Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01460/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01460-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles R. Colbourne
Appellee
Daniel J. Donahue
Appellee
Jackson Jordon, Inc.
Appellee
Jackson Trak Group, Inc.
Appellee
Bill Klutts
Appellant
Christine Klutts
Appellant

Document Text:

' FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stat.es Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 1 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk BILL KLUTTS; CHRISTINE KLUTTS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

JACKSON TRAK GROUP, INC., 

a Delaware corporation; 

JACKSON JORDON, INC., 

an Illinois corporation; 

CHARLES R. COLBOURNE; 

DANIEL J. DONAHUE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 87-1460 

(D.C. No. 85-765-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

*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: 87-1460 Document: 010110024637 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 1 
, 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs commenced this action against plaintiff Bill 

Klutts's former employers, asserting defendants wrongfully 

terminated Mr. Klutts's employment and asserting · defendants 

coerced plaintiffs into selling plaintiff Christine Klutts's stock 

in defendant corporation Jackson Trak Group, Inc. to defendants 

for an amount substantially less than the actual value of the 

stock. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 

defendants, dismissing both claims. Plaintiffs appeal only the 

dismissal of the second claim concerning the sale of the stock. 

Plaintiffs alleged defendants, in December, 1984, orally 

offered to purchase plaintiff Christine Klutts's stock for 

$149,000, the value of the stock according to the December, 1984, 

balance sheet. Plaintiffs further alleged defendants then coerced 

plaintiffs into entering a stock purchase agreement in the amount 

of $50,000, the value of the stock according to the September, 

1985, balance sheet. The stock purchase agreement also released 

defendants from any liability stemming from the termination of 

Bill Klutts's employment. 

The trial court interpreted plaintiffs' second claim for 

relief to be an action in contract seeking the rescission of the 

stock purchase agreement. The district court dismissed this claim 

because plaintiffs failed to offer to return to defendants the 

consideration received as a result of the agreement, a 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1460 Document: 010110024637 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 2 
f 

I 

prerequisite to commencing an action to rescind a contract under 

Oklahoma law. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, S 235 (1984). 

On appeal, plaintiffs argue their second claim for relief 

stated a cause of action for the tortious interference with the 

contract rights of another. They argue, since their second cause 

of action stated a tort claim, rather than a contract claim, 

Oklahoma law did not require plaintiffs to return to defendants 

the benefits received from the contract before commencing this 

action. In the alternative, plaintiffs argue if this claim stated 

a cause of action grounded in contract law, the claim was for 

damages and not rescission of the contract, and, therefore, return 

of the amount of the purchase price was not a prerequisite to 

asserting this cause of action. 

This court will review a district court order granting 

summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards employed by 

the district court. Ewing v. Amoco Oil Co., 823 F.2d 1432, 1437 

(10th Cir. 1987). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there 

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c); Willner v. Budig, 848 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 (10th Cir. 1988), 

cert. denied, 109 s. Ct. 840 (1989). We review the record in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ewing v. Amoco Oil 

Co., 823 F.2d at 1437. 

Under Oklahoma law, a tort claim for interference with the 

contract rights of another requires plaintiff to allege the 

defendant maliciously interfered with a contract between two 

parties, inducing one of the parties to breach the contract to the 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1460 Document: 010110024637 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 3 
injury of the other party. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. 

Freeman, 229 F.2d 547, 549 (10th Cir. 1955)(interpreting Oklahoma 

law); Bliss v. Holmes, 9 P.2d 718, 719 (Okla. 1932). The trial 

court, in its pretrial order, framed the second cause of action as 

an action for duress and coercion and forcing the 

Plaintiff to sell his stock for sums less than its 

actual value. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants 

agreed to purchase his stock for $149,000.00, but 

thereafter forced the Plaintiff to take $50,000.00 based 

upon the fact that he was going to be dismissed. 

Damages for coercion and duress for forcing a stock sale 

is $99,000.00. 

The cause of action outlined in the pretrial order cannot be 

interpreted to· state a tort claim for interference with the 

contract rights of another. 

A pretrial order measures the dimensions of a lawsuit, both 

in the trial court and on appeal. R.L. Clark Drilling 

Contractors, Inc. v. Schramm, Inc., 835 F.2d 1306, 1308 (10th Cir. 

1987)(citing Hodgson v. Humphries, 454 F.2d 1279, 1281 (10th Cir. 

1972)). The pretrial order controls the subsequent course of the 

lawsuit, superseding prior pleadings, Expertise, Inc. v. Aetna 

Finance Co., 810 F.2d 968, 973 (10th Cir. 1987); Hernandez v. 

Alexander, 671 F.2d 402, 407 (10th Cir. 1982), and is binding on 

the parties. R.L·. Clark Drilling Contractors, Inc. v. Schramm, 

Inc., 835 F.2d at 1308; Perry v. Winspur, 782 F.2d 893, 894 (10th 

Cir. 1986). Plaintiffs did not object to the manner in which the 

pretrial order framed the second cause of action nor did 

plaintiffs move for the amendment of the pretrial order. The 

district court correctly interpreted plaintiffs' second claim to 

state a cause of action grounded in contract law. 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-1460 Document: 010110024637 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 4 
• ! 

Even if the pretrial order could be interpreted to include 

the tort claim, the cause of action would fail to state a claim 

upon which relief could be granted. A party to a contract cannot 

be liable for tortious interference with the contract rights of 

another for the inducement of his own breach of that contract. 

Allison v. American Airlines, 112 F. Supp. 37, 38-39 (N.D. Okla. 

1953}. 

Plaintiffs alleged they entered into the stock purchase 

agreement under duress. A contract entered into by a party under 

duress is voidable. See Centric Corp. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 

731 P.2d 411, 415-17 (Okla. 1986}(citing Samuels Shoe Co. v. 

Frensley, 3 P.2d 216, 221 (Okla. 1931)). The party coerced into 

executing a voidable contract may elect either to affirm the 

contract and sue for damages resulting from breach of the contract 

or to rescind the contract and return both parties to the 

positions they enjoyed prior to the execution of the contract. 

See Dunlap v. Orwig, 186 P.2d 659, 662 (Okla. 1947}; 1 Corbin on 

Contracts S 6 (1950 and Supp. 1984). 

Plaintiffs clearly did not seek to affirm the stock purchase 

agreement and release. Rather, plaintiffs sought to re~cind the 

August, 1985, agreement and enforce an earlier oral offer. 

In Oklahoma, a prerequisite to commencing an action to 

rescind a contract is an offer to restore to the other party 

everything of value received under the contract. Okla. Stat. Ann. 

tit. 15, S 235 (1984}; Sneed v. State ex rel. - Dep't of Transp., 

683 P.2d 525, 528 (Okla. 1983}. Plaintiffs failed to offer to 

restore to defendants the consideration they received under the 

5 

Appellate Case: 87-1460 Document: 010110024637 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 5 
, 

. 

stock purchase agreement. The district court, therefore, did not 

err in dismissing this claim. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma granting summary judgment in favor of 

defendants and dismissing plaintiffs' second claim is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

6 

Appellate Case: 87-1460 Document: 010110024637 Date Filed: 03/16/1989 Page: 6