Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-appellant Joe Anzures was a Colorado resident, and defendants Nick Hogan and Flagship Restaurant Group were Nebraska residents. Anzures and non-party Jared Mitilier (a California resident) contacted defendant Hogan in Omaha, Nebraska, about starting a business venture (all three had been high-school classmates in Nebraska). The proposed business was to broker the sale of pre-paid financial products akin to pre-loaded debit cards. Hogan agreed, and Industria Payment Solutions, LLC was formed as a Nevada LLC with both its registered office and registered agent in Nevada. Anzures was Industria’s only employee. A few months after Industria’s formation, Hogan allegedly attempted to squeeze Anzures out so Flagship could increase its ownership interest. To that purported end, Hogan allegedly made a series of false accusations to Mitilier that Anzures was secretly assisting one of Industria’s competitors, and he tried to persuade Mitilier to vote in favor of removing Anzures from Industria and instituting litigation against Anzures. Hogan also allegedly threatened that Flagship would not provide funding to Industria unless Anzures agreed to take significantly less compensation. Anzures agreed to take less compensation, but when Flagship did not follow through on its promise to make a contribution to Industria, Anzures filed suit in Colorado state court. Hogan and Flagship removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Anzures amended his complaint to add a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Flagship and Hogan, and three other claims against Flagship (fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract). Defendants then moved to dismiss the amended complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction. After allowing limited discovery (including the deposition of Hogan) on the jurisdictional issue, a magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss. Over Anzures’s objections, the district court agreed. This appeal followed. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Anzures v. Flagship Restaurant Group" on Justia Law

Sheldon Hathaway became embroiled in a stranger-originated-life-insurance (STOLI) scheme at the involving his neighbor, Jay Sullivan. Here, Intervenor Defendant-Appellant Windsor Securities, LLC (Windsor) loaned Defendant-Appellant the Sheldon Hathaway Family Trust (the Trust) $200,000 to finance the initial premium on a life insurance policy (the policy) for Hathaway. In exchange, Windsor “receive[d] a moderate return on [its] investment” if a trust repaid the loan. Alternatively, Windsor “foreclose[s] on the life insurance policy that was pledged as collateral” when a trust fails to do so. That’s what happened here. But before Windsor could profit from its investment, Plaintiff-Appellee PHL Variable Insurance Company (PHL) sought to rescind the policy based on alleged misrepresentations in Hathaway’s insurance application. The district court ultimately granted PHL’s motion for summary judgment on its rescission claim, and allowed And it allowed PHL to retain the premiums Windsor already paid. On appeal, Windsor and the Trust (collectively, the defendants) argued the district court erred in granting PHL’s motion for summary judgment because there was at least a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether PHL waived its right to rescind the policy. Alternatively, they argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment because, at a minimum, a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to: (1) whether the application contained a misrepresentation; and (2) whether PHL relied on that misrepresentation in issuing the policy. Finally, even assuming summary judgment was appropriate, defendants argued the district court lacked authority to allow PHL to retain the paid premiums. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding no genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether PHL waived its right to rescind the policy. Nor was there any genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the application contained a misrepresentation or whether PHL relied on that misrepresentation in issuing the policy. Lastly, the Court held the district court had authority to allow PHL to retain the paid premiums. View "PHL Variable Insurance v. Sheldon Hathaway Family Trust" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Kansas Board of Education (the “Board”) adopted curriculum standards establishing performance expectations for science instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Appellants, Citizens for Objective Public Education, Kansas parents, and school children (collectively, “COPE”), contended that although the standards purported to further science education, their concealed aim was to teach students to answer questions about the cause and nature of life with only nonreligious explanations. COPE also claimed two plaintiffs had standing as taxpayers who objected to their tax dollars being used to implement the Standards. The district court disagreed, and dismissed the suit without prejudice for lack of standing. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded all of COPE's theories of injury failed, and affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "COPE v. KS State Board of Education" on Justia Law

"This appeal is heavy, very heavy, on procedure." Plaintiff-appellee Peggy Walton worked in the New Mexico State Land Office. She was a political appointee of the elected Republican Land Commissioner, Patrick Lyons. Lyons’s decision not to seek reelection for a third term put plaintiff's job at risk: as a political appointee, a new administration could easily dismiss her. To see that she remained employed with the state, Lyons appointed plaintiff to a senior civil service job where she’d be protected by state law against removal for political reasons. A local television reporter ran a report titled “[c]ronies move up as officials move out” - a report highly critical of Lyons and plaintiff. Another reporter introducing the story aired his view that plaintiff was “distinctly unqualified” for her new job and claimed the hiring was “rigged.” Ray Powell, the newly elected Democratic candidate, dismissed plaintiff. Eight days after making the decision to dismiss her but before announcing it publicly, Powell held a meeting with the land office’s advisory board; "glared across the conference table" at plaintiff, spoke of the television news report denouncing her appointment; and, referring to her in all but name, said he “was concerned about . . . ‘protected employees’” who “for some reason didn’t have to meet the leadership criteria” for their appointments. Plaintiff sued when she was dismissed, arguing that she was a protected civil service employee, and under New Mexico Law, Powell had unlawfully retaliated against her for exercising her right to free political association in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983. In reply and at summary judgment. Powell claimed qualified immunity. But the district court denied the motion and set the case for trial. Powell appealed, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of summary judgment. View "Walton v. NM State Land Office" on Justia Law

Wasatch Equality and four snowboarders (collectively, Wasatch) sued to challenge a snowboard ban at Alta Ski Area in Utah. In its complaint, Wasatch alleged the ban unconstitutionally discriminated against snowboarders and denied them equal protection of the law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Recognizing that private action won’t sustain a civil rights complaint, Wasatch further alleged the ban constituted “state action” because Alta operated its ski resort on federal land via a permit issued by the United States Forest Service. The district court disagreed, and dismissed this case for failure to identify a state action. Because the Tenth Circuit agreed Wasatch hadn't plausibly established that the snowboard ban constituted state action, the Court affirmed. View "Wasatch Equality v. Alta Ski Lifts" on Justia Law

Kody Brown, Meri Brown, Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Robyn Sullivan (“the Browns”) form a “plural family.” Kody Brown is legally married to Meri Brown and “spiritually married” to the other three women, whom he calls “sister wives.” When the family became the subject of a TLC reality television show in 2010, the Lehi Police Department opened an investigation of the Browns for violating Utah’s bigamy statute, Utah Code Annotated section 76-7-101. The Browns then filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in federal district court against the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Utah and the Utah County Attorney. Claiming the Statute infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Browns sought declaratory relief and a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the Statute against them. The Tenth Circuit concluded after review of this matter that the district court erred by proceeding to the merits: "[f]ollowing adoption of the [Utah County Attorney’s Office] UCAO Policy, the Browns’ suit ceased to qualify as an Article III case or controversy. Their suit was moot before the district court awarded them relief, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to decide the Browns’ claims." View "Brown v. Buhman" on Justia Law

In 2015, two men were distributing pamphlets on the plaza outside the Courthouse (Plaza). The pamphlets contained information about "jury nullification." Both men were arrested and charged with jury tampering in violation of Colorado law. Plaintiffs, like the men who were arrested, wanted to distribute literature relating to and advocating for jury nullification to individuals approaching the Courthouse who might be prospective jurors. Fearing they too would be subject to arrest, Plaintiffs brought suit against the City and County of Denver and Robert White, Denver’s police chief, to establish their First Amendment right to engage in this activity. On the same day they filed suit, Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to restrain Defendants from taking action to prevent Plaintiffs from distributing jury nullification literature on the Plaza. This case was an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, enjoining in part the enforcement of an administrative order (Order) issued by Defendant-Appellant Judge Michael Martinez, acting in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District of Colorado. The Order prohibited all expressive activities within an area immediately surrounding the Courthouse. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court enjoined enforcement of a portion of the Order as against Plaintiffs. The Judicial District appealed. "[T]he government’s power to control speech in a traditional public forum is circumscribed precisely because the public has, through the extent and nature of its use of these types of government property, acquired, in effect, a 'speech easement' that the government property owner must now honor." Based on the arguments made and evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing, the Tenth Circuit held the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ motion in part. View "Verlo v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee Amber Lompe was exposed to high levels of carbon monoxide (CO) from a malfunctioning furnace in her apartment at the Sunridge Apartments in Casper, Wyoming. Plaintiff brought a diversity action in the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming against Sunridge Partners LLC (Sunridge) and Apartment Management Consultants, L.L.C. (AMC), the owner and the property manager. The jury found both Defendants liable for negligence and awarded plaintiff compensatory damages totaling $3,000,000 and punitive damages totaling $25,500,000, of which the jury apportioned $3,000,000 against Sunridge and $22,500,000 against AMC. Defendants challenged the jury’s award of punitive damages, arguing the district court erred in failing to grant their motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) as to punitive damages. Alternatively, they contended the district court’s jury instructions on punitive damages were erroneous and the amount of punitive damages awarded against each Defendant was excessive under common law and constitutional standards. After review, the Tenth Circuit held that the evidence was insufficient to submit the question of punitive damages to the jury as to Sunridge, and the amount of punitive damages awarded against AMC was grossly excessive and arbitrary in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court vacated the award of punitive damages against Sunridge and reduce the punitive damages awarded against AMC from $22,500,000 to $1,950,000. View "Lompe v. Sunridge Partners LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee Amber Lompe was exposed to high levels of carbon monoxide (CO) from a malfunctioning furnace in her apartment at the Sunridge Apartments in Casper, Wyoming. Plaintiff brought a diversity action in the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming against Sunridge Partners LLC (Sunridge) and Apartment Management Consultants, L.L.C. (AMC), the owner and the property manager. The jury found both Defendants liable for negligence and awarded plaintiff compensatory damages totaling $3,000,000 and punitive damages totaling $25,500,000, of which the jury apportioned $3,000,000 against Sunridge and $22,500,000 against AMC. Defendants challenged the jury’s award of punitive damages, arguing the district court erred in failing to grant their motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) as to punitive damages. Alternatively, they contended the district court’s jury instructions on punitive damages were erroneous and the amount of punitive damages awarded against each Defendant was excessive under common law and constitutional standards. After review, the Tenth Circuit held that the evidence was insufficient to submit the question of punitive damages to the jury as to Sunridge, and the amount of punitive damages awarded against AMC was grossly excessive and arbitrary in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court vacated the award of punitive damages against Sunridge and reduce the punitive damages awarded against AMC from $22,500,000 to $1,950,000. View "Lompe v. Sunridge Partners LLC" on Justia Law

Sierra Club brought a citizen suit seeking civil penalties against Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company “(OG&E)” for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Sierra Club claimed that in March and April 2008, OG&E, the owner and operator of a coal-fired power plant in Muskogee, modified a boiler at the plant without first obtaining an emission-regulating permit as required under the Act. Because Sierra Club filed its action more than five years after construction began on the plant, the district court dismissed its claim under Rule 12(b)(6) on statute of limitations grounds. The court also dismissed Sierra Club’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because these remedies were predicated on the unavailable claim for civil penalties. Finding no error in the district court's conclusions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law