UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Tenth Circuit

Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80294

(303) 844-3157

Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk

June 25, 1997

TO: All recipients of the captioned Order and Judgment

RE: 96-3310, Quinstar Corp. v. Stoecker

 May 27, 1997

Please be advised of the following corrections to the captioned decision:

In the caption, Third-Party Defendant Ronald J. Filbrun is erroneously

listed as Richard Filbrun. The second error is found on page 3 of the decision,

wherein the Court stated “At the conclusion of the trial, the jury answered each of

the 52 questions on the special verdict form in favor of Falcon Bridge and Mr.

Stoecker.” In actuality, the jury answered each question in favor of Quinstar

Corporation and Ronald J. Filbrun.

A corrected Order and Judgment is attached for your convenience.

Very truly yours,

Patrick Fisher, Clerk

Susie Tidwell

Deputy Clerk

encl.
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 27 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

QUINSTAR CORPORATION, 

a Kansas corporation,

Plaintiff-Counter-ClaimDefendant - Appellee,

v.

FALCON BRIDGE INDUSTRIES,

INC.,

Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff,

and

WILLIAM J. STOECKER,

Defendant-Counter-Claimant - 

Appellant,

v.

RONALD J. FILBRUN,

Third-Party-Defendant - 

Appellee.

No. 96-3310

(D.C. No. 95-CV-1098)

(D. Kan.)
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

-2-

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

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. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant William J. Stoecker, as the primary shareholder of Falcon Bridge

Industries, Inc., entered into a written agreement to purchase the stock of 

Plaintiff Quinstar Corporation from its sole shareholder, Ronald J. Filbrun. In its

complaint, Quinstar alleged that Mr. Stoecker and Mr. Filbrun also entered into an

oral contract under which Mr. Filbrun was to authorize an advance of $200,000 to

Mr. Stoecker on Quinstar’s line of credit. In return, Mr. Stoecker was to pay,

within a week, $500,000 on the total amount Quinstar owed on the line of credit. 

Although Mr. Stoecker received the money, he failed to pay any amount toward

the line of credit. 
1 Mr. Stoecker was represented by counsel in the district court but proceeds

pro se on appeal. He filed a pro se notice of appeal purportedly on behalf of

himself and Falcon Bridge. Because a corporation can appear only through

counsel, see DeVilliers v. Atlas Corp., 360 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir. 1966), we

dismiss the appeal as to Falcon Bridge. We also note that the issues Mr. Stoecker

raises on appeal concern only Quinstar’s claims, and not his counterclaims or

claims against Mr. Filbrun. As a consequence, Mr. Filbrun is not implicated in

this appeal.

-3-

Quinstar sought damages for breach of the oral contract and fraudulent

misrepresentations related to the purchase agreement and the oral contract. 

Falcon Bridge and Mr. Stoecker filed counterclaims and third party claims against

Quinstar and Mr. Filbrun, alleging fraud and breach of contract. At the

conclusion of the trial, the jury answered each of the fifty-two questions on the

special verdict form in favor of Quinstar Corporation and Mr. Filbrun. It awarded

Quinstar compensatory damages of $233,675 and punitive damages of $50,000.

Mr. Stoecker1 appeals from the judgment entered upon the jury verdict. He

argues that the district court erred (1) in admitting prejudicial evidence of

representations that contradicted provisions of the written purchase agreement;

(2) in reserving ruling on his motion for judgment as a matter of law, made at the

close of evidence, and denying the motion as moot after the jury returned its

verdict, and (3) in submitting the special verdict form to the jury. Each of these

claims of error necessitates a reasoned review of the evidence presented to the

district court. See United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 108 F.3d 1228, 1236 (10th
-4-

Cir. 1997) (holding that, without transcripts, the appellate court has no means of

determining whether the district court properly admitted allegedly prejudicial

evidence); Weese v. Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 547 (10th Cir. 1996) (requiring a de

novo review of the evidence to determine the propriety of the district court’s

ruling on a motion for a judgment as a matter of law); United States Fire Ins. Co.

v. Pressed Steel Tank Co., 852 F.2d 313, 318 (7th Cir. 1988) (determining, on

appellate review, whether the special verdict form included all material issues

raised by the pleadings and evidence). 

Mr. Stoecker has failed to include a trial transcript in the record on appeal. 

An appellant bears the responsibility of providing this court with a proper record

on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10; 10th Cir. R. 10.1.1. The record must contain

all portions of the transcript necessary to give the court of appeals a complete and

accurate record of the proceedings related to the issues on appeal. See King v.

Unocal Corp., 58 F.3d 586, 587 (10th Cir. 1995). Absent a transcript of the trial,

 we are effectively barred from any review of Mr. Stoecker’s arguments on

appeal. See id..
-5-

We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District Court for

the District of Kansas. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge