Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07084/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07084-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

.. lJHITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D 

FOR THE TEBTII CIRCUIT Unitsd Stat-££ Co·..ut ol Appeals 

RAY DEAN HAAS; CONNIE DRYWATER, 

an individual; CONNIE DRYWATER, 

Parent and Next Friend of Tiffany 

a minor, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, a ) 

corporation; INS INVESTIGATIONS ) 

BUREAU, INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE ) 

GROUP, doing business as Farmers ) 

Insurance Company, Inc.; FARMER'S ) 

INSURANCE GROUP, doing business as) 

Farmers Insurance Exchange, ) 

Farmers Group, Inc.; FARMER'S ) 

INSURANCE GROUP, doing business ) 

as Fire Insurance Exchange, ) 

Fire Underwriters Association; ) 

FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, doing ) 

business as Mid-Century Insurance ) 

Company; FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, ) 

doing business as Truck Insurance ) 

Exchange Truck Underwriters ) 

Association, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

'1',..,..•)\ ~if'f'11it 

MAR 2 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-7084 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. 90-163-S) 

Before ANDERSON, TACBA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-7084 Document: 010110031449 Date Filed: 03/29/1991 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The plaintiffs in this diversity case sued a number of 

companies in the Farmers Insurance Group and INS Investigations 

Bureau, Inc., alleging tortious spoilation of evidence. The 

defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, contending that no such cause of action is recognized under Oklahoma law. 

On September 27, 1990 the district court granted the motion and 

dismissed the action. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion 

to reconsider and/or to certify the question to the Oklahoma 

Supreme Court. That motion was denied, and this appeal was filed 

explicitly limiting the issue to whether the district court erred 

in failing either to rule definitively that the Oklahoma Supreme 

Court would or would not recognize the tort of spoilation of 

evidence, or to certify the question, and requesting a remand to 

the district court with instructions to do one or the other. 

Brief of Appellants at 3, 15. 

We must first address the defendants' jurisdictional challenge. The notice of appeal listed "Ray Dean Haas, et. al." as 

appellant, and "Farmers Insurance Group, et. al.", as appellee. 

Citing Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (1988), and 

Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386 (10th Cir. 1990), defendants 

contend that we have jurisdiction only as to Ray Dean Haas and, by 

logical extension, as to only the one named appellee, Farmers 

Insurance Group. We disagree. We have jurisdiction "if the 

appellant files additional documents resolving any defects in the 

notice within the time limit for filing a notice of appeal." 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7084 Document: 010110031449 Date Filed: 03/29/1991 Page: 2 
Hubbert v. City of Moore, 923 F.2d 769, 772 (10th Cir. 1991). The 

timely filed docketing statement and other papers filed by the 

appellant have cured the defect in the notice of appeal by 

specifically designating each plaintiff as an appellant. And, it 

is not necessary to name each appellee in the notice of appeal. 

See Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 622-23 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over all parties named in the 

action below. 

The sole issue which the appellants raise on this appeal 

arises from the language used by the district court in its order 

granting the defendant's motion to dismiss. The district court's 

order in its entirety is as follows: 

ORDER 

The defendants INS Investigations Bureau and Farmers Insurance Group have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' 

cause of action for failure to state a cause of action 

in that plaintiffs' alleged cause of action is not 

recognized by Oklahoma law. 

Plaintiffs' alleged cause of action is "interference with a prospective civil action by elimination of 

evidence", otherwise commonly referred to as a 

"spoilation of evidence" cause of action. The 

plaintiffs [sic] jurisdictional basis is diversity, such 

that this court must apply the law of the forum state, 

or Oklahoma law. 

The parties [sic] briefs and this court's research 

confirm that Oklahoma has not recognized, by statute or 

common law, a cause of action for spoilation of 

evidence. Certainly, this court does not have the 

authority to confer or create a cause of action under 

state law where none exists. Likewise, this court cannot, and will not, guess or speculate on whether the 

Oklahoma Supreme Court will subsequently adopt or create 

such a cause of action when it is properly submitted to 

that Court. 

Accordingly, the court finds that Oklahoma does not 

recognize the cause of action pleaded by plaintiffs, and 

plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a cause of action 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-7084 Document: 010110031449 Date Filed: 03/29/1991 Page: 3 
against these defendants. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 

is granted as to all defendants, and this case is 

dismissed. 

Brief of Appellant, Exh. A. 

The appellants argue with some persuasiveness that the court 

simply refused to decide whether or not Oklahoma would recognize 

the tort in question by virtue of the statement in the order that 

"this court does not have the authority to confer or create a 

cause of action under state law where none exists. Likewise, this 

court cannot, and will not, guess or speculate on whether the 

Oklahoma Supreme Court will subsequently adopt or create such a 

cause of action •••• " However, in the final and dispositive 

paragraph of the order, the court clears up any confusion that the 

language just quoted may have caused. The order states: "[T]he 

court finds that Oklahoma does not recognize the cause of action 

pleaded by the plaintiffs, and plaintiffs' complaint fails to 

state a cause of action against these defendants." As we read it, 

that language constitutes a decision on the merits; and it is no 

less conclusive because the reasoning behind it may be subject to 

challenge. Since the appellants have elected not to appeal the 

merits, even as an alternative ground to the issue stated in their 

brief, the district court's judgment of dismissal on the merits is 

final. As the appellants recognize, Brief of Appellants at 13, 

certification is entirely within the discretion of the district 

court; therefore, that portion of the issue raised on appeal fails 

as well. 

For the reasons stated above, we hold that the district court 

did not err by refusing to rule on the merits or to certify the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-7084 Document: 010110031449 Date Filed: 03/29/1991 Page: 4 
• 

question of state law. The decision of the district court is, 

therefore, AFFIRMED. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-7084 Document: 010110031449 Date Filed: 03/29/1991 Page: 5