Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03373/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03373-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appcalo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAX RIBEAU, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF 

COFFEY COUNTY, KANSAS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEP O 4 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3373 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-2157) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Max Ribeau appeals the imposition of sanctions under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 11 for filing a frivolous complaint. We review the 

propriety of Rule 11 sanctions under an abuse of discretion 

standard. Portales Nat'l Bank v. Smith (In re Byrd, Inc.), 927 

F.2d 1135, 1137 (10th Cir. 1991). Ribeau's complaint in federal 

*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: 90-3373 Document: 010110084262 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 1 
> 

district court purported to appeal a decision of the Kansas 

Supreme Court affirming the dismissal of his state law claim by 

lower Kansas state courts on summary judgment. See Reply Brief 

Appendix of Appellant at 2. The district court determined that 

Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate "because it is clear, 

fundamental, and well established in the law that United States 

District Courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over final 

judgments of state courts." Id. 

Having reviewed Ribeau's arguments, including that his 

complaint was grounded in a good faith argument for the 

modification of existing law, and the record in this case, we 

conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

determining the propriety and amount of Rule 11 sanctions. We 

therefore AFFIRM. 

Ribeau's claim in federal district court was patently 

frivolous and his appeal is equally so. We, therefore, grant 

appellee's request for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 by 

awarding reasonable attorney fees and costs generated by this 

appeal. We REMAND to the district court for a determination of 

such sanctions. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3373 Document: 010110084262 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 2