Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07099/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07099-0/pdf.json

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

---

' 

• FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Scates Court of Appeah 

Tench Circuit 

JUL 1 ;J 1990 

DELBERT NEIL HELM, doing business ) 

as Bills Auto Parts, formerly ) 

known as Bills Green Light Auto ) 

Parts, an individual, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v . ) 

) 

GREEN LIGHT AUTO DISTRIBUTION ) 

CENTER DIVISION, A DIVISION OF ) 

MID-AMERICA INDUSTRIES, INC., a ) 

Delaware corporation, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-7099 

(D.C. No. 88-143-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before McKAY, MOORE, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* 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: 89-7099 Document: 010110038379 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 1 
I 

• 

On March 21, 1988, Mr. Helm filed a federal diversity action 

against Green Light containing four causes of action: breach of 

contracts, wrongful termination of agreements, tortious interference with business relations, and defamation. On November 29, 

1988, Green Light answered Mr. Helm's complaint and counterclaimed 

for collection on goods delivered to Mr. Helm under the challenged 

contracts and agreements. 

On October 14, 1988, Green Light filed a complaint in 

Arkansas state court for collection on the same goods for which it 

counterclaimed in the federal court action. Mr. Helm answered 

Green Light's complaint, but did not counterclaim in the state 

action for any of the claims filed in the federal action. On 

approximately May 25, 1989, an Arkansas jury returned a verdict in 

favor of Green Light in the state court action. This verdict was 

recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. Helm v. MidAmerica Indus., Inc., 301 Ark. 521 (1990). 

On July 7, 1989, Green Light filed a motion for summary judgment in the federal action based partially on res judicata from 

the state action. The district court granted Green Light's motion 

for summary judgment on September 18, 1989. Mr. Helm filed a 

motion for the district court to reconsider its summary judgment 

and to grant a new trial that was denied by the district court on 

November 28, 1989. Mr. Helm now appeals the district court's 

denial of his new trial motion that was based on Mr. Helm's belief 

that summary judgment was incorrectly granted. Thus, our review 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 89-7099 Document: 010110038379 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 2 
' 

is essentially limited to whether the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment. 

The district court dismissed counts I and II because it found 

that they were fully litigated in the state case. The district 

court dismissed counts III and IV because Mr. Helm had not brought 

forth any evidence to support these claims. The district court 

also somewhat cryptically relied on res judicata in dismissing 

counts III and IV. We affirm the district court's dismissal as to 

all four counts. 

The first two counts of Mr. Helm's federal complaint were 

based on breach of contracts and wrongful termination of agreements. Both counts arose out of a jobber's agreement/contract and 

alleged oral agreements in furtherance of the jobber's agreement. 

Green Light's claim in the state action was for collection under 

the jobber's agreement. The district court concluded that 

"[c]entral to each action is the agreement itself, whether there 

had been performance and whether Helm had been given all credits 

to which he was entitled." Order, September 18, 1989, at 3. We 

agree with the district court that the interpretation of the 

jobber's agreement was necessary to the Arkansas action. In order 

for the Arkansas jury to evaluate Green Light's claims, it was 

forced to evaluate Mr. Helm's claims for breach of contract and 

wrongful termination of the jobber's agreement. Because the 

Arkansas action fully litigated both of Mr. Helm's first two 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 89-7099 Document: 010110038379 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 3 
I 

• 

claims, those two claims are res judicata in the federal case. 

Thus, they were properly dismissed by the district court. 

Mr. Helm claims that dismissal of his federal claims was in 

error because he was not required to assert those claims as a 

counterclaim in the Arkansas case. Mr. Helm argues that no counterclaim is required in Arkansas when the challenged claims are 

pending in another action. This is a correct statement of the 

law. "[W]hen the cause of action which would otherwise of necessity be pleaded as a compulsory counterclaim is also the subject 

of pending litigation in another court - litigation which had been 

commenced before the instant action - waiver will not result from 

the failure to counterclaim the cause of action in question and 

the failing party will not thereafter be barred by res judicata." 

Bowen v. Danna, 4 Ark. App. 232, 632 S.W.2d 234, 235 (Ark. Ct. 

App. 1982). However, Mr. Helm is mistaken in the reason his 

claims were dismissed. The claims were not dismissed because he 

failed to file a counterclaim. Instead, they were dismissed 

because they were actually litigated in the state case. Regardless of the compulsory counterclaim rules, if claims are actually 

litigated they are res judicata in another case involving the same 

parties. 

The district court dismissed counts III and IV because Helm 

offered no evidence to support them in the district court. We 

have reviewed the record before us on appeal, and we also find no 

facts to support Mr. Helm's claims. We note that the record 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 89-7099 Document: 010110038379 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 4 
• 

before us is not as complete as it might be. We also note that it 

is the appellant's responsibility to see that evidence necessary 

to our determination of a case is included in the record on 

appeal. "If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to 

the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion." 

Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). There is nothing in the record before 

us that causes us to question the district court's finding that 

Mr. Helm did not present sufficient evidence to withstand a summary judgment motion. Thus, the district court's dismissal is 

affirmed. 

The district court's apparent finding that counts III and IV 

should also be dismissed based on res judicata was in error. The 

issues raised in counts III and IV were not raised in the state 

court. In addition, these two counts were not compulsory counterclaims and thus should not be barred by res judicata. See Bowen, 

632 S.W.2d at 235. Any reliance by the district court on res 

judicata in dismissing counts III and IV was in error. However, 

we hold that this was harmless error, given that the court's primary ground for dismissal was the lack of evidence and the lack of 

evidence standing alone was sufficient for dismissal. 

The district court's order is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

- 5 -

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-7099 Document: 010110038379 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 5