Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-06216/USCOURTS-ca10-14-06216-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Proline Materials, Inc.
Appellant
Proline Products, LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

PROLINE MATERIALS, INC., a Texas 

corporation,

 Plaintiff Counter Defendant -

 Appellant,

v.

PROLINE PRODUCTS, LLC, an 

Oklahoma limited liability company,

 Defendant Counterclaimant -

 Appellee.

No. 14-6216

 (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-00156-C)

(W.D. Oklahoma)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

*

After examining the briefs and the 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)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 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 

April 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-6216 Document: 01019409816 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 Page: 1 
2 

 

 Proline Products, LLC (Products) prevailed in litigation with Proline Materials, 

Inc. (Materials) and was awarded $110,984 in attorney fees. Materials appeals the 

attorney-fee award on several grounds. We need address only one, and reverse. 

 The district court granted the fee award under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 936 (West 

2014). Products (quite correctly and admirably) makes three concessions regarding the 

application of § 936 to this case: (1) the district court’s award of attorney fees is contrary 

to this court’s holding in Specialty Beverages, LLC v. Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165 

(10th Cir. 2008); (2) we must follow a prior panel’s interpretation of state law “unless an 

intervening decision of the state’s highest court has resolved the issue,” Wankier v. 

Crown Equip. Corp., 353 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2003); and (3) “[t]he Oklahoma 

Supreme Court has not spoken on the [pertinent issue] since Specialty Beverages.” Aplee. 

Br. at 18. Bound by Specialty Beverages, we therefore cannot affirm the fee award. 

 Products has two avenues still available. First, it can seek review by the en banc 

court. This opinion does not foreclose that possibility. Second, it can obtain a contrary 

decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court through certification of the issue from this 

court. In that regard, it has filed a motion requesting us to certify the issue. In our view, 

however, this is not an appropriate issue to certify because a resolution by the Oklahoma 

court may not be determinative; Materials has raised other substantial challenges to the 

Appellate Case: 14-6216 Document: 01019409816 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 Page: 2 
3 

fee award that may require reversal of the award even if this court misinterpreted 

Oklahoma law in Specialty Beverages. 

 Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney fees and remand to the district court 

for entry of judgment in favor of Materials on the issue of attorney fees. We deny 

Products’ motion to certify, and we deny the other pending motions as moot. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-6216 Document: 01019409816 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 Page: 3