Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02367/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02367-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beech Acceptance Corporation, Inc.
Appellee
Tom Burgmeier
Not Party
William R. Campbell
Not Party
David A. Goltz
Not Party
HRW, Inc.
Appellant
Frederick L. Harcourt
Not Party
M. LaRue Harcourt
Appellant
Jackson Hole, Ltd.
Appellant
Harold Katzman
Not Party
LaRue Harcourt, Inc.
Appellant
Kenneth J. Reitz
Not Party
Ted L. Simmons
Not Party
Transwestern of California, Ltd.
Appellant
Richard C. Wise
Not Party

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Stat.ea Court of Appeals Tenth circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL 2 3 1990 

BEECH ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

TRANSWESTERN OF CALIFORNIA, LTD.; 

JACKSON HOLE, LTD.; HRW, INC.; LARUE 

HARCOURT, INC.; M. LARUE HARCOURT, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

HAROLD KATZMAN, M.D.; FREDERICK L. 

HARCOURT; TOM BURGMEIER; RICHARD C. 

WISE; DAVID A. GOLTZ; WILLIAM R. 

CAMPBELL; KENNETH J. REITZ; TED L. 

SIMMONS, 

Defendants. 

BEECH ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HAROLD KATZMAN, M.D.; FREDERICK L. 

HARCOURT; RICHARD C. WISE; DAVID A. 

GOLTZ; WILLIAM R. CAMPBELL; TED L. 

SIMMONS; KENNETH J. REITZ; 

TOM BURGMEIER, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 86-2367 

) (D.C. No. 84-1314-K) 

) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 87-1623 

) (D.C. No. 84-1314-K) 

) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appellate Case: 86-2367 Document: 010110038727 Date Filed: 07/23/1990 Page: 1 
TRANSWESTERN OF CALIFORNIA, LTD.; 

JACKSON HOLE, LTD.; HRW, INC.; LARUE 

HARCOURT, INC.; M. LARUE HARCOURT; 

Defendants, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SHARON BURGMEIER; ROSE MARIE BURGMEIER, ) 

Defendants-Intervenors. 

) 

) 

* ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

The first of these appeals, No. 86-2367, is taken from a 

judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 

Kansas in favor of plaintiff and against defendants-appellants and 

defendants in an action for damages in connection with the leasing 

of certain small aircraft. Jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. 

* 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. 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2367 Document: 010110038727 Date Filed: 07/23/1990 Page: 2 
§ 1332(a) (diversity of citizenship). Plaintiff Beech Acceptance 

Corporation is a Kansas corporation, and defendants were admitted 

or presumed to be California citizens. 

Following the entry of judgment 

corporations, limited partnerships, Mr. M. 

against 

LaRue 

defendant 

Harcourt 

individually, and the individual guarantors, the guarantors filed 

motions to vacate the judgment, contending, inter alia, that they 

had not been properly served, that they had not authorized 

representation by the 

Harcourt and the 

attorneys who represented 

business entities, and that 

individuals, Tom Burgmeier, was a citizen of 

destroying complete diversity of citizenship). 

Mr. M. 

one 

Kansas 

of 

LaRue 

the 

(thus 

The trial court held several hearings in an effort to unravel 

these belated challenges to the judgment. At one of these, after 

hearing testimony from Mr. Burgmeier as to his voting status, 

property ownership, and like matters, plaintiff Beech Acceptance 

Corporation moved to dismiss him under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a) on 

the theory that if he had not authorized counsel to represent him, 

then an answer had never been filed and he could be voluntarily 

dismissed. After further testimony, the court concluded that none 

of the other individual guarantors (except Mr. M. LaRue Harcourt) 

had authorized representation by counsel for the Harcourt entities 

and that therefore these guarantors had never had their day in 

court. The court then dismissed the guarantors, leaving in place 

the judgment as to the Harcourt entities and Mr. M. LaRue 

Harcourt. Appeal No. 87-1623 was taken by Beech Acceptance 

3 

Appellate Case: 86-2367 Document: 010110038727 Date Filed: 07/23/1990 Page: 3 
Corporation from the amended judgment which dismissed the 

individual guarantors. 

The Harcourt entities include 

Transwestern of California, Ltd. 

formed under the laws of California. 

two limited partnerships: 

and Jackson Hole, Ltd., both 

Mr. Burgmeier and the other 

guarantors are 

partnerships. 

matter, named 

entered. 

or were limited partners in one or both of these 

Transwestern of California, Ltd. is, as a practical 

in each of the five counts on which judgment was 

In granting plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss Mr. 

Burgmeier, the court made no determination of Mr. Burgmeier's 

citizenship, ruling that the issue was moot. We conclude this was 

error. Because of the apparent partnership status of Mr. 

Burgmeier, the court should have determined whether he was in fact 

a Kansas citizen. That he was dismissed as an individual does not 

alter his status as a partner. 

The citizenship of a limited partnership is that of each of 

the limited partners. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 110 s. Ct. 

1015, 1021-22 (1990); Depex Reina 9 Partnership v. Texas Int'l 

Petroleum Corp., 897 F.2d 461, 463 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Tuck 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 846-47 (10th Cir. 

1988). Thus, if Mr. Burgmeier was both a Kansas citizen and a 

limited partner in Transwestern California, Ltd., then complete 

diversity of citizenship has never existed between plaintiff and 

the defendants. 

A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must 

dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings. Tuck v. United 

4 

Appellate Case: 86-2367 Document: 010110038727 Date Filed: 07/23/1990 Page: 4 
Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d at 844; McKinney v. Gannett Co., 694 

F.2d 1240, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 1982); Citizens Concerned for 

Separation of Church & State v. City & County of Denver, 628 F.2d 

1289, 1301 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 963 (1981); 

Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 

1974). We express no opinion as to whether any part of the 

judgments against any of the defendants can be salvaged. See Tuck 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d at 846-47. 

Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are VACATED 

and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with 

this order and judgment, including a determination of the 

citizenship of Mr. Burgmeier and such other proceedings as are 

necessary. 

The mandates shall issue forthwith. 

5 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

Appellate Case: 86-2367 Document: 010110038727 Date Filed: 07/23/1990 Page: 5