Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03255/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03255-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARROLL OLSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

UaJi~ St,ite Court of ApJ'ed.ls 

Tench Cirruit 

MAR .. 5 ggt) 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 89-3255 

(D. Kansas) 

PAUL "CHRIS" NELSON, 

NEIL OLIVER, LUDWICK SHEDA, 

HARVEY PAYNE, and 

STEVE MORRISON, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

(D.C. No. 89-1411-K) 

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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Carroll Olson appeals from an order 

entered by the United States District Court for the District of 

Kansas dismissing his complaint against defendants-appellees 

because of the failure to allege complete lack of diversity as 

* 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: 89-3255 Document: 01019966024 Date Filed: 03/05/1990 Page: 1 
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Appellant also argues that a 

default judgment should have been granted in his favor as to three 

defendants who apparently did not answer or otherwise respond to 

the complaint and summons. 

We believe that the district court has jurisdiction over 

plaintiff's complaint under 28 u.s.c. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges 

in his complaint that the defendants "in violation of u.s.c. c/s 1 

conspired together not to sell or buy" any furs from plaintiff. 

R. Doc. 1, ,1 9. Because plaintiff's filed this action prose, his 

complaint should be liberally construed. With that in mind, we 

conclude that ,1 9 of plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleges 

that defendants engaged in a horizontal refusal to deal in 

violation of§ 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Therefore, 

although plaintiff's allegations are not free from ambiguity, we 

believe that they are sufficient to provide a basis for federalquestion jurisdiction. 1 

Therefore, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court 

dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of complete diversity 

and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this order and 

judgment. However, we intimate no views as to whether the 

1 Our interpretation of the complaint is corroborated by 

plaintiff's subsequent motion for a default judgment, in which 

plaintiff argued that dismissal for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction would be inappropriate because "federal courts have 

absolute [j]urisdiction" over any an[ti]-trust" claims. R. Doc. 

13. 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 89-3255 Document: 01019966024 Date Filed: 03/05/1990 Page: 2 
' . 

district court has pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims 

in plaintiff's complaint or whether plaintiff is entitled to a 

default judgment against any of the defendants who have not 

responded to plaintiff's complaint. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3255 Document: 01019966024 Date Filed: 03/05/1990 Page: 3