Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01365/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01365-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

" 

-ONITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL 1990 

In r e: ) 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and ) 

STORAGE TECHNOLOGY LEASING CORPORATION, ) 

Debtors. 

STORAGE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, II, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and 

STC COMPUTER FINANCE CORPORATION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-1365 

(D.C. No. 89-Z-648) 

( D. Colo. ) 

Before TACHA, SETH, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** District Judge. 

**Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Plaintiff Storage Technology Partners, II (STP), a limited 

partnership organized under Colorado law, appeals the district 

court's affirmance of a bankruptcy court order granting defendants 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1365 Document: 010110038443 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 1 
r 

r 

summary judgment. STP commenced this action against the former 

general partner of STP, Computer Finance Corporation, and the 

general partner's parent corporation, Storage Technology 

Corporation, seeking a declaratory judgment that claims STP sought 

to assert in state court had not been discharged in defendants' 

bankruptcy proceedings. The reorganization plan, confirmed in the 

bankruptcy proceedings, discharged all claims of individual 

limited partners, but specifically preserved claims of the limited 

partnership itself. The bankruptcy court entered summary judgment 

in favor of defendants, determining that four of STP's thirteen 

state claims, the fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth claims, belonged 

exclusively to the limited partners and, therefore, had been 

discharged in bankruptcy. STP appealed to the district court, 

which affirmed. 

This court reviews an order granting summary judgment de 

novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 848 

F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate 

where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Willner v. Budig, 848 F.2d 1032, 

1033-34 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 840 (1989). 

Further, this court will give some deference to a district court's 

interpretation and application of the law of the state in which 

the district court is located. See, ~' Phico Ins. Co. v. 

Providers Ins. Co., 888 F.2d 663, 665 (10th Cir. 1989). 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1365 Document: 010110038443 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 2 
, ) 

•' 

The dispositive issue presented by this appeal is whether the 

four claims upon which the bankruptcy court entered summary 

judgment in favor of defendants belonged to the individual limited 

partners or to the plaintiff limited partnership. Colorado law 

recognizes that the general partner of a limited partnership owes 

duties to both the limited partners and the limited partnership 

itself. Compare,~, Elk River Assocs. v. Huskin, 691 P.2d 

1148, 1152 (Colo. App. 1984)(general partner, as a matter of law, 

owes limited partners fiduciary duty), with Moore v. 1600 Downing 

St., Ltd., 668 P.2d 16, 18, 19-20 (Colo. App. 1983)(limited 

partners can bring derivative suit, on behalf of limited 

partnership, against general partner for misrepresentation, 

mismanagement, and breach of fiduciary duty during course of 

managing the business of the partnership). Whether a claim 

belongs to the limited partners or to the limited partnership 

depends upon the nature of the injury alleged. See Strain v. 

Seven Hills Assocs., 429 N.Y.S.2d 424, 431-32 (N.Y. App. Div. 

1980); see also Alpert v. Haimes, 315 N.Y.S.2d 332, 335-36 (N.Y. 

Sup. Ct. 1970). 

Because we agree with both the district and bankruptcy courts 

that the factual allegations supporting these four claims for 

relief, as plead, state causes of action belonging to the 

individual limited partners, we AFFIRM the judgment of the United 

States District Court for the District of Colorado. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1365 Document: 010110038443 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 3