Tenth Circuit Summaries
Publication year | 2004 |
Pages | 187 |
2004, August, Pg. 187. Tenth Circuit Summaries
Vol. 33, No. 8, Pg. 11
The Colorado Lawyer
August 2004
Vol. 33, No. 8 [Page 187]
August 2004
Vol. 33, No. 8 [Page 187]
From the Courts
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Tenth Circuit Summaries
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Tenth Circuit Summaries
Summaries of selected opinions appear on a space-available
basis. The summaries are prepared for the Colorado Bar
Association by Jenine Jensen and Catherine Campbell, licensed
Colorado attorneys. The summaries of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit are provided as a service by
the Colorado Bar Association and are not the official
language of the Court. The Colorado Bar Association cannot
guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries
Full copies of the Tenth Circuit decisions are available on
the CBA website at http: //www.cobar.org/hotlinks.cfm (United
States Courts link to the Tenth Circuit). Call The Colorado
Lawyer Editorial Offices with questions: (303) 860-1118
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine - Federal Jurisdiction - Dismissal
Without Prejudice - Merits Actually Decided - Inextricably
Intertwined
Merrill Lynch Business Financial Services, Inc. v. Nudell
No. 03-1163, 4/12/04, D.Colo., Chief Judge Tacha.
Plaintiff sued defendant in a Colorado state court to collect
on a loan he guaranteed for his company. Unbeknownst to
plaintiff, defendant's company had filed for bankruptcy
the day before the collection action was filed. The Colorado
state court dismissed the collection suit without prejudice.
After the bankruptcy case was closed, plaintiff sued
defendant again, this time in federal district court. The
defendant moved to dismiss the federal case, invoking the
"Rooker-Feldman doctrine," and the district court
granted the motion. [See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals
v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 283 (1983).]
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine establishes, as a matter of
subject-matter jurisdiction, that only the U.S. Supreme Court
has appellate authority to review a state-court decision.
[See 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).] The defendant argued that the
state court's dismissal of the first collection action
without prejudice barred the federal court from taking
subject-matter jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit Court
disagrees, holding that the doctrine did not apply here
because the state court's order did not actually decide
the merits of plaintiff's federal claims, and the federal
claims were not inextricably intertwined with the state
court's judgment. Rejecting defendant's suggestion
that the state court could have ruled on the merits, the
Tenth Circuit Court applies Colorado law, holding that a
dismissal without prejudice means not on the merits.
Accordingly, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not divest the
federal court of jurisdiction. The district court's
judgment is reversed and remanded.
Meaning of Dismissal "With Prejudice" - Re-file
Claims in Another Court
Styskal v. Weld County Board of County Comm'rs, No.
03-1179, 4/13/04, D.Colo., Judge Hartz.
Plaintiff sued both governmental entities and private
individuals over difficulties surrounding property she
purchased in Weld County, Colorado. Her federal claims
against the governmental defendants were dismissed; she does
not appeal that ruling. In dismissing her federal claims,
however, the district court also dismissed her state-law
claims against the individual defendants, finding that it
lacked supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. The
district court dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Plaintiff appealed, contending that she should be permitted
to re-file her state-law claims against the individual
defendants in a state court. The Tenth Circuit Court explains
that the meaning of a dismissal "with prejudice"
has changed over the years. Relying on a recent Supreme Court
opinion, the Tenth Circuit Court holds that the primary
meaning of "dismissal with prejudice" is that
plaintiff is barred from again bringing the same claims in
the same court. Whether those claims can be re-filed in a
different court depends on whether the claims were dismissed
on the merits or on procedural grounds. Because the district
court's judgment did not necessarily preclude plaintiff
from refiling her state-law claims in a state court, the
district court's judgment is affirmed.
Civil or Criminal Contempt - Costs and Fees for Appeal
Lucre Management Group, LLC, v. Schempp Real Estate, LLC (In
re Lucre Mgmt. Group, LLC), No. 03-1086, 4/20/04, D.Colo.,
Judge McKay.
Lucre Management Group, LLC ("Lucre") violated the
bankruptcy court's order limiting how certain funds could
be used. Consequently, the bankruptcy court found that Lucre
was in contempt, and ordered it to reimburse the funds to the
bankruptcy trustee or pay $1,000 as a sanction. Lucre
appealed to the district court, who characterized the
contempt as "criminal" for the first time, and
affirmed the order. Lucre then appealed that judgment,
seeking reversal of the contempt and challenging the
characterization of it as "criminal."
The Tenth Circuit Court upholds the contempt order, because
it was clear that Lucre had notice of what the bankruptcy
order required, and that it violated the order. The contempt
order was not, however, "criminal" in nature;
rather it was "civil." A civil contempt is remedial
and for the benefit of the complainant. In contrast, a
criminal contempt is punitive, to vindicate the authority of
the court. Here, the contempt order required Lucre to
reimburse the funds and, if it did, it could avoid the $1,000
sanction. Therefore, it was a civil contempt.
The Tenth Circuit Court addresses appellee Schempp Real
Estate's request for fees and costs incurred in the
appeal to the district court, as well as to the appellate
court. The request was granted as to the initial appeal,
because the appeal was utterly without merit, but denied as
to the instant appeal, because Lucre raised a substantial
question about the proper characterization of the contempt.
The district court's judgment is affirmed in part and
reversed in part.
Unlawful Reentry After Deportation for Conviction of an
Aggravated...
To continue reading
Request your trial