusal (1) to reinstate him in his old job and (2) to promote him to the Provo managerial position. The Tenth Circuit concluded no reasonable fact-finder could infer retaliation; thus, the Court affirmed the district court's award of summary judgment to the Department of Interior. View "Ward v. Jewell" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the criminal case of Adrian Hernandez. Hernandez pled guilty to two counts conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 60 months in prison. Hernandez did not appeal. The District Court sanctioned Hernandez's defense attorney for contempt. The attorney appealed, setting forth five alleged issues for review, all resting on an assumption that the district court erred by employing the summary contempt procedures of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 42(b) applicable to direct contempt rather than affording him the full panoply of notice-and-hearing procedures available under Rule 42(a) applicable to indirect contempt. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Hernandez (Velasco)" on Justia Law

Current and former employees of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office (County) brought a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging they were paid overtime at a lower rate than required by the statute during 2010, 2011, and 2012. The district court dismissed the Employees' Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court held the Employees had failed to allege their "regular rates" of pay were the Promised Rates and therefore, they had not stated a claim for unpaid overtime. The district court also concluded the Employees' argument, that "regular rates" for the purposes of the FLSA could be established by mutual agreement) failed because by continuing to work for years at the lower Actual Rates, the Employees had modified any alleged agreement concerning the Promised Rates. The Employees appealed, but finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Sivetts v. Board of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

In a consolidated appeal, Aviva Life & Annuity challenged identical orders of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sitting in its capacity as a bankruptcy appellate court. The district court entered the orders in two directly related cases brought by Aviva in the nature of interpleader pursuant to the Federal Interpleader Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22. Aviva argued the court erred by limiting the scope of the interpleader relief granted. This case stemmed from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of the Millennium Multiple Employer Welfare Benefit Plan. Prior to seeking the protection of the bankruptcy court, the Millennium Plan was an employee welfare benefit plan providing medical, disability, long term care, severance, and death benefits. Participants made contributions to the Millennium Plan, which then purchased life insurance policies (Policies) on the lives of the participants from Aviva and other insurance companies. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. View "Aviva Life & Annuity v. Millennium Multiple Employer" on Justia Law

Jeffery Morrison, Sr. pled guilty to one count of possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors and was sentenced to 120 months. He appealed his sentence, arguing that it was procedurally unreasonable. He further claimed the district court erred by imposing special conditions of supervised release, including a ban on the use of a camera and the internet. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Morrison" on Justia Law

Since 2004, Citizens United has produced and released 24 films on various political and religious topics. Citizens United completed a 30-minute film called "Rocky Mountain Heist," the subject of which was the alleged impact of various advocacy groups on Colorado government and public policy. The film and some of its advertising unambiguously referred to elected Colorado officials then-running for office in the general election and included footage of events where participants advocated the election or defeat of Colorado candidates. As such, "Rocky Mountain Heist" came under provisions of Colorado’s campaign-practices laws that required certain disclosures with respect to what were termed “electioneering communications” and “independent expenditures.” Citizens United brought suit against the Colorado Secretary of State federal district court to challenge under the First Amendment the disclosure provisions both on their face and as applied to Citizens United because it was treated differently from various media that are exempted from the provisions. It sought a preliminary injunction against enforcing the provisions that did not apply to exempted media. The district court denied relief, and Citizens United appealed. After review, though the Tenth Circuit agreed with much of what the district court said, it reversed: on the record, Citizens United would likely prevail on the merits, and therefore was entitled to a preliminary injunction. "In light of (1) the Colorado disclosure exemptions for printed periodicals, cable and over-the-air broadcasters, and Internet periodicals and blogs, (2) the rationale presented for these exemptions, and (3) Citizen United’s history of producing and distributing two dozen documentary films over the course of a decade, the Secretary has not shown a substantial relation between a sufficiently important governmental interest and the disclosure requirements that follow from treating Rocky Mountain Heist as an 'electioneering communication' or treating the costs of producing and distributing the film as an 'expenditure' under Colorado’s campaign laws." View "Citizens United v. Gessler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant David Brown was imprisoned on two sentences: one was in Tulsa County and the second one was in Muskogee County. Both sentences were two years, and the Muskogee County sentence was to run concurrently with the Tulsa County sentence. Brown thought the second sentence should have ended when the first one did. When Brown was eventually released from prison, he sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that authorities refused to release him after his Muskogee sentence had ended. The district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, concluding that Brown had not been held beyond the expiration of the Muskogee sentence. That conclusion was correct, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. View "Brown v. Parker" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Alondo Gay appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. The Tenth Circuit found that defendant attempted to use the district court proceedings to collaterally attack his original sentence under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. When asked, Gay’s counsel acknowledged at oral argument that she had no authority supporting the use of a 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) remedy to advance new, unrelated constitutional claims on appeal. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction. Though the Court had no authority to grant relief on defendant's constitutional claims, the Court addressed them simply to show them as meritless. View "United States v. Gay" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Brett Woods and Kathleen Valdes were state employees and representatives of a class of New Mexico state and local government employees who alleged they paid for insurance coverage through payroll deductions and premiums pursuant to a policy issued by Standard Insurance Company (Standard), but did not receive the coverage for which they paid and, in some cases, were denied coverage entirely. Plaintiffs filed suit in New Mexico state court against three defendants: Standard, an Oregon company that agreed to provide the subject insurance coverage; the Risk Management Division of the New Mexico General Services Department (the Division), the state agency that contracted with Standard and was responsible for administering benefits under the policy; and Standard employee Martha Quintana, who Plaintiffs allege was responsible for managing the Division’s account with Standard and for providing account management and customer service to the Division and state employees. Plaintiffs' ninety-one-paragraph complaint, stated causes of action against Standard and the Division for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; against Standard for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and Unfair Practices Act violations; and against Standard and Ms. Quintana for breach of the New Mexico Trade Practices and Fraud Act. The issue this appeal presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether remand to the state court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) was required under either of two CAFA provisions: the state action provision, which excludes from federal jurisdiction cases in which the primary defendants are states; or the local controversy exception, which requires federal courts to decline jurisdiction where, among other things, there is a local defendant whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by plaintiffs and from whom plaintiffs seek significant relief. The Court concluded that neither provision provided a basis for remand, and therefore reversed the decision of the magistrate judge remanding the case to state court. But because the Tenth Circuit could not determine whether Defendants have established the amount in controversy required to confer federal jurisdiction, the case was remanded to the district court for the resolution of that issue. View "Woods v. Standard Insurance Co." on Justia Law