Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02769/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02769-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harley W. Brown
Appellee
James Lyndall McCrory
Appellee
Yvonne Mount
Appellant
Robbie Lee Tucker Roberts
Appellant
James B. Tucker
Appellant
Robert Lee Tucker
Appellant

Document Text:

,. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 8 1089 

ROBERT L, HOECKER 

Clerk 

ROBBIE LEE TUCKER ROBERTS; ) 

YVONNE MOUNT; JAMES B. TUCKER; ) 

ROBERT LEE TUCKER, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) Nos. 87-2769 

) & 

JAMES LYNDALL MCCRORY, also ) 88-1100 

known as J. Lyndall McCrory, also ) (D.C. Nos. 86-1571-P 

known as J.L. McCrory; ) & 

HARLEY W. BROWN, ) 86-2160-P) 

) (W. D. Okla.) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, 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 causes are therefore ordered 

* 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: 87-2769 Document: 01019974433 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 1 
r 

Plaintiffs appeal from several orders and rulings of the 

district court. Plaintiffs argue the district court erred (1) in 

denying their motion to compel with regard to Mr. Cawley, 

defendants' attorney; (2) in denying their second motion to 

compel; (3) in sanctioning them and ordering them to proceed to 

trial when the court had no intention of allowing a trial; (4) in 

excluding material and relevant evidence prior to trial solely to 

defeat plaintiffs' claims; (5) in denying the parties' joint 

application to reschedule, in light of the improperly entered 

scheduling order; (6) in failing to make a timely ruling on 

plaintiffs' Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion in order to defeat an 

appeal; (7) in ordering the ''fact-intensive" additional trial 

brief; (8) in ordering defendants to file a motion for summary 

judgment; (9) in ordering plaintiffs' counsel to keep track of her 

time for fees to be imposed as a sanction against defendants even 

though the court had no intention of imposing such a sanction; 

(10) in continuing to threaten further Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) 

sanctions while ordering plaintiffs to prepare for a trial that 

would never happen; (11) in constantly setting and arbitrarily 

striking trial dates for which plaintiffs prepared; (12) in 

ignoring plaintiffs' response to the motion for summary judgment; 

(13) in completely striking plaintiffs' witness and exhibit lists; 

(14) in refusing to acknowledge the Gulf Oil letter and all that 

it conveyed; (15) in refusing to address defendants' illegal and 

unethical activities on the record; (16) in taking action without 

notice to plaintiffs' counsel; (17) in refusing to address 

violations of the preliminary injunctions; (18) in its evidentiary 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2769 Document: 01019974433 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 2 
rulings; (19) in making unsupported and/or erroneous findings of 

fact and conclusions of law; (20) in instructing defense counsel 

on how to coach witnesses; (21) in threatening and punishing 

plaintiffs' counsel for filing an appeal; (22) in directing 

defense counsel's case; (23} in entering a final order in an 

untimely fashion to defeat an appeal; (24) in denying plaintiffs' 

right to alternatively plead in separate lawsuits; (25) in denying 

plaintiff Robert's right to an intestate share of her father's 

estate; (26) in refusing to submit fact issues to the jury; (27) 

in applying criminal standards in a civil case; (28) in imposing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions; (29} in sanctioning plaintiffs' 

counsel for filing ordered pleadings; (30) in refusing to apply 

state law in this diversity case; (31} in harassing plaintiffs' 

counsel from the bench; (32} in holding ex parte communications 

with defense counsel; (33} in attempting to force plaintiffs to 

accept a nominal settlement; (34} in denying plaintiffs' 

constitutional rights; and (35) in conducting all proceedings in 

an arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory manner. 

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and conclude 

this appeal is frivolous and without legal merit. We affirm for 

substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its 

orders and rulings. 

Defendants have requested damages and double costs be imposed 

on plaintiffs for taking a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

38. Plaintiffs have had an opportunity to respond. 

"To deter frivolous and abusive litigation and promote 

justice and judicial efficiency, the federal courts are empowered 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2769 Document: 01019974433 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 3 
r 

to impose monetary sanctions, by statutes and the rules of civil 

and appellate procedure as well as their inherent right to manage 

their own proceedings." Braley v. Cambell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1510 

(10th Cir. 1987). Rule 38 authorizes a court of appeals to award 

damages, including attorney's fees, and double costs, if the court 

determines an appeal is frivolous or brought for purposes of 

delay. When the appellant's arguments are without merit, the 

appeal is frivolous. Willner v. Budig, 848 F.2d 1032, 1036 (10th 

Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 840 (1989); Braley, 832 F.2d 

at 1510. In light of plaintiffs' legally frivolous appeal, an 

award of damages and double costs is justified. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs shall pay 

double costs and damages in the amount of reasonable attorney's 

fees and expenses incurred by defendants in this appeal. The case 

is REMANDED to the district court to determine the amount of 

damages to be awarded for taking a legally frivolous appeal. 

The mandates shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-2769 Document: 01019974433 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 4