Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01084/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01084-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

FJ.LED 

United Stat~ Co-μr:<?f Ap;;:~b 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tent~ Circui ... 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

PORTER H. MITCHELL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, a New York corp- ) 

oration; RETIREMENT PLAN OF MOBIL OIL ) 

CORPORATION; TRUSTEES OF THE RETIREMENT) 

PLAN OF MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

SEP 1 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1084 

(D. C. No. 86-Z-585) 

( D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, 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. 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Mitchell appeals the entry of a judgment based upon the 

mandate of this court. We affirm. 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1084 Document: 010110090160 Date Filed: 09/18/1991 Page: 1 
• 

Mr. Mitchell sued Mobil asserting age discrimination. A jury 

agreed and awarded Mr. Mitchell damages. Mobil appealed to this 

court and we reversed, holding that Mr. Mitchell's evidence was 

insufficient. We then remanded "for further proceedings in 

accordance with the opinion of this court." 

Mr. Mitchell requested and received an extension of time to 

file a petition for rehearing with an en bane suggestion. In his 

request Mr. Mitchell recognized that this court's decision "calls 

for total dismissal of plaintiff's claims, not merely remand for 

new trial." In his petition for rehearing he represented to this 

court that we had reversed the judgments and ordered dismissal. 

He also claimed that he could present additional evidence at a 

retrial. We denied rehearing and granted Mr. Mitchell a stay 

while he petitioned for certiorari. Mr. Mitchell then filed a 

motion with this court to clarify its opinion and to declare he 

should have a new trial on remand. He stated if we deny this 

relief "Mitchell desires to challenge this ruling" in the petition 

for certiorari. Certiorari was denied, as was the relief 

requested from this court. 

Upon remand, Mr. Mitchell asserted he was entitled to a new 

trial. The basis of this assertion was the fact that Mobil had 

failed to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. 1 As in 

1 Mobil had moved for a directed verdict at the close of Mr. 

Mitchell's case. At the close of all evidence, Mobil again moved 

for a directed verdict. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1084 Document: 010110090160 Date Filed: 09/18/1991 Page: 2 
his petition for rehearing, on remand Mitchell pointed to 

additional evidence he could offer in a second trial. Mitchell 

did not claim that the additional evidence was newly discovered. 

However, Mr. Mitchell argued he could reasonably be expected to 

discover new evidence. 

The district court denied Mr. Mitchell's request for a new 

trial stating that the circuit court had not given the trial court 

that option. Mr. Mitchell appeals this decision asserting: (1) 

the district court misconstrued the mandate of this court; and (2) 

the district court erred in holding that this court and the 

district court possessed the power to afford Mobil any remedy 

other than retrial. 

We begin our inquiry with an examination of this court's 

holding on appeal. There we said: 

Since Mr. Mitchell did not meet his burden of 

production on the issue of pretext ... we reverse the 

trial court's denial of Mobil's motion for a directed 

verdict .... 

Mitchell v. Mobil Oil Corp., 896 F.2d 463, 473 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 111 S. Ct. 252 (1990). 

This holding became the law of this case when the mandate was 

issued. The holding was simple the trial court should have 

granted Mobil's motion for a directed verdict. Mr. Mitchell's 

claim regarding Mobil's failure to request judgment not 

withstanding the verdict is therefore superfluous. Mr. Mitchell 

raised the claims he is now asserting in his petition for 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1084 Document: 010110090160 Date Filed: 09/18/1991 Page: 3 
' 

rehearing. We have denied relief on those claims, the law of the 

case controls. 

28 u.s.c. S 2106 specifically authorizes courts of appeals to 

"direct the entry of ... appropriate judgment." This we did in 

the first appeal. Mr. Mitchell argues that a court of appeals 

should not direct judgment for a verdict loser who had not moved 

for judgment not withstanding the verdict. Authority exists to 

support this argument. See Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper 

Co., 330 U.S. 212 (1947). Contrary authority also exists. See 

Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U.S. 317, 325-26 (1967) 

(holding no ironclad rule exists dictating that the court of 

appeals should never order judgment for a defendant when the 

plaintiff's verdict has been set aside on appeal.) However, we 

need not decide this issue. Our decision in the first appeal 

became the law of the case. This panel is not entitled to change 

the decision of this court as enunciated by the first panel. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Mr. 

Mitchell's arguments that the mandate of this court allows him a 

new trial are without merit, as are his arguments that this court 

lacked the power to deny him a new trial. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1084 Document: 010110090160 Date Filed: 09/18/1991 Page: 4