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

Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. implemented a reduction-in-force (RIF) that resulted in the termination of 271 employees. Several of these former employees filed a collective action lawsuit against Spirit, alleging age discrimination. To succeed, they needed to demonstrate a pattern or practice of age discrimination. They presented documentary evidence and testimony to support their claims, while Spirit contended that the RIF aimed to eliminate underperformers regardless of age.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment in favor of Spirit, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a pattern or practice of age discrimination. The court found that the evidence did not support the claim that Spirit's actions were motivated by ageism.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court examined the evidence, including lay testimony, documentary evidence, and expert opinions. The court found that the evidence, individually or collectively, did not support an inference of a standard operating procedure to eliminate older employees. The court noted that some evidence might suggest individual instances of age discrimination but did not establish a company-wide policy or practice.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding an unlawful pattern or practice of age discrimination. The court also addressed the exclusion of expert declarations and found no error in the district court's decisions. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that Spirit's RIF or refusal to rehire older workers was motivated by age discrimination. View "Raymond v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of hospice service providers in Oklahoma, sued Defendant Axxess Technology Solutions, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging that Axxess failed to properly process claims, resulting in non-payment for services. Axxess was served but mistakenly believed it had not been due to an employee error. Consequently, Axxess did not respond to the complaint, leading the district court to enter a default judgment against it. Axxess moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a contractual mediation requirement. The district court denied this motion, and Axxess did not appeal.Over six months later, Axxess filed a second motion to set aside the default judgment, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (4), and (6). The district court denied this motion on claim preclusion grounds, and Axxess timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision but not on claim preclusion grounds. Instead, it held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the second motion because the arguments raised could have been presented in the first motion. The court noted that Axxess's delay in raising these arguments was sufficient reason to deny relief under Rule 60(b). The court also granted Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to properly allege diversity jurisdiction, concluding that there was complete diversity between the parties. View "Choice Hospice v. Axxess Technology Solutions" on Justia Law

Wayne Brown, a Tulsa police officer, was terminated after a private citizen, Marq Lewis, brought several of Brown's old Facebook posts to the attention of the City of Tulsa and the Tulsa Police Department. The posts included images and messages that were deemed offensive and in violation of the department's social media policy. Brown filed a lawsuit claiming his termination violated his First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also brought a wrongful discharge claim under Oklahoma law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed Brown's federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. The court concluded that the City's interest in maintaining public confidence in the police force outweighed Brown's free speech rights and that Chief Jordan was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also dismissed Brown's Equal Protection claim, determining it was a "class-of-one" theory foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the dismissal of Brown's First Amendment claim, finding that the district court erred in conducting the Pickering balancing test at the motion to dismiss stage and in granting qualified immunity to Chief Jordan. The court affirmed the dismissal of Brown's Equal Protection claim, agreeing that it was a non-cognizable "class-of-one" claim in the public employment context. The court also reversed the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Brown's state law claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law

Universitas Education, LLC sought to recover funds lost in an insurance fraud scheme orchestrated by Daniel Carpenter, which defrauded Universitas of $30 million in life insurance proceeds. The fraud involved multiple corporate entities, including Avon Capital, LLC, and its affiliates. Universitas secured a civil judgment in the Southern District of New York for $30.6 million, including $6.7 million against Avon Capital, LLC. Universitas registered the judgment in Oklahoma and sought to garnish a $6.7 million insurance portfolio held by SDM Holdings, which Avon owned.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of Universitas and authorized a receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM appealed, arguing procedural defects and disputes on the merits. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment on mootness grounds, determining that the district court could not rely on the registered judgment because its five-year effective term had expired before the district court entered its order. The case was remanded for further proceedings.Upon remand, Universitas re-registered the New York judgment, and the district court re-entered summary judgment in favor of Universitas and reauthorized the receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM challenged the district court's jurisdiction and the re-entered orders. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to preserve the status quo during the appeal and properly re-affirmed its summary judgment and receivership orders after receiving the appellate mandate. The court concluded that Universitas did not need to file a new cause of action and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Universitas Education v. Avon Capital" on Justia Law

Phelps Oil and Gas, LLC, leased land to Noble Energy, Inc., which produces natural gas and pays royalties to Phelps. Phelps filed a class action lawsuit against Noble, alleging underpayment of royalties. The dispute centers on the interpretation of a prior settlement agreement, the Holman Settlement, which outlines the royalty calculation method. Phelps claims Noble failed to pay royalties on $34 million from a DCP Midstream, LP audit and $17.5 million that DCP promised to invest in infrastructure.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of Noble. The court found that Noble was not obligated to pay royalties on the $34 million because DCP never returned those proceeds to Noble. Regarding the $17.5 million, the court held that Phelps failed to show that the promise had value to Noble beyond increased production and resulting revenues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Phelps did not present evidence that DCP returned any proceeds to Noble related to the $34 million. The court also upheld the summary judgment on the $17.5 million claim, finding that Phelps could not demonstrate that the promise provided any additional benefit to Noble aside from increased production and revenues, which Noble had already accounted for in its royalty payments.The Tenth Circuit concluded that Phelps failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Noble's obligation to pay additional royalties under the Holman Settlement. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Noble Energy, Inc. View "Phelps Oil and Gas v. Noble Energy" on Justia Law

