Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02524/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02524-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United Sraces Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 7 1990 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ALBERT M. BIRNIE; RICHARD A. CADIEU; ) 

GERALD P. CAMPAGNA; JAMES N. DONNERSTAG;) 

DON ERFTMIER; ROBERT H. HATCH; EUGENE ) 

McINTYRE; THOMAS A. REYNOLDS, JR.; ) 

ROBERT F. SWARTZBAUGH; HERBERT S. ) 

TRAUB , JR . , ) 

Defendants, 

and 

WILLIAM F. CASEY; WILLIAM J. KRAUSER; 

PAUL H. RAVICH; ROBERT J. TANSEY, JR., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

and 

Defendants-Cross-claimants- ) 

Appellants, ) 

EAGLE DRILLING PARTNERSHIP 1979 LTD., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant-Cross-claim 

Defendant-Appellee. 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ) 

CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ALBERT M. BIRNIE; RICHARD A. CADIEU; ) 

GERALD P. CAMPAGNA; JAMES N. DONNERSTAG;) 

DON ERFTMIER; ROBERT H. HATCH; EUGENE ) 

McINTYRE; THOMAS A. REYNOLDS, JR.; ) 

ROBERT F.SWARTZBAUGH; HERBERT S. ) 

TRAUB , JR • , ) 

) 

Defendants, ) 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2524 

(O.C. No. 84-3295-R) 

( W. D. Ok la. ) 

No. 88-2611 

(D.C. No. 84-3295-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Appellate Case: 88-2524 Document: 01019962969 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 1 
) 

and ) 

) 

WILLIAM F. CASEY; WILLIAM J. KRAUSER; ) 

PAUL H. RAVICH; ROBERT J. TANSEY, JR., ) 

) 

Defendants-Cross-claimants- ) 

Appellees, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

EAGLE DRILLING PARTNERSHIP 1979 LTD., ) 

) 

Defendant-Cross-claim- ) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, 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 these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

Defendants William F. Casey, William J. Krauser, Paul H. 

Ravich, and Robert J. Tansey, Jr. (the limited partners) appeal 

from the December 2, 1986, order of the district court granting 

plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation leave to amend - to 

add Count II. The limited partners also appeal from the 

* 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. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2524 Document: 01019962969 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 2 
August 30, 1988, order granting the FDIC's and defendant Eagle 

Drilling Partnership 1979 Ltd. 's motions for summary judgment on 

Count II (No. 88-2524). The FDIC appeals from the portion of the 

August 30, 1988, order which refused to address Count I of the 

fourth amended complaint (No. 88-2611). We affirm. 

No. 88-2524 

The limited partners first argue that the district court 

abused its discretion in allowing the FDIC to pursue Count II. 

Upon consideration of the briefs and record on appeal, we conclude 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting leave 

to amend. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 

U.S. 321, 330 (1971); Las Vegas Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Far West 

Bank, F.2d , Nos. 88-1507, 88-1504 (10th Cir. filed 

Jan. 12, 1990). 

The limited partners' second and third arguments on appeal 

are that the district court erred in granting the FDIC's and Eagle 

79's motions for summary judgment. After reviewing the briefs and 

pertinent portions of the record on appeal, we conclude the 

district court appropriately granted the motions for summary 

judgment. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the 

district court in its order filed August 30, 1988. See FDIC v. 

Bachman, F.2d No. 88-1827 (10th Cir. filed Jan. 30, 

1990). 

The limited partners' final argument on appeal is that the 

district court erred in failing to grant their motion for summary 

judgment on Count I. The district court recognized Count I and 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2524 Document: 01019962969 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 3 
-· 

Count II to be alternative theories for recovery and concluded 

Count I was moot after granting the FDIC's motion for summary 

judgment on Count II. Because we agree with the district court's 

characterization of the counts as alternative theories for 

recovery and because we affirm the summary judgment decision on 

Count II, we conclude that we need not address the limited 

partners' appellate argument regarding Count I. 

No. 88-2611 

In its brief on appeal, the FDIC states that this court need 

not address appeal No. 88-2611 if this court upholds the district 

court orders appealed from in No. 88-2524. Because we affirm in 

No. 88-2524, we do not reach the issues raised in No. 88-2611. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2524 Document: 01019962969 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 4