Court Opinion

ID: 9960137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 16:00:57.101144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:15.403312
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3124     Document: 010111031892       Date Filed: 04/15/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          April 15, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  JAMES R. LUCAS,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-3124
                                                 (D.C. No. 2:22-CV-02107-KHV-ADM)
  DADSON MANUFACTURING                                         (D. Kan.)
  CORPORATION; PETER B. LUCAS,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       James Lucas, proceeding pro se, appeals from several district court orders.

 But his notice of appeal was filed too late to appeal from any order except the last

 one, in which the court entered a consent decree barring Mr. Lucas from filing certain

 new litigation. We dismiss the portions of this appeal challenging the district court’s

 earlier decisions because we lack jurisdiction to review them. Exercising jurisdiction

 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the consent decree.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-3124    Document: 010111031892       Date Filed: 04/15/2024    Page: 2

                                   BACKGROUND

       Mr. Lucas was the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the

 Board of defendant Dadson Manufacturing Corporation. Dadson is a family

 business; Mr. Lucas’s former wife, Pamela K. Lucas, is a member of the Board of

 Directors, and Dadson is fully owned by her mother’s trust, of which Pamela Lucas is

 a trustee. Dadson also employed the couple’s son, defendant Peter B. Lucas, as its

 Chief Operating Officer and later as its President.

       Days after Pamela Lucas filed for divorce from Mr. Lucas in 2017, Dadson

 terminated Mr. Lucas’s employment. Mr. Lucas sued in Johnson County, Kansas,

 No. 17-cv-00853, for payment of deferred salary and repayment of loans he had made

 to the company. Dadson counterclaimed for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty.

 A jury found for Mr. Lucas on his claim for deferred salary, but it rejected his claim

 involving unpaid loans. The jury also found for Dadson on its counterclaims and

 awarded punitive damages. The jury’s verdict left Mr. Lucas owing Dadson

 $239,262.59, even before the calculation of punitive damages. Ultimately the parties

 entered into a settlement agreement in open court, in which Dadson relinquished its

 right to punitive damages and Mr. Lucas waived claims against Dadson,

 Pamela Lucas, and Peter Lucas, among others.

       In the suit underlying this appeal, Mr. Lucas sued Dadson and Peter Lucas

 (collectively, the defendants) in federal court in 2022. He asserted Dadson owed

 him for unpaid compensation and loans, the judgment in Johnson County

 No. 17-cv-00853 was fraudulently obtained through false testimony by Peter Lucas,

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-3124     Document: 010111031892         Date Filed: 04/15/2024   Page: 3

 and the settlement agreement was invalid due to a breach by Pamela Lucas in the

 couple’s divorce case.

        The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It

 held the waiver in the settlement agreement barred Mr. Lucas’s claims. Because

 Mr. Lucas had unsuccessfully litigated in the divorce case the question of whether

 Pamela Lucas’s conduct constituted a breach, the district court applied collateral

 estoppel to reject his argument the settlement agreement was invalid. The district

 court later addressed motions to alter or amend the judgment by both sides, granting

 the defendants’ motion and denying Mr. Lucas’s motion.

        The defendants also moved for sanctions. At a hearing before the district

 court, the court heard testimony from Peter Lucas that Mr. Lucas had “brought

 approximately 85 unsuccessful claims all related to the original Dadson lawsuit” and

 four unsuccessful appeals, and at that time he had “six other pending claims in

 various jurisdictions all revolving out of money or the lawsuit either with Pam Lucas

 or Dadson.” R. Vol. III at 90-91. The court explained to Mr. Lucas that the waiver

 of claims in Johnson County case No. 17-cv-00853 covered every party and every

 claim existing on the date the parties made their agreement in the state court. Saying

 it did not want to sanction him, the court asked what it would take for Mr. Lucas “to

 drop all this litigation, because it has to end.” Id. at 121.