The case involves Justin Ness, who was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigated Ness based on evidence from his public Facebook page, which included photos and videos of him with firearms. A search warrant for his private Facebook page revealed further evidence, leading to a search of his trailer, where a firearm and ammunition were found. Ness was indicted for possessing the firearm and ammunition on or about September 8, 2021.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma held a two-day trial in March 2022. The government presented evidence from Ness's Facebook account and testimony from ATF agents. Ness's defense included testimony from a friend, Geoff Irwin, who claimed ownership of the firearm, and Ness himself, who denied knowing about the firearm and ammunition in his trailer. The jury was instructed that the government needed to prove the crime occurred "reasonably near" the alleged date. During deliberations, the jury asked for clarification on the timeline, but the court responded that they had all the evidence needed to render a verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Ness argued that the district court erred by not clarifying the "on or about" instruction, which he claimed could have led to his conviction for uncharged conduct from several months earlier. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not err in its response to the jury's question and that Ness failed to show plain error or that his substantial rights were affected. The court affirmed Ness's conviction. View "United States v. Ness" on Justia Law

Curtis Park Group, LLC (Curtis Park) encountered a significant issue during the construction of a new development called S*Park, which included five buildings supported by a single concrete slab. The slab began to sag due to construction defects, and Curtis Park hired a consultant to determine the cause and necessary repairs. The repairs cost $2,857,157.78, which were fronted by the general contractor, Milender White, as per their agreement. Curtis Park had a builder’s risk insurance policy with Allied World Specialty Insurance Company (Allied World) but did not include Milender White or subcontractors as named insureds.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the case, where Curtis Park sued Allied World for breach of contract and bad faith after Allied World denied coverage for the repair costs. The district court ruled that Curtis Park could seek coverage for the repair costs even though Milender White had absorbed these costs. The jury found in favor of Curtis Park on the breach-of-contract and statutory bad-faith claims but not on the common-law bad-faith claim. Allied World’s motions for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in interpreting the insurance policy to allow Curtis Park to recover repair costs it had not paid and had no obligation to pay. The policy explicitly limited recovery to the amount the named insured (Curtis Park) actually spent on repairs. The Tenth Circuit reversed the jury’s verdict and remanded for a new trial, instructing that Curtis Park cannot recover the costs of repair that it did not pay. The court also vacated the remainder of the judgment and remanded for a new trial on all other issues. View "Curtis Park Group v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiff John Doe filed a class action lawsuit against Integris Health, Inc., alleging that Integris collected confidential health information from its website visitors and unlawfully shared it with third parties like Google and Facebook. Doe's complaint, filed in Oklahoma state court, asserted state law claims including negligence, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Integris removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, claiming it was acting under the direction of a federal officer by helping the federal government achieve its objective of ensuring patient access to electronic health records (EHR).The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma remanded the case to state court, concluding that Integris had not demonstrated it was "acting under" the direction of a federal officer. The court found that Integris was merely complying with federal regulations, which is insufficient to establish federal officer jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that Integris was not "acting under" a federal officer because it was only complying with federal regulations and not fulfilling a basic government task. The court emphasized that compliance with federal law, even if highly detailed and supervised, does not equate to acting under a federal officer. The court also noted that Integris's use of tracking technology on its website was not required by the federal government and was not part of any federal directive. Therefore, the court concluded that removal under the federal officer removal statute was improper. View "Doe v. Integris Health" on Justia Law

Joseph Harjo was tried and convicted by a jury in Oklahoma federal court for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country under the Major Crimes Act. The district court sentenced him to life in prison. Harjo challenged his conviction, arguing that the Major Crimes Act is unconstitutional and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior child abuse under Federal Rule of Evidence 414.Previously, Harjo was charged by the state of Oklahoma with child sexual abuse and was convicted by a state jury, resulting in a life sentence. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which determined that Muskogee was within the Muscogee Creek Nation, Oklahoma's jurisdiction was invalidated, and Harjo's conviction was set aside. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted him on one count of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act, citing controlling Supreme Court precedent that establishes Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs and the unique status of Indians as a separate people with their own political institutions. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of five child witnesses under Rule 414. The district court had determined that a reasonable jury could conclude the prior acts occurred by a preponderance of the evidence and that the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court carefully addressed the relevant factors and reached a permissible conclusion on the admissibility of the testimony. Therefore, the court affirmed Harjo's conviction and life sentence. View "United States v. Harjo" on Justia Law

Deborah Bradshaw and Chrystal Antao sued American Airlines and Mesa Airlines, alleging injuries and damages from the airlines' negligent handling of an in-flight emergency. During a June 2020 flight, the aircraft experienced a malfunction that led to a loss of cabin pressure, requiring an emergency descent. The plaintiffs claimed the pilot failed to properly inform passengers of the threat and descended too rapidly, while American Airlines failed to provide medical personnel upon landing.The case was initially filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and later removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on diversity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the airlines, concluding that federal law preempted Oklahoma's common-carrier standard of care in aviation safety. The court allowed the plaintiffs to pursue a state negligence claim using the federal "reckless-or-careless manner" standard but found no evidence that the airlines violated this standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Federal Aviation Act and related regulations preempt state law in the field of aviation safety. The court agreed that the federal "careless or reckless manner" standard of care applies, preempting Oklahoma's common-carrier standard. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding a violation of federal regulations by the airlines and upheld the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Bradshaw v. American Airlines" on Justia Law