Lopez v. Administrative Office of the Courts
719 F.3d 1178
10th Cir.2013Background
- Lopez mediated in Utah's CMP under the AO’s ADR program and was removed from the CMP roster in August 2006.
- CMP was a separately managed panel within the AO’s ADR program created by invitation rather than application.
- Best Practices Manual (Feb. 2004) governed removal of mediators, describing discretionary removal for concerns/complaints.
- Lopez alleged violations of due process and equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserted contract theories.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of the AO and Ms. Elton; Lopez appeals.
- The district court held no implied contract and no cognizable property interest in CMP roster status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied contract existence between Lopez and AO | Lopez asserts implied contract rights as mediator | AO argues no implied contract; mediators are independent contractors | No implied contract; no enforceable promise to remain on roster. |
| Property interest and due process in CMP roster | Lopez claims entitlement to CMP roster creates property interest | Best Practices were guidelines; no statutory/regulatory entitlement | No property interest; due process claim fails. |
| Scope of constitutional claim against individual actor Ms. Elton | Ms. Elton violated due process rights in removal decision | Eleventh Amendment immunity bars AO; Doe not create individual liability | Claim against Elton fails; Eleventh Amendment immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Veile v. Martinson, 258 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2001) (rotational policy must be grounded in state law to create a property interest)
- Koerpel v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 858 (10th Cir. 1986) (entitlement requires legitimate claim of entitlement, not mere expectation)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property rights require legitimate entitlement, not abstract need or unilateral expectation)
- Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228 (10th Cir. 1990) (differing rotational policies; some create property interests when required by law)
- Heideman v. Washington City, 155 P.3d 900 (Utah App. 2007) (implied contract in Utah: mutual assent with terms reasonably certain)