Copar Pumice Co., Inc. v. Morris
639 F.3d 1025
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Morris and Yantos, NM NMED inspectors, conducted an unannounced Aug. 28, 2006 inspection at Copar Pumice’s El Cajete Mine under AQCA permit requiring on-site records and entry rights.
- Inspectors and Copar offer conflicting accounts: inspectors say Gomez consented and allowed inspection of documents; Gomez says he did not understand and did not consent.
- Twenty-four pages of Copar documents were taken during the trailer search, later returned; enforcement proceedings were initiated against Copar.
- District court denied summary judgment on consent and on qualified immunity due to genuine issues of material fact; trial proceeded, yielding a jury verdict for Copar with nominal damages.
- Appellants withdrew their Rule 50(b) motion after the jury and post-judgment briefing began, raising jurisdictional questions about review of the denial of qualified immunity; the district court later corrected the judgment to remove an inadvertent reference to a secretary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants waived appellate review of the qualified-immunity denial | Copar argues denial of immunity should be reviewable | Morris/Yantos contend withdrawal waives review | Appellants waived review; no Rule 50(b) review available on appeal. |
| Whether the denial of qualified immunity was reviewable on appeal given trial facts | Copar's facts show unconstitutional search if consent lacking | Defendants argue purely legal issue exists | Denial rested on factual disputes; not reviewable without Rule 50(b). |
| Whether Rule 4(a)(4) jurisdictional concerns foreclose the appeal | Appeal timely under Rule 4(a)(4)(B) despite pending motion | Withdrawal would toll under Vanderwerf | Withdrawal treated as if never made; Rule 4(a)(4) inapplicable; appellate jurisdiction exists under Rule 4(a)(1). |
| Whether Ortiz v. Jordan controls the permissible scope of review | Summary-judgment denial could be reviewed on appeal | Qualified immunity issues are not purely legal | Ortiz does not compel direct review here; denial was factual-based; waiver governs. |
| Whether the jury’s verdict establishes facts controlling qualified immunity | Jury found violation and non-compliance with AQCA/permit | Consent/statutory scope could negate liability | Factual findings required; no Rule 50(b) renewal to challenge on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanderwerf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 603 F.3d 842 (10th Cir.2010) (withdrawn post-judgment motion timing issues; affects Rule 4)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (2011) (clarifies reviewability of qualified-immunity denial after trial)
- Haberman v. Hartford Ins. Group, 443 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir.2006) (summary-judgment denial based on law vs. fact; reviewability)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (Rule 50(b) renewal requirement to challenge verdict)
- Mack v. McCune, 551 F.2d 251 (10th Cir.1977) (voluntary withdrawal of a motion waives appellate review)
- Wolfgang v. Mid-Am. Motorsports, 111 F.3d 1515 (10th Cir.1997) (denial based on factual disputes not reviewable on final-judgment appeal)
- Wiles v. Michelin Am., Inc., 173 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir.1999) (same principle on factual-denial review)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (2011) (supreme court on review of qualified-immunity denial)