A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 27,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT NOAH A . S AI N; M AR I L YN S AI N,

P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. E O G R E S O U R C E S , IN C . , a D elaw are Co rp o r a t i o n ; S S T E NE RG Y C O R PO R A T I O N , a C ol or ado C orpor at i on, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 2320 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 05 - 18 0 RB / RH S )

( D . N .M . )

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e O’ BRI EN , P O R F IL IO , and AN DE RS ON , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pl ai nt i ffs N oah and M ar i l yn Sai n appea l fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der di s m i s s i ng t hei rcompl ai ntforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on bas ed on i t s det erm i nat i on t hat bot h t he Sai ns and defendantSST E ner gyC orpor at i on ( SST ) ar e W y om i ng- 2-

ci t i zens forpurpos es of di ver s i t yj ur i s di ct i on. O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a ffi r m. Backg r ound O n O ct ober16, 2002, M r . Sai n w as w or ki ng as a fi el d m ai nt enanc e oper at oron an oi l r i g i n M offa tC ounty , C ol or ado w hen partof the r i g col l aps ed, c a u s i n g h i m t o s u ffe rs e v e r e a n d p e r ma n e n ti nj u r i e s . Th e r i g was o wne d b ySS T, a companyt hatpr ovi des dr i l l i ng equi pm entand oper at i ons cr ew s foroi l and gas we l l s . S S T ’ s e q u i p me n th a d b e e n p r o v i d e d p u r s u a n tt o a c o n tr a c twi th E OG R es our ces , I nc. ( E O G ) , w hi ch ow ned the fe der al l eas e and s t at e perm i tt o dr i l l for o il in M o ffa t C o u n ty. O n F eb rua ry1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , the S ains su ed S S T an d E O G in U . S . D istri ct C o u rt i n N ew M exico al l eging t hat the acc i den tw as caused b yt he d efen dan t s’ negl i gence . T he Sai ns i nvoked fe der al j ur i s di ct i on undert he di ver s i tys t atut e, 28 U . S. C . § 1332, cl ai m i ng t hattheyar e W y om i ng ci t i zens ; t hatE O G i s a ci t i zen of both D el aw ar e and Texas ; and thatSST i s a ci t i zen of C ol or ado. O n A pr i l 8, 2005, SST fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on bas ed on l ack of

compl et e di ver s i t y . I tar gued thati n addi t i on t o bei ng a ci t i zen ofSST al s o ar gued thati tl acke d the r equi s i t e mi ni m um cont act s t o es t abl i s h a 1 bas i s forper s onal j ur i s di ct i on i n N ew M exi co. T hi s ar gum ent , how ever , w as not a b a s is fo r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n a n d is n o t r a is e d o n a p p e a l.

- 3- C ol or ado, i t s s t at e of i ncorpor at i on, i tw as al s o a ci t i zen of W y om i ng beca us e that i s w her e i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s w as l ocat ed. 1 F o llo w in g ju risd ictio n a l d isc o v e ry , the S a in s re sp o n d e d to th e m o tio n w ith t w o ar gum ent s . Fi r s t , t heyar gued thatan exa m i nat i on of SST ’ s t ot al act i vi t i es c o u ld su p p o rt n o o th e r fin d in g th a n th a t it s p rin c ip a l p lac e o f b u sin e ss w a s in C ol or ado. Second, t heyar gued thatSST s houl d be j udi ci al l yes t opped fr om as s er t i ng t hati t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s w as i n W y om i ng beca us e i thad pr evi ous l yl i s t ed D enver , C ol or ado as i t s pr i nci pal offi ce i n a fi l i ng w i th the N ew M exi co Publ i c R egul at i on C om m i s s i on. O n A ug ust12 , 20 05 , t he S ai ns fi l ed a m oti on t o sup plem ent theirres po nse w i t h addi t i onal evi dence t hatt heycl ai m ed s uppor t ed thei rj udi ci al es t oppel ar gum ent . T he mot i on w as acc om pani ed bya r eques tt o t ake j udi ci al not i ce, w h ich a tt ac h ed p lead ing s an d o ther fil ing s fro m an u n related C o lorad o stat e c o u rt cas e i nvol vi ng SST . T he s t at e courtcompl ai ntal l eged thatSST ’ s pr i nci pal pl ace of b usi ness w as i n D env er, C olor ado , and S S T had fi l ed an answ er i n the case admi t t i ng t hatal l egat i on. T he Sai ns ar gued thatt hi s admi s s i on, al ong w i th the N ew M exi co publ i c fi l i ng, pr ecl uded SST fr om t aki ng a contr arypos i t i on i n the in s ta n t c a s e .- 4-

