Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02051/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

' FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unhed Bmt. ~ w :, . '. ~ ... r;>ai..!t 

'l'P.nt.h circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

STROH BREWERY COMPANY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

THE NEW MEXICO REGULATION AND LICENSING) 

DEPARTMENT, (formerly sued herein as ) 

The New Mexico Department of Alcoholic ) 

Beverage Control); RAY SCHOLLENBARGER, ) 

Superintendent of Regulation and ) 

Licensing and Director of the Alcohol ) 

and Gaming Division of the New Mexico ) 

Regulation and Licensing Department; ) 

HAL STATTON, Attorney General of the ) 

State of New Mexico; GALLUP SALES ) 

COMPANY; PECOS SALES COMPANY; ) 

PUCCI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY; STATE BEER ) 

DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; UNITED -WHOLESALE ) LIQUOR COMPANY, . ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAtv 151993 

ROBERT L. HOECKFR 

Clerk 

No. 90-2051 

(D.C. No. 88-0164-M) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before McKAY, 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. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2051 Document: 010110076391 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 1 
I 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This matter is before the court for consideration of all 

outstanding motions, responses, and replies in this case. 

We first consider "Appellees' Joint Motion Requesting the 

Court to Take Judicial Notice of State Court Final Judgment and 

Suggesting Mootness of the Appeal." The appeal itself was taken 

from an order denying (based on the district court's prior order 

granting abstention pending the conclusion of state court 

proceedings) plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. By 

the requested injunction, plaintiff sought an order prohibiting 

defendants from proceeding with the state court action. 

Following the district court's denial of the injunction, 

plaintiff filed a similar request to this court, which was denied 

by our order of May 22, 1990. By order of October 2, 1990, 

defendants' (appellees') joint motion for sanctions and dismissal, 

along with opposing and reply memorandums, was referred to the 

panel selected to determine this appeal on the merits. 

In the meantime, on September 24 the state district court 

issued a final judgment in favor of appellees. We are advised 

that plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal with the New Mexico 

Supreme Court. Plaintiff concedes that this appeal is moot, but 

suggests that this court should "dismiss this appeal with 

directions to the district court that proceedings on remand be 

stayed until the Supreme Court of New Mexico has ruled upon 

Stroh's appeal from the final judgment of the First Judicial 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2051 Document: 010110076391 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 2 
I 

District Court of New Mexico." Appellant's Response and 

Cross-motion, pp. 13-14. 

We accept the suggestion that the appeal is moot and grant 

the motion to dismiss. We decline plaintiff's suggestion to 

direct the district court to stay further proceedings. The 

district court has previously abstained from consideration of 

plaintiff's complaint and has asked to be advised "promptly upon 

receipt of a conclusive decision from the state court." Plaintiff 

may request the district court to continue the abstention order. 

Finally, we consider appellees' request for sanctions, i.e., 

costs and attorneys fees, as provided by 10th Cir. R. 46.5 and 

46.6. Although this is a close case, we have determined not to 

grant the request. 

All other outstanding motions are hereby denied, and the 

appeal is DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2051 Document: 010110076391 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 3