Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02308/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02308-0/pdf.json

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

---

F11..BD 

U<1itcd Sr~w.s Courr e,f Appeais 

Tenth Circei: 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 2 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

MAX SKLOWER; ROBERT GATHINGS; 

ELIGIO CONTRERAS; STANLEY STARK; 

GERALD GOODMAN, 

v. 

Plaintiffs/CounterDefendants/Appellees, 

LO-POWER COMMUNITY TELEVISION; 

CHRIS CLELAND, 

Defendants, 

and 

HARLAN L. JACOBSEN, 

Defendant/CounterClaimant/Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 87-2308 

(D.C. No. CIV 85 1219JC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

Before LOGAN, MCWILLIAMS, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

In this diversity action, defendant Harlan L. Jacobsen 

appeals the district court's alternative holdings that he 

willfully and wantonly breached a settlement agreement and/or his 

underlying contract with plaintiffs, Max Sklower, Robert Gathings, 

* 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: 87-2308 Document: 01019964573 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 1 
Eligio Contreras, Stanley Stark, and Gerald Goodman. We affirm 

the district court's conclusion that Jacobsen willfully and 

wantonly breached the settlement agreement and, therefore, do not 

reach the underlying breach-of-contract claim. 

In the contract at issue, Jacobsen agreed to prepare and 

file, on behalf of plaintiffs, applications with the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC} for construction permits for low 

power television stations. The filings were all to be made by a 

March 8, 1984, deadline, after which the FCC would award permits 

through lotteries. Each plaintiff paid Jacobsen $5,000, for a 

total of $25,000, to file numerous applications at a rate of $125 

per application. 

After the March 8 deadline, the FCC began returning many of 

plaintiffs' applications because of various deficiencies. 

Plaintiffs believed that the rate at which the applications were 

being returned was excessive and that this was due to defendant's 

neglect. They were dissatisfied with defendant's efforts to 

remedy the problems and asked for a return of their $25,000. They 

stated that if defendant did not refund their money, they would 

file suit for breach of contract. 

Jacobsen agreed to refund the money if plaintiffs would 

assign their interests in the pending applications to the names of 

assignees to be furnished by Jacobsen. Plaintiffs agreed to this 

arrangement and requested that Jacobsen furnish them with the 

necessary assignment forms for their signatures. Jacobsen 

thereafter refused to furnish plaintiffs with any assignment forms 

or names of assignees, contending that the burden was on 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-2308 Document: 01019964573 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 2 
plaintiffs to first acquire approval from the FCC; and 

subsequently, Jacobsen purported to withdraw his offer of 

settlement. 

The district court, applying New Mexico law, found that the 

parties had entered into a valid settlement agreement and that 

Jacobsen had breached that agreement in a manner that was 

"maliciously intentional, and oppressive and committed recklessly 

and with a wanton disregard of the rights of the" plaintiffs. I 

R. tab 101, at 2 1 f. Therefore, the district court not only 

awarded the plaintiffs compensatory damages in the amount of 

$25,000, but also awarded punitive damages in the form of both 

monetary awards and allowing plaintiffs to retain any construction 

permits that the FCC had awarded them or might award them in the 

future. The present appeal presents two issues: (1) our 

jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and (2) whether the evidence 

supports the district court's findings on breach of the settlement 

agreement. 

I 

As an initial matter, we consider whether we have 

jurisdiction to hear this appeal. After the district court 

entered its order on the merits, plaintiffs made a motion, styled 

as a motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), asking for attorney's fees. While 

this motion was still pending, Jacobsen filed his notice of appeal 

from the district court's order on the merits. 

Plaintiffs argue that under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(ii) 

Jacobsen's notice of appeal was premature and, therefore, failed 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-2308 Document: 01019964573 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 3 
to give us appellate jurisdiction. See Griggs v. Provident 

Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982). However, a motion for 

attorney's fees is collateral to the merits of the underlying 

action and "is not in any way linked to the time for appeal of the 

underlying case.'' Autorama Corp. v. Stewart, 802 F.2d 1284, 1286 

(10th Cir. 1986); see Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 

196 (1988) (decision on merits need not dispose of request for 

attorney's fees to be final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291), aff'g 807 F.2d 155 (10th Cir. 1986). 

A postjudgment motion for attorney's fees is not a motion to 

alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). White v. 

New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982). 

Therefore, it is not subject to the ten-day limit of Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e), and it does not preclude an immediate appeal on the 

merits under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(iii). Plaintiffs cannot 

achieve the same results--a ten-day limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

52(b) and the tolling provisions of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(ii)--

by simply entitling their motion as one for additional findings of 

fact and conclusions of law. The merits of the instant appeal are 

properly before us. 

II 

With respect to the settlement agreement, Jacobsen argues 

that any agreement was void or voidable because FCC regulations 

effectively prohibited assignment of plaintiffs' interests in the 

applications. Jacobsen admits that he did not present this 

argument or any authority to support it to the district court. 

Appellant's Opening Brief at 7; Appellant's Reply Brief at 24 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-2308 Document: 01019964573 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 4 
n.17; see II R. 264-65, 362-64. Therefore, we will not consider 

it for the first time on appeal. See Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 

F.2d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 1989). 

The remainder of the district court's findings with respect 

to the settlement agreement are fully supported by the record. 

The record supports a conclusion that Jacobsen agreed to return 

plaintiffs' $25,000; that plaintiffs agreed to assign their 

interests in the pending applications and offered full cooperation 

in an attempt to do so; and that Jacobsen never intended to refund 

plaintiffs' money, but agreed to do so only to forestall legal 

action by the plaintiffs. Jacobsen's conduct supports the award 

of punitive damages under New Mexico law . See Romero v. Mervyn's, 

784 P.2d 992, 999-1001 (N.M. 1989) (defendant's promise to pay 

plaintiff's medical expenses with no intent to do so supported 

punitive damage award on contract claim). 

AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 87-2308 Document: 01019964573 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 5