Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01828/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01828-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 

---

. FILED 

U mood St.at.es Court of Ap:peab Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

P. JAMES CHURCH; POWER MANAGEMENT 

CONSULTANTS CORPORATION, a Nevada 

corporation; and P. J. CHURCH 

CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

PETROLOGIC PETROLEUM, LTD., a Canadian 

corporation; PETROLOGIC, INC., a 

Colorado corporation; and ROBERT K. 

SCHADER, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

GEORGETOWN PETROLEUM, INC., a Colorado ) 

corporation; PETROWEST CORPORATION, a ) 

Colorado corporation; ROB ROY PETRO, ) 

INC., a Colorado corporation; FIRST ) 

AMERICAN ENERGY, INC., a Colorado ) 

corporation; FIRST AMERICAN ENTERPRISES,) 

INC., a Colorado corporation; THOMAS ) 

PATSTON; DENNY GALLUZZO; DONALD SNOW; ) 

J.D. DRILLING COMPANY, a Ohio ) 

corporation; MAGNUM GAS & OIL & INC., ) 

a Colorado corporation; DEAN WITTER ) 

REYNOLDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ) 

VADA WARD; PHIL MIANI, ) 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT 1 .11991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 87-1828 

(D.C. No. 85-M-1681) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before HOLLOWAY, AHDERSOR and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

* 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: 87-1828 Document: 010110090816 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 1 
• 

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. 

Appellants appeal an order of the district court denying 

their motion for attorneys' fees and denying their request to open 

discovery to determine if a Rule 11 violation occurred. On 

appeal, the appellants raise three issues. First, they contend 

that Local Rule 105A's time limit for filing motions for 

attorneys' fees does not apply to a request for sanctions in the 

form of attorneys' fees. Second, the appellants argue that the 

motion for attorneys' fees was sufficient and met the requirements 

of Rule 7(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, 

they assert that their request for discovery on the sanctions 

issue was proper. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1291 

and affirm. 

Appellants contend that Local Rule 105A of the Local Rules of 

Practice for the District of Colorado should not apply to a motion 

for attorneys' fees made pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and 28 u.s.c. § 1927. Rule 105A requires that 

any request for attorneys' fees must be filed no later than ten 

days after the entry of judgment. Appellants filed their motion 

for attorneys' fees thirty-one days after entry of the district 

court's order dismissing the action. Even though they learned of 

the conduct allegedly entitling them to attorneys' fees before the 

ten day period expired, the appellants failed to comply with the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1828 Document: 010110090816 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 2 
local rule. The United States Supreme Court has held that "the 

district courts remain free to adopt local rules establishing 

timeliness standards for the filing of claims for attorney's 

fees," White Y.!.. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 

445, 455 (1982), and in this circuit we have held that 

"controlling local rules, if any, must be complied with." 

Autorama Corp. Y.!.. Stewart, 802 F.2d 1284, 1286 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Despite the appellants' obvious noncompliance with Rule 105A, 

they contend that the local rule should not apply to a motion for 

attorneys' fees brought pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. However, Rule 11 grants neither a specific 

nor a general exception to the timeliness requirements of local 

rules. Indeed, the Supreme Court has specifically stated that the 

district courts can establish timeliness standards for the filing 

of Rule 11 motions. See Cooter~ Gell Y.!.. Hartmarx Corp., 110 S. 

Ct. 244 7 ( 1990) . 

Furthermore, the district court in this case interpreted the 

local rule to include a Rule 11 motion. We give considerable 

deference to a district court's interpretation of a local rule and 

will not reverse the district court unless we are convinced that 

the district court misconstrued its own rule. See Smith Y.!.. Ford 

Motor Co., 626 F.2d 784 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 

918 (1981). In this case, Rule 105A plainly requires that the 

filing of a motion for attorneys' fees occur within ten days after 

judgment. The rule's broad language provides no exceptions for a 

Rule 11 or a 28 U.S.C. § 1927 motion. Therefore, we are not 

convinced that the district court misconstrued its own rule. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1828 Document: 010110090816 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 3 
Appellants also assert that, on its face, the motion for 

attorneys' fees was sufficient under Rule 7 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. Rule 7(b)(l) requires that the grounds for a 

motion be stated "with particularity." In this case, the 

appellants' motion only made a general request for relief and 

failed to specify any factual basis whatsoever for that relief. 

Thus, the grounds for relief were not stated with particularity, 

and the appellants failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 

7(b)(l). 

Lastly, the appellants contend that the district court 

improperly denied their request to open discovery on the sanction 

issue. A determination of whether to open discovery is committed 

to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be 

reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See Martinez~ Schock 

Transfer and Warehouse Co., 789 F.2d 848, 850 (10th Cir. 1986). 

After reviewing the record and because the appellants failed to 

comply with the local rule, we find that the district court 

correctly determined that discovery was not necessary in this 

case. 

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 87-1828 Document: 010110090816 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 4