491 F. App'x 875
10th Cir.2012Background
- Sky Harbor and H. Paul Martin sued multiple defendants in Wyoming federal court; the district court granted summary judgment against them and awarded damages and attorney fees to the Board on its counterclaim related to the Paint Shop lease.
- The Paint Shop lease was originally a Sky Harbor painting facility lease; Sky Harbor later used it for general aviation maintenance before it was terminated due to delinquent rent and broader disputes.
- WyDOT/Aeronautics terminated its lease with Sky Harbor after an incident involving damage to a state aircraft and a subsequent investigation, with the state eventually pursuing its own hangar/facility and guiding state aviation operations away from Sky Harbor.
- During transition, Sky Harbor sought to shift the Paint Shop lease to a different operator (GLA), but GLA was not awarded the lease and never occupied the Paint Shop.
- Sky Harbor argued the Paint Shop lease was illegal and unenforceable, and sought to overturn liability on that basis; the district court rejected this as a late, constructive amendment and the court ultimately awarded damages to the Board for breach of the lease.
- The court later awarded attorney fees to Shelly Reams under §1988(b), but Sky Harbor’s RICO-related fee requests were later found improper, leading to a remand on the appropriate fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegality defense and pleading amendment | Sky Harbor contends the Paint Shop lease was illegal and unenforceable. | Reams/Board argued illegality was an affirmative defense not timely raised; constructive amendment was inappropriate. | District court did not abuse its discretion; illegality defense was properly rejected as untimely constructive amendment. |
| Government defamation under §1983 | Sky Harbor argues Reams/Board's statements damaged its reputation and were actionable government defamation. | Statements were either not publishable within the stigma-plus framework or were true. | District court's dismissal affirmed; WyDOT minutes and media statements did not satisfy stigma-plus publication requirements. |
| RICO predicate acts and pattern | Sky Harbor asserts extortion/blackmail predicates support a RICO claim. | No consent-based extortion occurred; blackmail does not meet generic extortion standard. | RICO claims fail; no two predicate acts showing a pattern of racketeering. |
| Attorney fees under 1988(b) for RICO defense | Sky Harbor challenges Reams's §1988(b) fee award, especially for RICO defense. | §1988(b) does not authorize fees for defense of RICO claims; only §1983 claims are eligible. | Vacate the portion of the fee award for RICO defense and remand for limited, appropriate fee calculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahmad v. Furlong, 435 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006) (constructive amendments and pleading defenses basis; abuse of discretion standard)
- Ball Corp. v. Xidex Corp., 967 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1992) (notice of affirmative defenses; timing of raising defenses before trial)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (standards for awards of attorney fees in civil rights cases)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (U.S. 2011) (limits and scrutiny of attorney-fee awards; deference to district court)
- Kan. Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) (frivolous or vexatious claims; standard for fee-shifting in civil actions)