Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05139/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DON QUARLES, an individual;

QUARLES ACRES LLC,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

TEXACO INC.; PHILLIPS

PETROLEUM COMPANY; SUN OIL

COMPANY, Sued as: Sun Oil Co.;

LITTLE RIVER ENERGY CO.;

YARHOLA PRODUCTIONS CO.;

SPESS OIL COMPANY, INC;

CHAMBERS & HENDRIX OIL & GAS,

INC.; JOHN DOE, 1-1000; CONOCO

PHILLIPS COMPANY; LINK OIL CO,

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

GETTY OIL CO.,

 Defendant.

No 07-5139

U.S. District Court for the 

 Northern District of Oklahoma

 (D.C. No. 4:00-CV-00913-GKF-PJC)

ORDER

Filed December 4, 2007

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, MURPHY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

The district court case underlying this appeal is a multi-defendant property dispute. 

The district court filed minute entries on August 17 and September 11 granting summary

Appellate Case: 07-5139 Document: 010179723 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Page: 1 
2

judgment in favor of four of the defendants. Docket Entries 422 and 430. Those

defendants will be referred to as Conoco/Phillips, Sunoco, Texaco, and Link Oil. A trial

was scheduled as to the remaining defendants, and the district court docket reveals that a

jury verdict was entered on November 28, 2007. Docket Entry 498. 

Despite the non-finality of the orders as to all defendants and all claims, the

plaintiff, Don Quarles, filed a notice of appeal designating those and other interlocutory

orders as the orders being appealed. In the ordinary course, a preliminary record was

transmitted to this court, an appellate docket was opened, and the clerk’s office reviewed

the case for jurisdictional defects. 

The clerk’s office issued an order directing the parties to show the basis for this

court’s jurisdiction over the appeal, since the orders being appealed were not final as to

all parties and claims and the district court had not certified the orders for appeal pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). That order was issued on September 24, 2007.

On September 27 and 28, 2007, the district court entered additional orders in

connection with the summary judgment minute entries that had been previously entered in

favor of Conoco/Phillips, Sunoco, Texaco, and Link Oil. Docket Entries 440, 441, 445,

446. Each order noted the granting of the motions seeking summary judgment and

included the following language: “Inasmuch as this ruling resolves all claims pending

against defendant [defendant named], the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay

and directs entry of judgment in [defendant named]’s favor on Counts VIII through XIII

of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.” This is language taken directly from Fed. R.

Appellate Case: 07-5139 Document: 010179723 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Page: 2 
3

Civ. P. 54(b), which provides a mechanism whereby orders that dispose of less than all

claims as to all parties may nevertheless be made appealable on an interlocutory basis. 

There was no other pertinent language in the orders, and nothing even suggesting why the

district court thought that Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification was warranted. 

After being notified by the parties of these new orders that had been entered, our

clerk’s office entered a second show cause order relating to appellate jurisdiction. This

order stated, in relevant part:

. . . However, [the four orders purporting to grant certification under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b)] do not seem to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of

Stockman's Water Company LLC v. Vaca Partners, L.P., 425 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir.

2005). 

 In Stockman, this court dismissed an appeal for lack of appellate

jurisdiction. The court noted that while Rule 54(b) provides district courts with the

authority to make otherwise non-appealable judgment orders appealable, the

district court is obligated to articulate the reasons why Rule 54(b) certification is

warranted. 425 F.3d 1265-1266. In this case, as in the Stockman appeal, the

orders that purport to create appellate jurisdiction "offer[] no analysis of the factors

relevant under 54(b) certification." Id. at 1266. 

Those factors include a weighing of Rule 54(b)'s policy of preventing

piecemeal appeals against the inequities that could result from delaying an appeal,

whether the claims are separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated, and

whether the nature of the claims already determined are such that no appellate

court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were

separate appeals. Id. at 1265-66 (internal citations omitted). . . .

Within thirty days from the date of this order, the plaintiff-appellants shall

file with this court an additional jurisdictional memorandum. The memorandum

must demonstrate to this court that at least one appealable order has been entered

in the district court or the appeal will be subject to dismissal. 

One means by which this could be accomplished would be for the district

court to amend one or more of its orders to comport with the requirements of

Appellate Case: 07-5139 Document: 010179723 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Page: 3 
4

Stockman and for the appellant to then respond to this order by showing that Rule

54(b) certification order or orders that are compliant with Stockman have been

entered. . . .

Despite the order alerting the parties to the defects in the purported Fed. R. 54(b)

certification, appellant did not ask the district court to amend its four orders to comply

with Stockman. In fact, the appellant had already filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion

asking the district court to vacate the four orders. The appellant argued that the judgment

orders were “redundant” to the previous minute entries and that those previous entries

constituted final judgments. Docket Entry 447. The district court denied the motion,

explaining to the appellant: “The minutes referenced by plaintiff do not constitute

judgments, as they do not include the language required in a judgment involving multiple

claims or parties.” Docket Entry 478.

The appellant then filed his response to our second show cause order. The

appellant continues to argue, among other things, that the minute entries are final

judgments. 

The appellant has been given the opportunity to ask the district court to amend its

orders of September 27 and 28, 2007 to include language analyzing the relevant factors as

to why certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) was warranted, as required by Stockman. 

425 F.3d at 1265-66. However, the orders remain unchanged and are insufficient to

confer appellate jurisdiction on this court. 

No final judgment order has been entered over which this court would have

Appellate Case: 07-5139 Document: 010179723 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Page: 4 
5

jurisdiction at this time. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

by:

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-5139 Document: 010179723 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Page: 5