Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01838/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01838-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Diana L. Cominiello
Appellant
John Deere Company, a Delaware Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DIANA L. COMINIELLO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United States G>urr of Appeals 

T,..r-th O r-:ui t 

JAN 2 3 1990 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

No. 88-1838 

(D.C. No. 87-C-349) 

(D. Colo.) 

JOHN DEERE COMPANY, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, SETH and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

This matter of sanctions against the plaintiff-appellant and 

her attorney comes before us on the motion of the defendant for 

double costs and attorney fees. The sanctions are considered only 

as to plaintiff's appeal, and not as to the trial proceedings. 

The trial court entered summary judgment against the plaintiff, in 

an employment discrimination case, and we affirmed with a brief 

order. Double costs are ordered as sanctions against plaintiff 

and her attorney. 

The trial court found that plaintiff had provided no facts 

whatever in response to defendant's motion for summary judgment 

*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: 88-1838 Document: 01019961111 Date Filed: 06/27/1989 Page: 1 
as to the issue of whether defendant's explanation for its 

employment decision as to plaintiff was in any way pretextual. 

This determination by the trial court became the only issue on 

appeal. However, the appellant made no attempt to show by 

reference to any specific facts that the trial court's finding, as 

to the absence of this requirement placed on appellant as an 

essential part of her case, was not based on the material 

submitted on the motion. 

Thus on appeal the appellant could not dispute the finding 

that in the material she presented in response to the motion for 

summary judgment there was no evidence on the pretextual issue. 

Such support of an essential element was a conspicuous Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, requirement therein described by 

the Court, and contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The trial court 

carefully considered and reconsidered plaintiff's theories and 

material presented on the motion, and found the basic element 

lacking on the theory relied on completely and not just in degree. 

The appellant sought to supply this omission on appeal by the 

use of questions as to what might have been shown and by 

speculations. But again no factual basis was demonstrated. As we 

said in Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir.), to defeat 

a summary judgment "a party cannot rest on ... speculation, or 

on suspicion." See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

and Carey v. U.S. Postal Service, 812 F.2d 621 (10th Cir.). 

It was obvious after the trial court's final orders that 

there could be no basis for a challenge to the trial court's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1838 Document: 01019961111 Date Filed: 06/27/1989 Page: 2 
, 

determination of this absence of evidence on an essential point 

and an appeal would be useless. The taking of the appeal in these 

circumstances was frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation, 

and sanctions are required. 

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff and her attorney pay as a 

sanction double costs on appeal. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1838 Document: 01019961111 Date Filed: 06/27/1989 Page: 3