Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06143/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06143-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FI LED 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,as 

Manager of the FSLIC Resolution Fund, as 

Receiver for First Texas Savings Association, a savings association organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Texas; 

FIRST GIBRALTAR BANK, FSB, a federal 

FSB, a federal savings bank, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

OKC PARTNERS, LTD., a Texas limited partnership; EAGLE/TEXAS REALTY COMPANY, INC., 

a Texas corporation, General Partner; ERIC 

DAVID BERNSEN, an individual, Limited Partnership; MICHAEL B. BIRNIE, an individual, 

Limited Partner; GARY L. CHAPPELL, an individual, Limited Partner; DOUGLAS A. 

DAWSON, an individual, Limited Partner; 

DALE B. ELMORE, an individual, Limited 

Partner; C. JACKSON GRAYSON, Jr., an individual, Limited Partner; HANAHO, LTD., a 

Texas limited partnership, Limited Partner; 

JOHN J. REDFERN, III, an individual, 

General Partner of Hanaho, Ltd.; JOHN H. 

LINDSEY, an individual, Limited Partnership; JAY W. LORCH, an individual, Limited 

Partner; PETER L. AN INDIVIDUAL, LIMITED 

PARTNER, an individual, Limited Partner; 

LIPSCOMB NORVELL, Jr., an individual, 

Limited Partner; W.E. PENLAND, Jr., an 

individual, Limited Partner; RONALD D. 

PEPHENS, an individual, Limited Partner; 

ANDREW B. PHILLIPS, an individual, Limited 

Partner; JOHN J. PLOTNIK, an individual, 

Limited Partner; RUSSELLS. SAMPSON, an 

individual, Limited Partner; FRED. A. 

SHERIFF, an individual, Limited Partner; 

3300 INVESTMENTS, an unincorporated business association, Limited Partner; ALLEN B. 

CRAIG, III, an individual and principal of 

3300 Investments; C.R. GREGG, an individual 

and principal of 3300 Investments; L.B. 

WINDHAM, an individual, Limited Partner, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

JAMES M. ANDREW, an individaul, Limited 

Partnership, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

f AY 2 8 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-6143 

)(D.C. No. CIV-90-3-A) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appellate Case: 90-6143 Document: 010110116646 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 1 
.I -.,. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, 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 this appeal. See Fed. R. App . P . 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Courts of appeals have the continuing obligation to examine 

their jurisdiction. We do so in this case. Having done so, we 

determine we lack jurisdiction to decide this appeal. 

The underlying cause of action was filed by a bank in a Texas 

state court seeking to foreclose a mortgage. While in state 

court, the FDIC was substituted as plaintiff. 

Defendants filed a notice of removal with the United States 

District Court in Oklahoma. The FDIC then asked the United States 

District Court to remand the case to state court. The United 

States District Court agreed and ordered the case remanded. 

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration and, while this 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6143 Document: 010110116646 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 2 
.r 

motion was pending, filed a notice of appeal with this court, 

which we dismissed as premature due to pending motions in Case No. 

90-6099. Defendants also filed a petition for mandamus in this 

court, which we denied in Case No. 90-6086. 

During the pendency of the unsuccessful appeal and petition 

for mandamus, the United States District Court entered its order 

declining to rule upon the pending motions as the notice of appeal 

had been filed and the district court opined it was precluded from 

ruling. 

Defendants promptly filed a notice of appeal wherein they 

challenged the district court's order declining to rule upon their 

motions. This is the instant appeal. 

The pending motion for reconsideration rendered the notice of 

appeal a nullity. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 

U.S. 56 (1982). This court may not proceed in view of the 

nonfinality of the proceedings in the district court. 

Defendants now bring to our attention, via their response to 

FDIC's motion to dismiss this appeal, yet another order of the 

district court. The district court subsequently ruled upon 

Defendants' motion for reconsideration holding that it did not 

have jurisdiction to rule upon the motion. Defendants have not 

appealed this order. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6143 Document: 010110116646 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 3 
We therefore dismiss this appeal finding we 

jurisdiction as the notice of appeal was a nullity. 

Entered for the Court: 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

-4-

have no 

Appellate Case: 90-6143 Document: 010110116646 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 4