Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02476/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02476-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

I 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unit.eel Stat.ea Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 2 91988 

JAMES N. HUBBARD, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

WILLIAMS. PRICE; JOHN DOE; RICHARD DOE,) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2476 

(D.C. No. 87-7-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

James N. Hubbard (Hubbard), acting pro se, commenced this 

action against William S. Price, the United States Attorney for 

the Western District of Oklahoma, and two unknown defendants for 

breach of contract. In February of 1983, the United States 

Attorney's office initiated a criminal action against Hubbard for 

Appellate Case: 87-2476 Document: 010110028292 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 1 
, 

' 

actions related to his employment with the Farmers Horne 

Administration. In order to resolve that matter, in August of 

1983, Hubbard and Price entered into the memorandum agreement 

which was the basis for the underlying litigation. Hubbard agreed 

to accept the termination of his employment with the Farmers Home 

Administration. In return, Price agreed that the pending criminal 

charges against Hubbard would be dismissed. 

In pertinent part, the agreement provided: 

5. Immediately thereafter, the United States will 

dismiss the indictment and all counts and charges 

therein in the case of the United States of America 

v. James Norment Hubbard, No. CR-83-31-T, United 

States District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma, and further agrees that none of such 

counts and charges shall be refiled. 

6. The United States further agrees that it will not, 

at any time, file any criminal charge or charges 

against Hubbard relating to or arising out of any 

of his actions or conduct while an employee of the 

FrnHA, it being understood by Hubbard that the 

agreement contained in this paragraph is only 

binding in the Western District of Oklahoma. 

In 1986, the United States commenced a civil action in the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, 

naming Hubbard as one of the defendants. That action was based on 

the same facts underlying the original criminal action. 

Hubbard commenced the action underlying this appeal in 

Oklahoma state court, alleging the institution of the government's 

civil action was a breach of the memorandum agreement. Defendants 

removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442. 

Upon the defendants' motion, the district court awarded the 

defendants summary judgment. Hubbard appeals from that order of 

summary judgment. 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2476 Document: 010110028292 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 2 
! 

The question presented is whether the district court's order 

granting summary judgment to the defendants was proper. Because 

we conclude summary judgment was appropriate, we affirm. 

Because summary judgment decisions involve purely legal 

determinations, we review them de novo. Carey v. United States 

Postal Serv., 812 F.2d 621, 623 (10th Cir. 1987). Summary 

judgment is appropriate only in actions 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); Anderson v. 

Cramlet, 789 F.2d 840, 842 (10th Cir. 1986). In determining 

whether a genuine issue as to a material fact exists, we must 

apply the substantive law of Oklahoma. Anderson, 789 F.2d at 843, 

citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). A genuine 

issue of fact exists only where the evidence is such that a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Carey, 812 

F.2d at 623. 

Under Oklahoma law, where a contract is clear and explicit 

and does not involve an absurdity, the language of the contract is 

to govern the interpretation of that contract. Okla. Stat. Ann. 

tit. 15, §§ 154, 155 (West 1986); Premier Resources, Ltd. v. 

Northern Natural Gas Co., 616 F.2d 1171, 1180 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 449 U.S. 827 (1980). The interpretation of an unambiguous 

contract is a matter of law. Devine v. Ladd Petroleum Corp., 743 

F.2d 745, 748 (10th Cir. 1984)(interpreting Oklahoma law). 

A contract is unambiguous if its language is reasonably and 

fairly susceptible to a single meaning. Taylor v. Beech Aircraft 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2476 Document: 010110028292 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 3 
j 

Corp., 407 F. Supp. 69, 72 (W.D. Okla. 1976). The determination 

of whether a contract is ambiguous is also a matter of law. 

Devine, 743 F.2d at 748; Ferrell Constr. Co. v. Russell Creek Coal 

Co., 645 P.2d 1005, 1007 (Okla. 1982). 

Hubbard's cause of action was based solely on the 

construction of the memorandum agreement between both parties. 

The determination that this agreement was unambiguous and the 

construction and interpretation of this agreement are both issues 

of law rather than fact, and are, therefore, properly resolved 

upon a motion for summary judgment. 

The language of the agreement was clear and unambiguous. The 

agreement prohibited the refiling of the original criminal charges 

against Hubbard. The civil action subsequently filed against 

Hubbard was not encompassed in the language of the agreement. 

We AFFIRM the order and judgment of the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granting 

summary judgment in favor of the defendants. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-2476 Document: 010110028292 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 4