T he di s t r i ctcour tr ej ect ed both of the Sai ns ’ ar gum ent s . E m pl oy i ng the “t ot al act i vi t y ” t es tt hatw e adopt ed i n A m oco Rocm ountC o. v. A ns chutzC or p. , 7 F . 3 d 9 0 9 , 9 1 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), the c o u rtfo u n d that the m ajorityo f S S T ’s act i vi t i es t ook pl ace i n W y om i ng. I tw enton t o r ej ectthe Sai ns ’ j udi ci al es t oppel ar gum entbas ed on ourr efus al t o adoptthe doctr i ne i n R ascon v. U. S. West C om m c’ ns , Inc. , 1 4 3 F . 3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 3 2 ( 1 0 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . T h e c o u r td i d s a y, how ever , t hateven i f the doctr i ne w er e r ecogni zed i n thi s ci r cui t , i tw oul d not appl yt o barSST ’ s pos i t i on i n t hi s cas e, beca us e “SST ’ s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s w as notan i s s ue i n t he C ol or ado s ui tand no j udi ci al bodyr el i ed on the N ew M ex ico a d m inistrati v e fo rm . ” A p lt . A p p . at 26 0 . H av ing fo u n d that S S T ’s a c tiv itie s in W y o m in g “ c le a rl ye x c e e d [ e d ]” its a c tiv itie s in o th e r s ta te s , i d. , and t hatt he Sai ns ’ j udi ci al es t oppel ar gum entw as w i thoutm er i t , the courtconcl uded th a t W y o m in g w a s S S T ’s p rin c ip a l p lac e o f b u sin e ss fo r p u rp o se s o f d iv e rsity juri sd ict ion . S ince the S ains w ere also cit izen s o f W y o m ing , the d istri ct co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t d iv e rsityw a s n o t co m p lete a n d d ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t. A n a ly sis A . St andard of R evi ew A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s “det erm i nat i on of a c orpor at i on’ s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i s a ques t i on of fa ctt hatw e r evi ew undert he cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d. ” Shel lR ocky Mountai n P r od. , LLCv. Ul tr a R es . , Inc. , 415 F. 3d 1158,I nt er es t i ngl y , nei t herpart yhas r ai s ed the i s s ue of w hethert he appl i cat i on 2 o f ju d ic ia l e s to p p e l in th is c o n te x t is g o v e rn e d b ys ta te o r fe d e ra l la w . C ompa re R ishel lv. Jan e P hil l i

ps E pis cop al Mem ’lMed. C tr. , 12 F. 3d 171, 172- 73 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) ( s t at i ng t hat“di ver s i ty , as i taffect s j ur i s di ct i on, i s a mat t erof fe d e ra l an d n o t sta te la w ,” a n d h o ld in g th a t fe d e ra l p rin c ip les m u st d icta te w h ethe r div ersityex ist s) w i th O kland O i lC o. v. C onoco Inc. , 144 F. 3d 1308, 1325 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( s t at i ng gener al l yt hats t at e l aw det erm i nes w hetherand h o w to a p p lyd o c trin e o f ju d icia l es to p p e l). G iv e n th a t th e u lti m a te is su e is (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 5- 1162 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . T o t he ext entthatthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on depende d on w hetherSST m aybe j udi ci al l yes t opped fr om as s er t i ng i t s pos i t i on r egar di ng i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s , how ever , i ti s a ques t i on of l aw thatw e r evi ew d e n o v o . See Rasc on , 143 F. 3d at1329 ( “The i s s ue of the appl i cat i on of j udi ci al e s to p p e l p re s e n ts a le g a l q u e s tio n .” ). B . Judi ci al E s t oppel T h e S a in s’ p rim a ryc h a llen g e is d ire c ted a t th e d istric t co u rt’s r e f u sa l to appl yj udi ci al es t oppel agai ns tSST t o pr ecl ude i tfr om as s er t i ng thati t s pr i nci pal p lac e o f b u sin e ss is in W y o m in g . T h e ya c c u se th e d istric t co u rt o f “ c o m p lete ly ign o r[ing ] th e fac t th at S S T h as b low n h o t and co ld o n it s reside n ce , ” R ep lyB r. a t 4 , an d u rg e th is c o u rt to re v isit R as con “t o the ext entt hati tabr ogat es t he r es pons i bi l i t yof part i es t o acti n a cons i s t entfas hi on r el at i ve t o j ur i s di ct i onal iss u e s,” O p e n in g B r. at 1 2 . S S T d e fe n d s th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to a p p ly j udi ci al es t oppel , ar gui ng t hatt he pr er equi s i t es fori nvoki ng the doctr i ne ar e not pr es enti n t hi s cas e. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 w hetherfede r al s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on exi s t s , how ever , the part i es ’ and the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s as s um pt i on t hatfede r al l aw governed the j udi ci al es t oppel i s s ue w as r eas onabl e. M or eover , s i nce the Sai ns fai l ed t o m ake a nyar gum entunder sta te la w o r e v e n tell u s w h ich sta te’ s la w w o u ld a p p lyh e re , an ysu c h a rg u m e n ts h a v e b e e n w a iv e d . Stat e Farm F i r e & C as . C o. v. Mhoon , 3 1 F .3 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 4 n .7 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . T her efor e, forthe purpos es of thi s cas e, w e w i l l as s um e that fe d e r a l l a w g o v e r n s t h e j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l q u e s t i o n a n d p r o c e e d a c c o r d i n g l y.

