Hicks v. Sprint Nextel Corporation
661 F. App'x 938
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Brian Hicks, a Colorado prisoner convicted of murder in 2011, alleged that Sprint failed to preserve and/or produce cell-site records that would have shown his alleged co-conspirators were not near the crime scene.
- The State asserted Sprint had purged the records before receiving a preservation request; Sprint originally told Hicks differently, then its trial witness (Kerri Scarbo) testified Sprint had purged the records and never provided them to the State.
- Hicks claimed Sprint violated the Stored Communications Act (SCA) §§ 2703(f) and 2703(c) by purging or failing to produce the records.
- Sprint moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as time-barred, invoking the SCA’s 2-year statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 2707(f)), arguing Hicks had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation by January 31, 2011.
- Hicks filed his complaint on October 20, 2014, and argued (1) his claim accrued in 2013 when he received the trial record and (2) equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, and fraudulent concealment should save his claim.
- The district court dismissed the suit as time-barred; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding Hicks had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation by January 31, 2011 and rejecting tolling/estoppel arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hicks’ SCA claim is time-barred under the SCA’s 2‑year limitations period | Hicks: claim didn’t accrue until 2013 when he obtained the trial record; alternatively tolling/estoppel/fraudulent concealment apply | Sprint: Hicks had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation by Jan 31, 2011 (Scarbo’s testimony), so limitations expired Jan 31, 2013 | Held: Claim time-barred. Hicks had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation by Jan 31, 2011; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, or fraudulent concealment apply to extend limitations | Hicks: Sprint’s prior misleading statements and alleged concealment warrant tolling/estoppel/fraudulent concealment | Sprint: No facts supporting tolling/estoppel; discovery opportunity existed at trial | Held: District court did not abuse discretion; no tolling/estoppel/fraudulent concealment applies |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate where statute of limitations is evident from complaint | Hicks: factual disputes preclude dismissal | Sprint: Limitations defense is apparent from complaint, so 12(b)(6) dismissal appropriate | Held: De novo review supports dismissal because complaint shows claim is untimely |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration | Hicks: denial improper and too cursory | Sprint: district court acted within discretion | Held: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Braxton v. Zavaras, 614 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2010) (standards for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and equitable tolling review)
- Sierra Club v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 816 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2016) (dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds where claim is time-barred on its face)
- Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1980) (affirmative defense can justify Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when evident on complaint)
- Garrett v. Fleming, 362 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 2004) (equitable tolling standard)
- Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, USA, 681 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2012) (pleading-stage factual allegations accepted in plaintiff’s favor)
- King & King Enters. v. Champlin Petrol. Co., 657 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir. 1981) (fraudulent-concealment test and when equitable tolling may be decided as a matter of law)
- Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309 (10th Cir. 1997) (standard for appellate review of district court’s denial of Rule 59(e) motion)