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

Defendant-appellant Tina Wiseman appealed her sentence on one count of conspiring to distribute oxycodone following a guilty plea. She argued on appeal that the federal district court erred by refusing to consider the disparity between her sentence and similarly situated defendants sentenced in Utah state court. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence defendant received. View "United States v. Wiseman" on Justia Law

Judy Knight appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against Mooring Capital Fund. “Most of [the Tenth Circuit’s] reasons for affirmance are routine.” But the Court took the opportunity of this case to comment on Knight’s federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims based on alleged misconduct in a prior litigation. With regard to her RICO claim, Knight argued that defendants made misrepresentations to the district court through pleadings and testimony that increased the cost of litigating her prior case, and caused the district court to rule against her. She alleged that that activity violated wire-fraud and mail-fraud statutes, thereby constituting a pattern of racketeering in violation of RICO. Because Knight did not identify any arguments she would have made regarding few and costs had it not been for defendants’ fraud, because she did not offer any specific explanation if how defendants’ litigation misconduct affected her ability to litigate he issues in the prior litigation, and because Knight did not allege there was evidence of misconduct that was unavailable while that prior litigation was pending, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on this RICO claim too. View "Knight, et al v. Mooring Capital Fund LLC, et al" on Justia Law

George Cohlmia appealed a district court's decision to award attorney’s fees to St. John Medical Center pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). This case arose from two surgeries Cohlmia performed: one patient died as a result of surgery, another was permanently disfigured. After the Hospital conducted an internal review, it concluded Cohlmia failed to follow proper medical protocols, and suspended the doctor’s staff privileges. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital on all of the doctor’s claims. The Hospital thereafter sought attorney’s fees under the HCQIA. Finding that the district court did not abuse it's discretion in awarding fees under the Act, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Cohlmia, et al v. St. John Medical Center, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Carl Romero was convicted by a jury of assaulting and killing Naayaitch Friday. He appealed the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence found after searches of the car he drove and his bedroom. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the search warrant for the car was supported by probable cause and that investigating officers properly relied on his stepfather’s consent to search his bedroom. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

Defendant Philip Grigsby appealed his 260-year sentence imposed pursuant to the child pornography production guideline, U.S.S.G. 2G2.1. He argued the guideline was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because it was “defective.” According to Defendant, the production guideline routinely generates offense levels that result in a recommended guideline sentence in excess of the statutory maximum, and fails to distinguish between levels of culpability by establishing enhancements for conduct present in most cases and thus undeserving of punishment beyond the core offense. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence: "a district court does not err by deferring to the Guidelines where the sentence imposed is justified in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)." View "United States v. Grigsby" on Justia Law

In August 2007, C.W. Mining, an entity operating a coal mine in Utah, deposited $362,000 with the Bank of Utah; in turn, the Bank issued a certificate of deposit to C.W. Mining for that same amount. In January 2008, creditors filed an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition against C.W. Mining. The Chapter 11 proceeding was converted to a Chapter 7. The Bank liquidated the certificate of deposit, which then had a value of $383,099. Utilizing its common-law right of offset, it applied the proceeds to the balance owing on two of three promissory notes executed by C.W. Mining in favor of the Bank in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Although the Bank knew of the bankruptcy proceeding when it liquidated the certificate of deposit, it did not inform the Trustee. The Trustee became aware of the transfer after the Bank assigned its remaining secured interest in the promissory notes and loan agreements to a third party and the third party sought payment from the Estate. The Trustee then commenced an adversary proceeding seeking to recover $383,099 from the Bank. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In his motion, the Trustee argued the transfer should be avoided under 11 U.S.C. 549 as an unauthorized post-petition transfer and he should have been permitted to recover the $383,099 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 550. In the alternative, he sought a declaration the transfer was void as a violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(a) and an order for turnover pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 542. After considering all of these arguments, the bankruptcy court entered summary judgment in favor of the Bank. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Bank. View "C.W. Mining Company, et al v. Bank of Utah, et al" on Justia Law

This case arose when 702 plaintiffs from 26 different states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed twelve nearly identical product liability actions against the defendants in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. The defendants are manufacturers of transvaginal mesh medical devices. The plaintiffs were women who were implanted with the devices and their husbands, who assert loss-of-consortium claims. None of the individual actions contained 100 or more plaintiffs. Each of the actions included at least one New Jersey resident plaintiff. Each complaint specifically disclaimed federal question and federal diversity jurisdiction, and included provisions that admitted the claims had been joined for the purpose of pretrial discovery and proceedings but disclaimed joinder for trial purposes. All twelve actions were assigned to the same state court judge. The defendants, corporate residents of New Jersey, removed the actions to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, relying on both diversity jurisdiction and Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) removal jurisdiction, arguing that complete diversity existed between the parties because in each action, the New Jersey citizen plaintiff had been fraudulently joined and should therefore be disregarded for diversity purposes. They further contended that jurisdiction was available under CAFA’s "mass action" provision because, by filing all of the suits in the same court before the same judge, plaintiffs had proposed a joint trial of claims involving more than 100 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs moved to remand eleven of the actions, involving 650 plaintiffs, to state court. The district court granted their motion. It declined to adopt the procedural misjoinder doctrine raised by the defendants, and concluded that plaintiffs had not in fact proposed a joint trial of their claims. Defendants appealed that order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the remand of those cases to state court. View "Teague, et al v. Johnson & Johnson, et al" on Justia Law

In August 2009, defendant Tracy Morgan and his friend, Marvin Tabor, plotted to kidnap and rob Mario Armendariz. Tabor's brother-in-law, defendant Augustus Sanford, persuaded a police officer's minor child to steal four weapons and parts of a police uniform (cargo pants, a black police shirt, and an orange reflective vest) from his father in exchange for two ounces of marijuana. Sanford also painted his Chevrolet Tahoe black. Pursuant to their plan, Morgan attached a GPS tracking device to Armendariz's car while Armendariz was visiting Tabor's home. Tabor then tracked Armendariz's location on the Internet using Google Maps, enabling Morgan and defendant Killiu Ford to follow Armendariz in their vehicle. Sanford wore the stolen police gear; defendants then tracked Armendariz and his wife, Perla Flores, and their two young daughters outside of a cousin's house. The family saw two armed men exit a black Chevrolet Tahoe and at least one other man arrive from across the street. Two of the men zip-tied Armendariz's arms and legs together, covered his head, and put him into the back of the Tahoe. Ford questioned Armendariz about where he kept his money while an unknown co-conspirator drove the Tahoe around. Eventually the Tahoe dropped off Ford at Armendariz's home. Meanwhile, Sanford drove Ms. Flores and her daughters in her car to the Flores-Armendariz home. Defendants confronted Ms. Flores, demanding to know where Armendariz kept his money. Morgan put a gun to the three-year-old daughter's head, and Ms. Flores then told them the money was under her daughter's dresser. Morgan retrieved $30,000 from under the dresser and left the home. Later that night or early the next morning, Ford and Sanford looked for Morgan and found him at a Taco Bell. They divided the money taken from Armendariz's home. A jury convicted defendants of kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Each defendant brought a separate appeal, raising overlapping but not identical issues. Finding no reversible errors to any defendant, the Tenth Circuit affirmed their convictions. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Defendant Sevgi Muhammad was indicted on 24 counts of mail fraud, two counts of making a false statement, and one count of stealing public money. All the charges arose out of Defendant’s obtaining housing assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher Program of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). She pleaded no contest to one count of making a false statement. At the sentencing hearing, however, she moved to withdraw her plea. The district court denied the motion, and sentenced defendant to serve three years of probation and pay restitution. On appeal defendant argued her plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the district court erred when it denied her motion to withdraw the plea. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee Randy Howard sought to bring a class action suit against Ferrellgas Partners, LP in federal district court for allegedly overcharging him and other customers. Ferrellgas moved to force plaintiff to pursue his individual claim alone, in arbitration, arguing that arbitration was the procedure the parties had agreed to. The district court was unable to conclude that the parties agreed to arbitrate. Rather than proceed to trial as the Federal Arbitation Act required, the district court entered an order denying arbitration outright. The Tenth Circuit concluded that denial was error: "When it's apparent from a quick look at the case that no material disputes of fact exist, it may be permissible and efficient for a district court to decide the arbitration question as a matter of law through motions practice and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing arbitration. . . . Parties should not have to endure years of waiting and exhaust legions of photocopiers in discovery and motions practice merely to learn where their dispute will be heard. The Act requires courts process the venue question quickly so the parties can get on with the merits of their dispute in the right forum. It calls for a summary trial — not death by discovery." View "Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, et al" on Justia Law