T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and 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 

### N ove m b e r9,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT R O Y C E G IL R E A T H ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ant , N o. 06- 3132 v . ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV - 2 2 8 2 - KHV) L - M FU N D I N G L L C , A K ans as L i m i t e d L i a b i l i ty C o m p a n y; R O X A N N E M IT C H E L L ; D A V ID M I T CH E L L ; M AR GE E HAMI L T ON; J I M M Y HAMI L T ON; E VE L YN HAMI L T ON; S E BR I NG C AP I T AL C O R P O R A T IO N , A D elaw are Co rp o r a t i o n ; CL I F F OR D WI L E Y; J OANN B UT AUD, (D . K a n .)

D efen dan t s, and B A N K O N E , N at i onal A s s oci at i on, as T rus t ee, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e K E L L Y , M c K A Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.A p p e llan t b e liev e s, in c o rre c tly , tha t th e K a n sa s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls 1 d e ter m in e d , as a m a tter o f law , tha t “s in c e P lain tiff d id n o t k n o w o f

th e c o n ten ts of the l ett erthatM r . W i l eys entt o L - M Fundi ng, and Pl ai nt i ff di d noti nform ed [ sic ] L - M Fundi ng thatM rW i l eyw as hi s agent , t hus w as notauthor i zed t o canc el pl ai nt i ff c ontr act . ” ( A ppel l antB r . at3, 3a. ) A ppel l anti s fundament al l ym i s t aken r egar di ng the K ans as C our tof A ppeal ’ s deci s i on. R ather , t hatcourtfound thatno uncontr overt ed evi dence s uppor t ed LM F’ s pos i t i on.

- 2- A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ); 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. A p p ell an t R o y ce G il rea th, pro ce ed ing p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on thathi s compl ai nti s barr ed byt he R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne as w el l as i t s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o amend hi s compl ai ntt o add addi t i onal defe ndant s and new cl ai m s . M r . G i l r eath or i gi nal l yfi l ed a br eac h of contr actand K an sas C o n su m er P rotec ti o n A ct claim in K an sas s tat e c o u rtag ains t L -M Fu n d i n g , LLC ( “ LM F” ) a f t e ra fa i l e d l a n d d e a l . Th e t r i a l c o u r ta war d e d LM F su m m a ryju d g m e n t, bu t th e K a n sa s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d trial n e c e ss a ryto re so lv e iss u e s o f

fa c t, sp e c ifica llyw h e th e r M r. G ilrea th k n o w in g lya u th o riz e d h is att orney , defe ndantC l i ffor d W i l ey , t o canc el t he contr act . M r . G i l r eath then 1 a m e n d e d h is s ta te c o u rt c o m p la in t a th ir d tim e to a d d , in tera lia , defe ndantB ank O n e. T h e tri al co u rtg ran ted B an k O n e’s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, as M r. G il rea th h ad n o t al lege d an yclaim s ag ains t i t. A t a su b seq u en t ben ch tr ial , M r.A pp el l ant’ s com plai nt l i st s the fo l l ow i ng cl ai m s: 2 P l a i n t i ff c l a i m 1 T h a td e fe n d a n t s J i m m y H a m i l t o n , M a r g e e H a m i l t o n , E v e l yn H a m ilt o n a n d B a n k O n e h a v e y e t to sh o w th a t p lain tiff p lea d in g in hi s thi r d amended pet i t i on r equi r ed pl ai nt i ff t o el ecta r emedy , t hus fo r th e state c o u rt s to o rde r plainti ff to elec t w as e rror. Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m 11 Pl ai nt i ff w as deni ed hi s due pr oces s of fi nal i tyof a J udgm entor d e c isio n o f

a c o m p e ten c e c o u rt th u s d e p riv e d p lain tiff o f h is U . S. C . A . 14; es peci al l ys i nce the s t at eappe al courti n G i l r eath 1 had m a d e a fin a l d e c isio n in re g a rd s to th e tw o a tto rn e yh a v in g a u th o rity to w rite le tters to c a n c e l th e c o n tra c t. Pl ai nt i ff c ount111 Pl ai nt i ff pa i d #4, 000, 00 dol l ar s earnes tm oneyaft ers i gni ng the contr actw i th D ave Landi s , of L-M Fundi ng, how evert he contr act fa il b u t p lain tiff

h a v e n o t re c e iv e h is e a rn e st m o n e yb a c k w h ich is in c o n sta n t w ith w h a t th e c o n tra c t sta te. P lain tiff c o n ten d s th a t th is i s anotherm ean bythe s t at e court s of i m pai r i ng the obl i g- of a contr act , w hi ch vi ol at e pr ovi s i ons of the fe der al cons t i tut i on. (C o m p l., A p p e lle e ’s A p p . a t 1 8 (e rr o rs in o ri g in a l) .)

- 3- G i l r eath pr es ent ed no evi dence , and the tr i al cour trul ed i n favorof the r emai ni ng defe ndant s . T he K ans as C our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed thi s deci s i on. A ppel l antthen fi l ed an a ct i on i n fede r al di s tr i ctcour tas s er t i ng t hatthe K ans as s t at e courtdeci s i on vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal due pr oces s r i ght s and cons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o contr act . A m agi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended thatt he 2 m ot i on t o amend be deni ed and the ca s e di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o m eeteven the l i ber al pl eadi ng r equi r ement s of Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( a) . O verA ppel l ant ’ s obj ect i on, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a d o p te d th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n .- 4-

T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o amend on gr ounds of fut i l i ty . I tdet erm i ned thatA ppel l antfai l ed ade quat el yt o al l ege a ny ci r cumst ance s j us t i fy i ng t he fe der al s t atut orydi s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s agai ns tthe num er ous addi t i onal defe ndant s , al l of w hom w er e att or ney s thatr epr es ent ed ei ther A pp el l ant ordefe nd ants i n the st at e cou rtact i on . T he d i stri ctcou rtal so g ra n te d th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s fo r l a c k o f s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . F irst, itfo u n d th a t co m p lete d iv e rsityw a s a b se n t w h e re n in e o f e lev e n d e fe n d a n ts w ere reside n ts of

the s am e state a s A p p ell an t. S ec o n d , the d istri ct co u rt concl uded thatA ppel l ant ’ s fede r al cl ai m s w er e, underthe R ooker - Feldm an d o c trin e , an im p e rm iss ib le a ttem p t to se e k re v iew o f a f u llya dju d ica ted sta te c o u rt ju d g m e n t. W e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al forl ack of s ubj ect - m at t er j ur i s di ct i on de novo . See Kenm en Eng’g v . C i t y of Uni on , 314 F. 3d 468, 473 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . T he R ooker - Feldm an d o c trin e o p e ra tes a s a ju risd ictio n a l li m it on fede r al court s , pr ecl udi ng “ca s es br oughtbys t at e- courtl os er s compl ai ni ng of injuries ca u sed b ystat e-c o u rtjud g m en ts r en d ere d b efo re the d istri ct co u rt proceed i ng s com m enced and i nv i t i ng dis tri ctcou rtrevi ew and rej ect i on of those j udgm ent s . ” Exxon Mobi lC or p. v. Saudi B as i c Indus . C or p. , 544 U . S. 280, 284 (2 0 0 5 ); s ee als o Johns on v. D e G r andy , 512 U . S. 997, 1005- 06 ( 1994) ( s t at i ng th a t R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne pr event s “a pa r tyl os i ng i n s t at e court. . . fr om s eeki ng w hati n s ubs t ance w oul d be appe l l at e r evi ew of [a ] s t at e j udgm enti n a- 5-

U n ited S tate s d istric t co u rt, b a se d o n th e lo sin g p a rty ’s c laim th a t th e sta te jud g m en t i tsel f v iolates th e los er’s fe d era l r igh ts”). B a se d o n o u r c a re f

u l re v iew o f

th e p a rties ’ b rie fs a n d th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l, i ncl udi ng A ppel l ant ’ s compl ai ntand pr opos ed amendm entther et o, w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed thi s act i on forl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o the R ooker - Feldm an d o c trin e . A p p e llan t’s c laim s c lea rly se e k re v e rsa l o f

th e sta te c o u rts’ fin a l re so lu tio n o f th is a c tio n . H is a ttem p t to add t o hi s fede r al act i on t he l aw y er s w ho appea r ed i n the s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs o n ly re in fo rc e s o u r c o n c lu s io n . C f . Talv. Hogan , 4 5 3 F . 3 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 7 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( not i ng t hatt he “a ddi t i on of new defe ndant s i n fede r al cour t. . . does not change the natur e of the under l y i ng s t at e courtrul i ng”) . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f

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 is AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge