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

The defendant orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to secure loans and investments, ostensibly to finance a truck stop in Deming, New Mexico. The operation involved multiple domestic and foreign corporations, and the defendant concealed his control and financial interest in the truck stop using aliases and shell companies. Funds obtained through fraud were not used as promised, and the defendant misled lenders and investors regarding his identity and financial history. The scheme also involved directing loan proceeds to offshore accounts beneficially owned by his girlfriend, and leveraging personal relationships to facilitate aspects of the fraud.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico presided over a jury trial in which the defendant was convicted of bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit bank, mail, and wire fraud. The district court admitted evidence showing the defendant’s control over the scheme, including his direction of a confederate to engage in a sham marriage, his ties and travel to Central American countries, and the distribution of loan proceeds to an offshore company owned by his girlfriend. The court sentenced the defendant to 210 months’ imprisonment, applying enhancements for being a leader of extensive criminal activity and for employing sophisticated means.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the conviction and sentence. The court rejected the defendant’s challenges to the district court’s evidentiary rulings, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of control, foreign ties, and financial distributions. The court affirmed the application of guideline enhancements for leadership and sophisticated means, and found the sentence substantively reasonable despite disparity with a codefendant, due to greater culpability and aggravating factors. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and granted the defendant’s request to supplement the record. View "United States v. Beckner" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs who purchased stock in a publicly traded corporation brought a securities class action against the corporation and several of its executives. Their complaint alleged the company embarked on an unusually risky plan to develop a nationwide 5G wireless network using unproven technologies and made materially false or misleading statements concerning the progress and capabilities of the network, anticipated enterprise customer relationships, projected revenue growth, and market demand. The plaintiffs asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, claiming the defendants acted with fraudulent intent or recklessness, leading the plaintiffs and other investors to acquire stock at artificially inflated prices.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing the complaint did not allege any actionable misstatements, facts supporting a strong inference of scienter, or loss causation. The district court agreed, finding that the alleged statements were not false when made and that the complaint lacked particularized facts showing the defendants acted with the required scienter under the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the PSLRA’s requirements to plead with particularity both falsity and scienter for each alleged misstatement. The court also affirmed dismissal of the Section 20(a) claim, as it is derivative of the Section 10(b) claim. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "Lingam v. Dish Network Corporation" on Justia Law

At a psychiatric hospital, employees were exposed to violent behavior from disturbed patients. Following a tip, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigated and cited the hospital for failing to implement measures that could have protected staff from workplace violence. These measures included reconfiguring nurses’ stations, providing communication devices, fully implementing existing safety programs, maintaining adequate staffing, securing patient belongings, hiring specialized security staff, and investigating each incident of workplace violence. The hospital did not contest the necessity of some measures but challenged the citation overall.An administrative law judge with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission conducted a hearing, upheld the citation, and imposed a fine. The judge’s decision became the final decision of the Review Commission when it declined further review. The hospital then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for judicial review, arguing that another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had exclusive authority over hospital safety, that the Secretary of Labor should have deferred to other regulatory bodies, and that the Secretary’s methods and notice were insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the Secretary of Labor had the authority to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause in this context, as the cited agency did not actually regulate employee safety regarding workplace violence. The court found that the Secretary provided fair notice, acted within statutory authority, and permissibly used adjudication rather than rulemaking. The court also concluded that the abatement measures were feasible, supported by substantial evidence, and that the imposed sanctions for failure to preserve video evidence were appropriate. The Tenth Circuit denied the hospital’s petition for review, upholding the citation and penalty. View "Cedar Springs Hospital v. Occupational Health and Safety" on Justia Law

A management company and the owner of a psychiatric hospital were both penalized after the hospital failed to implement sufficient safety measures to protect employees from workplace violence. The central issue was whether the management company could be held liable under workplace safety laws, specifically whether its relationship with the hospital owner meant it was subject to the same penalties for safety violations.Previously, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission evaluated whether the management company was an “employer” for relevant employees by applying a three-part factual test. This test asked whether there was a shared worksite, whether the companies’ operations (particularly regarding safety and health) were integrated, and whether the companies shared responsibility through common management, supervision, or ownership. The Commission answered all three questions affirmatively, finding the management company liable as an employer for some hospital employees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case, examining whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings. The court found that the hospital was a worksite for the management company because its employees worked there and were exposed to workplace hazards. The companies’ operations were sufficiently integrated on safety matters, evidenced by the management company’s oversight and involvement in safety training and policy enforcement. Finally, both companies were wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent corporation, satisfying the requirement for shared ownership.The Tenth Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings and denied the management company’s petition for review. The court’s holding was that, under the agreed-upon three-part test, the management company was properly held liable as an employer for workplace safety violations at the hospital and was subject to the associated penalties. View "UHS of Delaware v. Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who has a disability, took the New Mexico bar exam in February 2020 and was approved for testing accommodations. She alleged that these accommodations were not properly provided during the exam. Subsequently, she initiated legal action, amending her complaint multiple times before any defendant appeared. The third amended complaint asserted claims under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal and state laws.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed all claims. Specifically, it dismissed claims against the National Conference of Bar Examiners (the National Conference) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and permitted amendment of the complaint only to allow a Title III ADA claim against the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners (the State Board). The district court later dismissed the Title III claim against the State Board on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds. It also granted summary judgment to the State Board on the Rehabilitation Act claim, finding the Board did not receive federal funds, and denied the plaintiff’s requests for additional discovery as insufficient under Rule 56(d).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiff had not properly preserved her entitlement to jurisdictional discovery regarding the National Conference, nor did she adequately request or specify discovery that could alter the personal jurisdiction determination. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying additional discovery on the Rehabilitation Act claim, as the plaintiff failed to meet procedural requirements. Finally, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the State Board was protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from Title III ADA claims and that the plaintiff failed to show any waiver or valid abrogation of immunity. The judgment below was affirmed. View "Spann v. National Conference of Bar Examiners" on Justia Law

A group of individuals traveling through Kansas were stopped by Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) troopers while driving on interstate highways, primarily I-70. In each instance, the drivers and passengers were from out of state, often driving to or from Colorado, and were stopped for alleged traffic violations. After the initial traffic stop was concluded, troopers used a tactic known as the “Kansas Two-Step”—they would briefly disengage, then reinitiate conversation in an attempt to gain consent for further questioning or searches. These stops often led to extended detentions and searches, but no contraband was discovered. The troopers testified that they considered the drivers’ out-of-state status, travel to or from Colorado, and other factors in developing reasonable suspicion.The individuals sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and their constitutional right to travel. Some plaintiffs also brought damages claims, resulting in jury verdicts in their favor. For their claims for injunctive relief, the district court conducted a bench trial and found that KHP had a pattern and practice of targeting out-of-state drivers and using the Two-Step in a manner violating the Fourth Amendment. The court granted a permanent injunction, requiring changes in KHP’s training, documentation, consent procedures, and supervision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the plaintiffs had standing for injunctive relief and whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing because there was a substantial risk they would be stopped again and that KHP had a pattern of unconstitutional conduct. However, the Tenth Circuit found that the injunction was overly broad regarding the use of a driver’s state of origin and the Two-Step tactic. The court affirmed the injunction in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shaw v. Smith" on Justia Law

A citizen of El Salvador entered the United States near El Paso, Texas, in February 2023 without proper documentation. He was detained and placed in removal proceedings, where he conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He alleged that he had been detained and abused by Salvadoran authorities on several occasions, including being beaten and subjected to harsh conditions, and pointed to his and his mother’s limited involvement in a human rights organization as evidence that he was targeted for political reasons. He also described a general pattern of young men in his neighborhood being suspected of gang affiliation by police.An Immigration Judge (IJ) found that, while the petitioner’s testimony was at times lacking in detail, he was not found to be non-credible. However, the IJ concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a nexus between his alleged persecution and any protected ground such as political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The IJ also determined that the mistreatment described did not rise to the level of torture under the CAT and that internal relocation within El Salvador might be possible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing that the petitioner had not met the requirements for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief, and rejected claims of an unfair hearing.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied the petition. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the petitioner had not shown persecution on account of a protected ground, nor that he was more likely than not to face torture if returned. The court also found no due process violation, determining that the IJ adequately developed the record and that there was insufficient evidence of prejudicial translation errors. The petition for review was denied. View "Bonilla-Espinoza v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A group of oil-and-gas royalty owners in Oklahoma, represented by Chieftain Royalty Company, sued EnerVest Energy’s predecessor in 2011 for allegedly underpaying royalties. After EnerVest acquired the wells, the parties reached a $52 million settlement in 2015 to be paid to the class after expenses and attorneys’ fees. Class counsel sought 40% of the fund as fees, plus expenses and an incentive award for the class representative. Two class members objected to the fee and incentive awards.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma approved the settlement, awarding 33.33% of the fund for attorneys’ fees and a 0.5% incentive award. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the settlement but reversed the fee and incentive awards, holding that Oklahoma law applied and required a lodestar analysis (not solely a percentage-of-the-fund), and that incentive awards must be based on time spent on case-related services. Following remand and a clarifying decision from the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Strack v. Continental Resources, Inc., the district court reapplied the statutory factors, found a 33.33% fee reasonable (supported by a 2.15 lodestar multiplier), and adjusted the incentive award based on the representative’s service. A subsequent Tenth Circuit appeal led to vacatur of the fee award on procedural notice grounds, then the district court reinstated the same fee after proper notice.On this third appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Oklahoma law does not impose a hard ceiling on percentage fees or lodestar multipliers. The district court properly applied Oklahoma’s statutory factors, conducted a thorough reasonableness analysis, and did not abuse its discretion by awarding 33.33% of the fund ($17,333,333.33) as attorneys’ fees. The fee award was affirmed. View "Chieftain Royalty Company v. Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A" on Justia Law

Christopher Singer, a previously convicted felon, was investigated in connection with a drive-by shooting in Oklahoma City. Police found spent and live ammunition in his possession, leading to federal charges for being a felon in possession of ammunition. Singer pleaded guilty to this charge. At sentencing, the United States Probation Office presented a report noting Singer’s three prior Oklahoma state convictions: two for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 645, and one for robbery with a firearm.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma reviewed Singer’s objections to the presentence investigation report. Singer argued that his prior convictions under § 645 should not be classified as categorical crimes of violence for purposes of the United States Sentencing Guidelines or as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), because the statute could apply to assaults against unborn victims, which federal law does not include in its definitions of “crime of violence.” The district court, relying on prior Tenth Circuit precedent in United States v. Taylor, overruled Singer’s objection, determined the convictions qualified under both the Guidelines and ACCA, and sentenced Singer to 180 months, the mandatory minimum under ACCA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the sentencing determination de novo. The court concluded that Oklahoma’s § 645 does criminalize assault and battery with a dangerous weapon against unborn persons. Guided by its own precedent, notably United States v. Adams, the Tenth Circuit held that because federal law excludes crimes against unborn persons from its definition of “crime of violence,” Singer’s prior convictions under § 645 do not categorically qualify as such under the Guidelines or ACCA. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s sentencing decision and remanded for resentencing consistent with this ruling. View "United States v. Singer" on Justia Law

A group of affiliated pest-control companies discovered that employees of a competing firm, Aptive Environmental, LLC, had bribed members of their organization to obtain confidential sales data stored in a password-protected system. The misappropriated data was allegedly used by Aptive to recruit sales representatives for the competitive summer sales season, an activity crucial to both businesses’ revenue. Upon learning of these actions, the companies sued Aptive and several individual employees, asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), and Utah’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA).The United States District Court for the District of Utah initially dismissed the CFAA claim, concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded the statutory loss requirement, specifically a loss from technological harm. The court denied motions to compel broad discovery into damages, limiting disclosures but allowing the possibility of further tailored discovery. On summary judgment, the district court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of causation linking Aptive’s alleged misappropriation to unjust enrichment, granting judgment for Aptive on the RICO, DTSA, and UTSA claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed these decisions. It held that the district court erred in dismissing the CFAA claim, clarifying that the statute does not require loss from technological harm and that investigative costs can qualify as statutory losses. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of broad discovery, finding no abuse of discretion. Regarding summary judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the outcome for the RICO claim due to lack of causation evidence but reversed in part for the DTSA and UTSA claims, holding that reasonable royalties and injunctive relief do not require the same proof of causation as unjust enrichment. The CFAA, DTSA, and UTSA claims were remanded for further proceedings. View "Moxie Pest Control (Utah) v. Nielsen" on Justia Law