Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06078/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06078-0/pdf.json

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

---

,. 

FI LED 

United Stares Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 51991 

DR PEPPER COMPANY, a Delaware 

corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ADAMS INVESTMENT CO., an Oklahoma 

corporation, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

v. 

PEPSICO, INC., a North Carolina 

corporation, 

Third-party-defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

&OBERT L. HOECK.ER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-6078 

) (D.C. No. CIV-88-1343-P) 

) ( W. D. Okla . ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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 case is therefore ordered 

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: 90-6078 Document: 010110130233 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 1 
Defendant Adams Investment Company appeals the district 

court's award of attorney's fees to plaintiff Dr Pepper Company in 

this diversity action brought under the federal declaratory 

judgments act, 28 u.s.c. §§ 2201-02. Adams conceded in the 

district court that Dr Pepper was the prevailing party both on its 

claim for a declaration that Adams was not a party to and had no 

interest in certain license agreements, and on Adams' 

counterclaims. Because the license agreements provided that Texas 

law would apply, the district court decided the attorney's fees 

issue under Texas law. Adams now argues on appeal that it was 

error to apply Texas law because the court determined that it was 

not a party to the license agreements. Adams also asserts that 

even if Texas law applies, the district court erred in awarding Dr 

Pepper attorney's fees under either section 38.001 or section 

37.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Annotated. 

We affirm. 

In diversity cases, "attorney fees are determined by state 

law and are substantive for diversity purposes." In re King 

Resources Co., 651 F.2d 1349, 1353 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 

U.S. 881 (1981). "[T]he same law applies to the substance of the 

suit and to attorneys' fees, because attorneys' fees are part of 

the substance." R.L. Clark Drilling Contractors, Inc. v. Schramm, 

Inc., 835 F.2d 1306, 1309 (10th Cir. 1987). In the instant case, 

although Texas law applied to the substance of the suit, Adams 

argues that the law of the forum state, Oklahoma, should apply to 

the award of attorney's fees. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6078 Document: 010110130233 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 2 
We do not reach this issue because Adams failed to raise it 

before the district court. In its brief in opposition to Dr 

Pepper's motion for attorney's fees, Adams stated: 

Arguments can be made that Texas law does not apply to 

the awarding of attorney fees to a prevailing party in 

this case, but since the only basis upon which Dr Pepper 

claims such right is Texas law, we will address 

ourselves to this point only and show that Texas law and 

Texas Statutes do not allow an award of attorney fees to 

Dr Pepper in this case even though it has been the 

prevailing party. 

XIV R. Supp. at 1-2 (footnote omitted). Adams thus made a 

deliberate choice to rely on Texas law, and cannot now say that 

the district court erred in holding Adams to that choice. See 

R.L. Clark Drilling Contractors, Inc., 835 F.2d at 1308. Having 

waived the choice of law issue below, Adams cannot raise it on 

appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976) ("It is 

the general rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does 

not consider an issue not passed upon below."). 

Turning to the actual award of attorney's fees in this case, 

which was brought under the federal declaratory judgments act, Dr 

Pepper can recover its fees if state law would permit it to do so. 

See Farmers Casualty Co. (Mutual) v. Green, 390 F.2d 188, 192 

(10th Cir. 1968); Titan Holdings Syndicate, Inc. v. City of Keene, 

898 F.2d 265, 273-74 (1st Cir. 1990). The Uniform Declaratory 

Judgments Act adopted by Texas provides that II [ a] person 

interested under a 

constituting a contract 

written contract, or other writings 

. may ... obtain a declaration of 

rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder." Tex. Civ. 

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 37.004. The act also provides that "[a] 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6078 Document: 010110130233 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 3 
court of record within its jurisdiction has power to declare 

rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further 

relief is or could be claimed," and that "[i]n any proceeding 

under this chapter, the court may award costs and reasonable and 

necessary attorney's fees as are equitable and just." Id. 

§§ 37.003, 37.009. 

Although Dr Pepper brought its action under the federal, 

rather than the Texas, declaratory judgments act, the action falls 

within the scope of the Texas act, which provides for the award of 

attorney's fees. See Titan Holdings Syndicate, Inc., 898 F.2d at 

274. Under Texas law, "the grant or denial of attorney's fees in 

a declaratory judgment action lies within the discretion of the 

trial court, and its judgment will not be reversed on appeal 

absent a clear showing that it abused that discretion." Oake v. 

Collin County, 692 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex. 1985) (ruling on former 

attorney's fee provision, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 2524-1, 

§ 10 (Vernon Supp. 1985)); Persons v. City of Fort Worth, 790 

S.W.2d 865, 878 (Tex. Ct. App. 1990) (same, ruling on Tex. Civ. 

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.§ 37.009). 

We conclude that under Texas law, the district court had the 

discretion to award Dr Pepper reasonable and necessary attorney's 

fees in this declaratory judgment action. 1 We further conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding 

1 Because Texas law permits an award of fees in a declaratory 

judgment action under§§ 37.004, 37.003, and 37.009 of the Texas 

Civil Practice and Remedies Code Annotated, we do not decide 

whether§ 38.001, which provides for an award of fees in an action 

for a written or oral contract, would also permit an award of fees 

in this case. 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6078 Document: 010110130233 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 4 
. . 

attorney's fees to Dr Pepper. See, e.g., Intertex, Inc. v. 

Cowden, 728 S.W.2d 813, 819-20 (Tex. Ct. App. 1986)(fee award to 

defendants who obtained declaration that plaintiff had no right, 

title, or interest in subject real property within court's 

discretion); Contact Prods., Inc. v. Dixico, Inc., 672 S.W.2d 607, 

610 (Tex. Ct. App. 1984) (fee award to prevailing defendant within 

court's discretion even though plaintiff contended counterclaim 

for declaratory relief was unnecessary because it sought same 

relief as general denial of plaintiff's claim). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6078 Document: 010110130233 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 5