Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-12-06261/USCOURTS-ca10-12-06261-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BuildDirect.com Technologies, Inc.
Appellant
Eric Walker
Appellee
Shannon Walker
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

ERIC WALKER; SHANNON WALKER,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

BUILDDIRECT.COM 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-6261

(W.D. Oklahoma)

(D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00800-D)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before, HARTZ, MCKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

 The essentials of this case have previously been set forth in our request to the 

Supreme Court of Oklahoma to accept a certified question of Oklahoma law, see Walker 

v. BuildDirect.com Technologies, Inc., 733 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 2013), and the opinion 

of that court answering the certified question, see Walker v. BuildDirect.com 

 

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of 

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive 

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 29, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 12-6261 Document: 01019437446 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Technologies, Inc., No. 112075, 2015 WL 2074964 (Okla. May 5, 2015). Therefore, our 

discussion can be brief. 

 The Walkers sued BuildDirect in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma on several causes of action seeking damages for the alleged 

delivery of flooring infested with wood-boring insects. BuildDirect moved to compel 

arbitration, invoking the arbitration provision in a document available on its website. The 

district court denied the motion to compel, and BuildDirect appealed to this court. 

Uncertain whether under Oklahoma law the Walkers were bound by the provisions of the 

website document, we certified the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. That court 

has now informed us that the Walkers were not bound by the provisions. If the Walkers 

are not bound, then BuildDirect cannot compel arbitration and the district court’s order 

denying the motion to compel must be affirmed. 

 Upon receipt of the Oklahoma decision we requested responses from the parties 

regarding how we should proceed. BuildDirect argues that the decision does not resolve 

this appeal, because its contract with the Walkers is governed by the Oklahoma Uniform 

Commercial Code and the decision did not address the application of the UCC to the 

contract. This argument comes too late. BuildDirect’s precertification briefs to this court 

made no reference to the UCC. Any argument based on that statute is therefore waived. 

The decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court resolves this appeal. 

Appellate Case: 12-6261 Document: 01019437446 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 2 
3 

 We AFFIRM the district court’s decision denying BuildDirect’s motion to compel 

arbitration. 

 ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 12-6261 Document: 01019437446 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 3