        The court and the parties then discussed potential resolutions. Ultimately, the

 defendants agreed to withdraw their motion for sanctions in exchange for

 Mr. Lucas’s agreement not to file any new lawsuits against Dadson and related

                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-3124    Document: 010111031892          Date Filed: 04/15/2024       Page: 4

 parties. When the defendants raised a concern that Mr. Lucas would not abide by an

 agreement, Mr. Lucas informed the court:

       I would be very reasonable and happy with you if you wrote an order
       stating what we just agreed to, that I will not file any new legislation (sic)
       against the parties that you mentioned: Dadson, Mr. [Peter] Lucas, and the
       other [defendants in Johnson County No. 17-cv-00853]. Anybody else that
       was involved in that first lawsuit, I would be willing to forego any new
       litigation there.

 Id. at 126. The court cautioned Mr. Lucas it would retain jurisdiction over the

 sanctions motion and the defendants would “find a ready ear” if Mr. Lucas violated

 the order. Id. at 127. Mr. Lucas responded:

       Your Honor, with as clear as you are, I don’t think we’re going to have any
       difficulties. I think some of the other things I’ve seen, they did not express
       it as clearly as I thought. But if you are very specific that this is what
       we’ve agreed—that we’re going to exclude any further litigation, any new
       complaints on these—with these people but that I am allowed to pursue
       other things that are already in action to completion—at this point I would
       trust you to write an effective order that would make sense and cover that
       clearly and logistically in a way that even—even a Ph.D. engineer can
       understand.

 Id.

       The court issued its written decision on June 9, 2023. It ordered Mr. Lucas not

 to “commence any new legal proceedings against Dadson” and other parties,

 including Peter Lucas, “which in any way relates to the Johnson County lawsuit,

 No. 17-cv-00853.” R. Vol. II at 501 (bolding omitted). Noting that, in exchange, the

 defendants had agreed to withdraw their motion for sanctions, the district court

 overruled that motion as moot. The court retained jurisdiction, however, and it

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-3124     Document: 010111031892          Date Filed: 04/15/2024     Page: 5

 cautioned that “if [Mr. Lucas] violates the letter or the spirit of this order, it will

 readdress the issue of sanctions.” Id.

        Mr. Lucas now appeals.

                                       DISCUSSION

 I.     We have jurisdiction to review only the June 9, 2023, order.

        Mr. Lucas’s notice of appeal identified “all adverse rulings in the entire

 judgment” as the subject of the appeal. R. Vol. II at 563. Because “the timely filing

 of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell,

 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007), we directed the parties to file supplemental briefs

 addressing the timeliness of the notice of appeal as to the decisions preceding the

 June 9, 2023, order. Having reviewed those supplemental briefs, we conclude the

 notice of appeal was timely only as to the June 9, 2023, order.

        The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

 entered a separate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 on

 February 15, 2023. The entry of that judgment triggered the thirty-day appeal period.

 See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(7)(A)(ii).

        On February 17, 2023, the defendants timely moved to alter or amend the

 judgment. Contrary to the defendants’ argument that their motion did not affect

 Mr. Lucas’s appeal time, the motion reset the appeal period “for all parties.” Id.

 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). So, Mr. Lucas had thirty days to appeal after the district court entered

 the amended judgment on March 8, 2023.

                                              5
Appellate Case: 23-3124    Document: 010111031892        Date Filed: 04/15/2024    Page: 6

         On April 5, 2023, Mr. Lucas timely moved to alter or amend the amended

 judgment. As the defendants concede, this motion extended the time to appeal from

 the amended judgment, see id., but they assert that it did not affect the appeal period

 for the original judgment. We need not decide whether to analyze the judgments

 separately. For Mr. Lucas, the best-case scenario is his motion did extend the appeal

 period for the original judgment in addition to the amended judgment. Under this

 posture, the time to appeal the judgments and the denial of Mr. Lucas’s motion to

 alter or amend began when the court denied the motion to alter or amend on May 12,

 2023.

         The defendants’ motion for sanctions, filed on March 22, 2023, remained

 pending when the district court denied Mr. Lucas’s motion to alter or amend. But

 unlike the motions to alter or amend, the sanctions motion did not affect the time for

 filing a notice of appeal. See id. 4(a)(4)(A); Turnbull v. Wilcken, 893 F.2d 256, 257

 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding the appeal period began to run upon entry of order which

 adjudicated the merits, even though sanctions issues remained pending). Mr. Lucas

 attempts to distinguish Turnbull, arguing there was no final judgment until the

 district court entered the June 9, 2023, sanctions order because the case involved

 issues beyond the sanctions motion even after the entry of the judgments. He is

 incorrect. The issues he identifies were part and parcel of the sanctions inquiry. The

 discussions at the hearing were not a continuation or reconsideration of the merits

 determinations, but instead were integral to deciding whether to impose sanctions,

 and if so, what type of sanctions to impose.

                                            6
Appellate Case: 23-3124    Document: 010111031892         Date Filed: 04/15/2024      Page: 7

       Accordingly, the thirty-day appeal period for all the orders began running on

 May 12, 2023, even though the sanctions motion remained pending at that time. The

 appeal period ended on June 11, 2023. Because that day was a Sunday, the appeal

 period extended to Monday, June 12, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C).

 Mr. Lucas, however, did not file his notice of appeal until July 5, 2023. His notice of

 appeal therefore was too late to appeal from the original judgment, the amended

 judgment, or the order denying his motion to alter or amend. We lack jurisdiction to

 review those decisions.

       In contrast, the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the entry of the

 June 9, 2023, order. We have jurisdiction to review that order.

 II.   We affirm the June 9, 2023, order.

       The June 9, 2023, order is a consent decree. See Johnson v. Lodge #93 of

 Fraternal Ord. of Police, 393 F.3d 1096, 1101 (10th Cir. 2004) (“A consent decree is

 a negotiated agreement that is entered as a judgment of the court.”). A consent

 decree is final and appealable under § 1291, even where the district court retains

 jurisdiction to oversee implementation. See Jackson v. Los Lunas Cmty. Program,

 880 F.3d 1176, 1190-91 (10th Cir. 2018).

       We review “the interpretation of a consent decree” de novo, but we review

 “a district court’s decision to approve a consent decree for abuse of discretion.”

 Johnson, 393 F.3d at 1101-02 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Mr. Lucas

 is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his filings, but we do not act as his

 advocate. See Luo v. Wang, 71 F.4th 1289, 1291 n.1 (10th Cir. 2023).

                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-3124     Document: 010111031892          Date Filed: 04/15/2024       Page: 8

         A.    The court’s remarks do not require reversal.

        Mr. Lucas objects to comments the district court made during the hearing. We

 are not persuaded these remarks require reversal of the consent decree. “[J]udicial

 remarks . . . that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the

 parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge,” unless

 “they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment

 impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). When read in

 context, the remarks Mr. Lucas identifies do not reveal antagonism against

 Mr. Lucas, much less antagonism of the required high degree.

        Mr. Lucas objects that the district court mocked him by saying he should think

 about going to law school. The record does not indicate, however, that the comment

 was mockery. After the court told Mr. Lucas that his “stipulation of dismissal covers

 every party and every claim that existed on that date when you made it in open court

 on the transcript,” R. Vol. III at 127, and “I think this kind of litigation is

 harassment,” id. at 128, they had the following exchange:

               MR. LUCAS: . . . I know how you’re reading it and I accept your
        honest assessment[;] my intent was not to harass. So it was not to do
        anything in bad faith or maliciously. I really thought I had a workable
        strategy, and I was just looking for some justice, and, again, some ability to
        move forward . . . and have some funds to be able to live, build upon.

               THE COURT: So what you might think about doing is going to law
        school, because then you could be a more effective litigant and maybe you
        could find a second career that would be of satisfaction to you. You could
        live another 30 years.

                                              8
Appellate Case: 23-3124      Document: 010111031892          Date Filed: 04/15/2024      Page: 9

 Id. The entire discussion shows the remark was more tempered than Mr. Lucas’s

 interpretation.

        Mr. Lucas also complains the court made other inappropriate comments,

 including saying “that [he] should ‘lay down the weapons and die,’” Aplt. Opening

 Br. at 32 (quoting R. Vol. III at 119), dismissing his theory of the case by saying it

 was “‘building into an edifice to sustain your litigation strategy’ . . . with nothing to

 define what that meant,” id. at 33 (quoting R. Vol. III at 119), and making “a joke at

 the expense of Appellant, about a ‘client who has himself as a lawyer . . . has a fool

 for a client.’” Id. (quoting R. Vol. III at 119).

        These remarks were all part of the same discussion:

                THE COURT: So what would it take to make you stop filing
        lawsuits and complaints, because I want to say this: So you seem like a
        very principled person. You seem like an educated person. You don’t
        seem reasonable. You don’t seem intelligent in the sense of having an
        intelligent defensible strategy because you’re pursuing something that is
        not working for you. You are not being responsible. And you posed the
        question early on in your testimony, you said, “Well, what would a
        reasonable, intelligent, educated, responsible person do? I would not lay
        down and die.” Well, there comes a time to lay down the weapons and die.

               MR. LUCAS: I hear you.

                THE COURT: And so, like I said, you’re very articulate as you
        seem educated. I think you’re focused on parts of the law which you are
        sort of building into an edifice to sustain your litigation strategy, but they
        always say that the – a client who has himself as a lawyer – how does that
        go – has a fool for a client.

               MR. LUCAS: Has a fool for a client. I know that one.

               THE COURT: That’s – I think that’s the direction – that’s the road
        you’re on. You know, you’re principled but you’re focusing on the wrong
        principles.

                                               9
Appellate Case: 23-3124     Document: 010111031892         Date Filed: 04/15/2024   Page: 10

  R. Vol. III at 119. Again, read in context, the remarks reflect no intent to mock or

  insult Mr. Lucas. At most, the court was expressing some frustration at the situation,

  which does not require reversal. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56 (“Not establishing

  bias or partiality, however, are expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance,

  and even anger, that are within the bounds of what imperfect men and women, even

  after having been confirmed as federal judges, sometimes display.”).

          B.   The court’s handling of the hearing does not require reversal.

        Mr. Lucas also objects to the allocation of argument time at the hearing. He

  insists the defendants “were given 2 of the 3 hours, while Appellant only got one

  hour, and the Judge declar[ed] a hard stop at 5:00 pm due to the shutoff of air

  conditioning.” Aplt Opening Br. at 32. “This precluded Appellant from calling

  [Peter Lucas], Dadson board member Pamela Lucas, and [the defendants’] attorney

  Mr. Bodine to the stand for questioning.” Id. at 33. These accusations, however, do

  not accurately characterize the events at the hearing.

        After the defendants called Mr. Lucas and Peter Lucas as witnesses, Mr. Lucas

  called himself as a witness. While he was on the stand, the court discussed with

  Mr. Lucas and the defendants’ counsel what it would take to resolve the motion

  for sanctions. Mr. Lucas agreed to the entry of an order, and the court stated he

  could step down from the witness stand. Only then did the court observe

  “[a]ir-conditioning goes off right at the stroke of 5:00, so I keep a close eye on the

  clock. . . . You’ll hear it go down in about 30 seconds. So unless you all have

                                             10
Appellate Case: 23-3124    Document: 010111031892        Date Filed: 04/15/2024    Page: 11

  anything further, the court will stand in recess.” R. Vol. III at 130 (emphasis added).

  The parties did not comment, and the court adjourned.

        Under these circumstances, the record does not support an inference the court

  deliberately gave the defendants more time than Mr. Lucas and then cut short

  Mr. Lucas’s case simply because it was 5:00. Notably, Mr. Lucas never protested he

  did not have enough time to present his case, nor did he inform the court he wished to

  call other witnesses. The court’s handling of the hearing, therefore, does not

  establish grounds for reversing the consent decree.

          C.   Mr. Lucas agreed to the entry of the June 9, 2023, order.

        As we have explained, the record indicates the parties came to an agreement,

  and Mr. Lucas consented to the entry of the June 9, 2023, order. Mr. Lucas gives no

  reason why he should not be held to the terms he accepted. Nor does he argue the

  order did not accurately memorialize the terms reached in open court. We therefore

  affirm the June 9, 2023, order.

                                     CONCLUSION

        We dismiss the portions of the appeal attempting to challenge the judgment,

  the amended judgment, and the denial of Mr. Lucas’s motion to alter or amend the

  judgment. We deny as moot Mr. Lucas’s Motion to Request Additions to the Record.

  We affirm the district court’s June 9, 2023, order.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Veronica S. Rossman
                                              Circuit Judge

                                            11