Opinion ID: 873217
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: G&C’s Motion to Review Costs Award

Text: In its opening brief, G&C argues that it was entitled to recover from Rexam the amount deducted by Old Republic for its attorney’s fees under Sections 13.5 and 22 of the Agreement and under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2022(D). However, G&C’s arguments under Sections 13.5 and 22 of the Agreement fail for the reasons articulated above. The Oklahoma statute is also of no assistance to G&C. It provides that, “[i]n cases of interpleader, costs may be adjudged for or against any party.” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2022(D). G&C has not made any attempt to explain how this general provision allows a winning claimant in an interpleader action to recoup the attorney’s fees awarded to the stakeholder from a losing claimant. Instead, G&C has only argued, in conclusory fashion, that “Oklahoma law . . . provides for the recovery -9- of interpleader costs for or against any party.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 8-9 (citing § 2022(D)); see also id. at 13 (same). This is an inadequate appellate argument, and we therefore refuse to consider it. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Arguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived . . . .”); Wilburn v. Mid-South Health Dev., Inc., 343 F.3d 1274, 1281 (10th Cir. 2003) (“We . . . will not consider issues that are raised on appeal but not adequately addressed.”). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe