Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02357/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02357-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

J. R. RUSSELL, d/b/a RUSSELL PROPERTIES,) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

F.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS; JOHN 

REARDON, Mayor; ED ALVEY, City 

Councilman; RON MEARS, City Councilman; 

CHESTER OWENS, City Councilman; CHARLES 

NEATH, City Councilman; RICHARD RUIS, 

City Councilman; GILBERT PINTAR, 

Planning Director Kansas City, Kansas 

Planning Department; DEAN KATERNDAHL, 

Director Economic Development, City of 

Kansas City, Kansas, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENTl 

No. 88-2357 

(D.C. No. 86-2132) 

( D. Kan.) 

Before McKAY and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and KANE, 2 District 

Judge. 

Plaintiff-appellant J. R. Russell appeals from the district 

court's entry of summary judgment against his antitrust and civil 

1 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. 

2 Honorable John L. Kane, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-2357 Document: 010110053478 Date Filed: 10/04/1990 Page: 1 
rights suit against defendants-appellees the City of Kansas City 

(City) and various city officials (individual defendants). In 

addition, Russell appeals the district court's denial of his 

motion to enforce a settlement agreement. We affirm. 

A. Summary Judgment 

We will affirm a grant of summary judgment if upon review of 

the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, it 

is clear from the record that there are no genuine issues of 

material fact and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Willner v. Budig, 848 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 

(10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 840 (1989); Ewing v. 

Amoco Oil Co., 823 F.2d 1432, 1437 (10th Cir. 1987). In this 

case, the parties agree that there are no disputed issues of 

material fact, leaving this court to consider only whether 

defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

1. Antitrust claim 

In his antitrust claim against the City and individual 

defendants, Russell challenges the City's three-time refusal to 

rezone property he owns in downtown Kansas City. Russell claims 

that these refusals, in conjunction with the City's implementation 

of its Urban Land Plan and alleged preferential treatment for 

favored developers, demonstrate a conspiracy to monopolize land 

development in the City's downtown area in violation of section 1 

of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1982). The district 

court relied on the "state action doctrine," established in Parker 

v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), to grant the City summary judgment 

on this claim, Memorandum and Order at 9-14 (August 3, 1988) 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2357 Document: 010110053478 Date Filed: 10/04/1990 Page: 2 
(August Order), and on Russell's failure to allege an actionable 

conspiracy to grant summary judgment to the individual defendants. 

Memorandum and Order (October 5, 1988) (October Order). After a 

thorough review of the district court's decisions on these issues, 

as well as Russell's arguments on appeal, we affirm the district 

court's grant of summary judgment on this claim for the reasons 

stated in its August and October Orders. In addition to the 

authorities cited by the trial court, we also note our more recent 

decision in Oberndorf v. City and County of Denver, 900 F.2d 1434 

(10th Cir. 1990), as fully supporting the trial decision in this 

case. 

2 • Civil rights claim 

In his complaint, Russell states three bases for equal 

protection and due process claims against the City3 under 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985: (1) the City's sale of alcoholic 

beverages at Memorial Hall in alleged violation of state law; 

(2) the City's alleged failure to comply with its own ordinance in 

providing security personnel to Memorial Hall events; and (3) the 

City's alleged refusal to provide police protection to Russell's 

property, particularly with respect to parking and vandalism 

problems arising out of the City's operation of nearby Memorial 

Hall. Complaint at 7-12. On summary judgment, the district court 

dismissed these claims on the grounds that (1) Russell's failure 

to allege a deprivation of a fundamental right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States prevented him from 

3 Russell did not name the individual defendants in 

rights claim. See Complaint at 2, 7-12. 

-3-

his civil 

Appellate Case: 88-2357 Document: 010110053478 Date Filed: 10/04/1990 Page: 3 
stating a due process claim under section 1983, August Order at 

15-16, and (2) his failure to allege that the City acted with 

discriminatory intent was fatal to his equal protection claim 

under sections 1983 and 1985(3). Id. at 15. Upon a careful 

review of the record and relevant authority, we affirm both 

4 determinations for the reasons stated by the district court. 

We also note that the City, and to a lesser extent Russell, 

have debated both here and in the district court whether Russell 

has properly stated a civil rights claim with respect to the 

City's refusal to rezone Russell's property. In his pleadings, 

however, Russell limits his civil rights complaint only to the 

City's actions in connection with the operation of Memorial Hall 

and protection of his property. See Complaint at 5-12. 

Apparently recognizing this distinction, the district court did 

not address either party's arguments on the zoning issue in 

entering judgment on Russell's civil rights claim. August Order 

at 14-16. As a general rule, this court will not decide claims 

and issues that were not set forth in the pleadings or decided 

below. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21 (1976); 

United States v. Immordino, 534 F.2d 1378, 1381 (10th Cir. 1976). 

We see no reason to depart from this rule in this case and hence 

express no opinion on the parties' arguments regarding civil 

4 The district court also rejected Russell's due process claim 

on the ground that Russell had failed to rebut the City's 

contention that its actions satisfied the rational basis test. 

Because the court had already correctly determined that Russell 

failed to state a due process claim in the first instance, it was 

unnecessary for the court to review the claim under the rational 

basis or any other standard. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2357 Document: 010110053478 Date Filed: 10/04/1990 Page: 4 
rights claims that might be asserted in connection with the City's 

rezoning decisions. 

B. Enforcement of Alleged Settlement Agreement 

The final issue on appeal is Russell's claim that the 

district court erred when it denied his motion to enforce a 

settlement agreement without holding an evidentiary hearing. 

Under the abuse of discretion standard, Callie v. Near, 

829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987), we will affirm this action 

unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the lower court 

made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of 

permissible choice in the circumstances. United States v. Ortiz, 

804 F.2d 1161, 1164 n.2 (10th Cir. 1986). On the record before 

the district court at the time it considered Russell's motion, we 

cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying Russell's motion without an evidentiary hearing. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

Appellate Case: 88-2357 Document: 010110053478 Date Filed: 10/04/1990 Page: 5