- 6- T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on w as bas ed i n parton ourhi s t or i cal r ej ect i on of th e ju d ic ia l e s to p p e l d o c tr in e . See Rasc on , 143 F. 3d at1332 ( r eaffi r m i ng our ref u sal t o ad o p t th e d o ctri n e). L ast y ea r, h o w ev er, fo ll o w ing the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s gui dance i n New Hamps hi r e v. Mai ne , 53 2 U . S . 74 2 (200 1), w e revers ed co urse a n d re c o g n iz e d th e d o c tr in e ’s lim ite d a p p lic a b ility. S e e Jo h n so n v . L in d o n C ity C or p. , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 1 0 6 5 , 1 0 6 8 , 1 0 6 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h ere fo re, th e d istri ct co u rt ’s s ta te m e n t th a t “ [ t] h e T e n th C ir c u it h a s reje c te d th e d o c tr in e o f ju d ic ia l e s to p p e l,” A p lt . A p p . at 26 0 , is i n co rrect i n li g h t of rec en t prec ed en t. T h e d istri ct co u rt w entbey ond ourhi s t or i cal di s appr oval of the doctr i ne, how ever , i n fi ndi ng that j udi ci al es t oppel w as notappl i cabl e i n thi s cas e bec aus e “SST ’ s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s w as notan i s s ue i n t he C ol or ado s ui tand no j udi ci al bodyr el i ed on the N ew M exi co admi ni s t r at i ve form . ” Id. I n Johns on , w e descri bed the d octr i ne o f j ud i ci al est op pel as foll ow s: “[W ] her e a pa r t yas s um es a ce r t ai n pos i t i on i n a l egal pr ocee di ng, an d su cc ee d s in m aintainin g that p o sit ion , h e m ayn o t th ere af ter, sim p lyb ec au se h is i n terests ha v e c h an g ed , assu m e a co n tr ary- 7-

pos i t i on, es peci al l yi f i tbe t o the pr ej udi ce of the partyw ho has a c q u ie s c e d in th e p o s itio n fo rm e rl yta k e n b yh im .” 405 F. 3d at1069 ( quot i ng D avis v. Wakelee , 1 5 6 U .S . 6 8 0 , 6 8 9 (1 8 9 5 )) . W e ca ut i oned thatt he doctr i ne s houl d onl ybe appl i ed “i n the narr ow es tof ci r cumst ance s , ” and s houl d be l i m i t ed t o s i tuat i ons w her e a pa r tyw as s ucce s s ful i n “per s uadi ng a c o u rt to a c c e p t” h is e a rl ie r p o s itio n . Id. ( emphasi s added) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T her efor e, the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s under s t andi ng of the doctr i ne, i n par t i cul ar , i t s narr ow appl i cabi l i tyt o s i tuat i ons w her e the party ’ s pr evi ous pos i t i on w as as s ert ed befor e a “j udi ci al body , ” A pl t . A pp. at260, w as corr ect , as w as it s d ec isi o n n o t t o ap p lyjud ici al estop p el ba sed o n stat em en ts m ad e b efo re t h e N e w M e x i c o P u b l i c R e g u l a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n , a n o n -j u d i c i a l b o d y. W e al s o concl ude thati tw oul d have be en err ort o pr ecl ude SST fr om cl ai m i ng W y om i ng ci t i zens hi p bas ed on a for m ul ai c admi s s i on m ade i n the C o lo ra d o sta te c a se . T h e lo c a tio n o f S S T ’s p rin c ip a l p lac e o f b u sin e ss w a s o n ly r el evanti n t hatcas e i n t he cont extof pr opervenue w ith in C o lo ra d o . T h e sta te cour thad nei t heran oppor tuni t ynora r eas on t o compar e the company ’ s act i vi t i es in C o lorad o v ersu s W y o m ing . T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s de term ination that “S S T ’s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s w as notan i s s ue i n the C ol or ado s ui t , ” i d. , w as there fo re c o rrect. M o re im p o rt an tl y , w e n ee d n o t be c o n ce rne d w ith a p arty ’s inco n sist en t po sit ion “c rea t[i n g ] th e p erc ep ti o n that eith er the firsto r sec o n d co u rt w as m i s l ed. ” Johns on , 405 F. 3d at1069 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I ns ofaras the- 8-

pr er equi s i t es forj udi ci al es t oppel have notbeen met , w e conc l ude thatthe di s t r i ct c o u r tc o r r e c t l yd e c l i n e d t o a p p l yth e d o c tr i n e a g a i n s tSS T. C . T h e T otal A cti vit y T est

“ F o r d iv e rsityp u rp o se s, a c o rp o ra tio n is d e e m e d to b e a c iti z e n o f a n yS tate byw hi ch i thas been i ncorpor at ed and of t he St at e w her e i thas i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s . ” G adl i n v. Sybr on Int ’ lC or p. , 222 F. 3d 797, 799 ( 10th C i r . 2000) (quotat i on om i t t ed). W e hav e held that a corporat i on ’s pri ncipal place of bu si ness is to b e d e ter m in e d b ye x a m in in g “ th e to tal a c tiv ityo f th e c o m p a n yo r th e to tality of the ci rcum st ances, con si deri ng t he ch aract er of the co rporat i on , i t s purposes, t he ki nd of bus i nes s i n w hi ch i ti s engage d, and the s i tus of i t s oper at i ons . ” Id. ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he det erm i nat i on “does nothi nge on one pa r t i cul arfac et of corpor at e oper at i ons ” buti s bas ed on a va r i etyof fa ct or s , i ncl udi ng “the l ocat i on of the corpor at i on’ s nerve ce nt er , admi ni s tr at i ve off i ces , pr oduct i on fac i l i t i es , empl oy ees , et c. ” Sh e ll , 4 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 2 (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ); see also Amo c o Ro c mo u n tCo , 7 F. 3d at915, n. 2 ( s t at i ng thata corpor at i on’ s pr i nci pal p lac e o f b u sin e ss is lo c a ted in “ th e sta te w h e re a su b sta n tial p a rt o f its b u sin e ss is tr a n s a c te d a n d f

ro m w h ic h c e n tr a liz e d g e n e ra l s u p e rv is io n . . . is e x e rc is e d .” ). T he Sai ns ar gue thatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n fai l i ng t o cons i dert he e v id e n c e o f

S S T ’s p rio r sta tem e n ts a m o n g th e fa c to rs r e lev a n t to d e ter m in in g its p ri n cipa l place o f b u sine ss. T h is argu m en t i s w ith o u t m erit . T h e d istri ct co u rt- 9-

unques t i onabl ycons i der ed the fa ct or s thatw e have hel d r el evantt o the pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s det erm i nat i on. T he courtr ecogni zed thatSST m ai nt ai ns an offi ce i n D enver , C ol or ado and thatthe company ’ s s ol e mar ket i ng m anage r , w ho i s r es pons i bl e fornegot i at i ng contr act s , r es i des i n D enver . I tnot ed, how ever , t hat in c o n tra st to S S T ’s s o le e m p lo y e e in C o lo ra d o , the c o m p a n y ’s “ m a n a g e m e n t, o p e ra tio n s , a c c o u n tin g , a n d e n g in e e ri n g f u n c tio n s ” a re a ll lo c a te d in W y o m in g . A pl t . A pp. at259- 60. I n addi t i on, the courtfound thatthe company ’ s “r eal pr oper t y , hom e off

i ce, and mai nt enanc e s hop ar e l ocat ed i n W y om i ng, ” and that t he “bul k of i t s w or k” t akes pl ace i n, and “[ a] l l empl oy ees ar e pai d outof the W y om i ng offi ce. ” Id. at260. B as ed on the r ecor d befor e us , w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcour tdi d not c lea rlye rr in d e ter m in in g th a t S S T ’s p rin c ip a l p lac e o f b u sin e ss w a s lo c a ted in W y om i ng rather than C olor ado . S i nce a c orporat i on ’s pri ncipal place of bu si ness d e t e r mi n e s i t s c i t i z e n s h i p fo rp u rp o s e s o f d i v e r s i tyj u r i s d i c t i o n , 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 3 2 (c)(1), dive rsi tyw as n o t com p let e in th is case , an d the d istri ct co u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d th e c o m p lain t fo r la c k o f su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . Its j u d g me n ti s t h e r e fo r e AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge