Atwell v. Gabow ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 9, 2009
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RENEE ATWELL; VIVIAN
BRADLEY; TERRY LEE; YVETTE
MARTINEZ HOCHBERG; ODIN
GOMEZ; MEKELA RIDGEWAY;
CATHIE GORDON; KATIE MOORE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 08-1107
(D.C. Nos. 1:06-CV-02262-CMA-
PATRICIA GABOW, in her individual MJW and 1:07-CV-02063-JLK)
and official capacity as Chief (D. Colo.)
Executive Officer and Medical
Director of Denver Health and
Hospital Authority; DENVER
HEALTH AND HOSPITAL
AUTHORITY; GREG ROSSMAN,
in his individual capacity and in his
official capacity as Chief Human
Resources Director of Denver Health
and Hospital Authority; WENDY
ALEXANDER, in her individual
capacity and in her official capacity as
Human Resources Director of Denver
Health and Hospital Authority,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
(continued...)
Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Renee Atwell brought a federal-court employment discrimination action
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1988; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e to 2000e-17; and Colorado state statutes. After Dr. Atwell was granted
leave to file an amended complaint, Vivian Bradley, Terry Lee, and Yvette
Martinez Hochberg joined her action. The amended complaint added cites to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought class status. Citing §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988, Odin
Gomez, Mekela Ridgeway, Cathie Gordon, and Katie Moore filed a substantially
similar state-court complaint, also seeking class action status. Appellees removed
that action to federal court, and the district court consolidated the two suits.
Appellants formally moved to certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and 23(b)(2) and/or 23(b)(3). The district court denied the motion, and shortly
thereafter dismissed the majority of appellants’ claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Appellants appealed.
Jurisdiction
The district court’s orders did not resolve all issues between all parties in
these consolidated cases. This court has jurisdiction to review the Rule 12(b)(6)
*
(...continued)
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.
-2-
dismissal order because the district court entered final judgment on those claims
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). While the order denying class certification did
not decide any “claims” or dismiss any “parties,” the issues presented in the
certification order are inextricably intertwined with and/or necessary to ensure
meaningful review of the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal order. Appellants seek to assert
the dismissed claims on behalf of a class and intertwine their appellate arguments
as to why they should be allowed to proceed. And as the district court
determined, resolving the class certification issues is necessary to refine the Rule
12(b)(6) analysis. We recognize that pendant appellate jurisdiction “is generally
disfavored,” Roska ex rel. Roska v. Sneddon, 437 F.3d 964, 970 (10th Cir. 2006)
(quotation omitted), but we conclude that exercising such jurisdiction is
appropriate in this case. See Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 51
(1995) (suggesting that pendant appellate jurisdiction is available when issues are
“intextricably intertwined” or review is “necessary to ensure meaningful review
of” the reviewable order); Moore v. City of Wynnewood, 57 F.3d 924, 930
(10th Cir. 1995) (exercising pendant appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Swint).
Motion for Class Certification
“We review de novo whether the district court applied the correct legal
standard in its decision to grant or deny class certification; when the district court
has applied the proper standard, the decision will be reversed only for abuse of
discretion.” Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2006).
-3-
Appellants do not argue that the district court applied the wrong legal standard, so
our review is for abuse of discretion.
The district court denied certification because the appellants failed to show
all of Rule 23(a)’s requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy of representation) and failed to establish their suit satisfied either Rule
23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3) (the types of maintainable class actions that appellants
identified as potentially applicable). We find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s decision and affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district
court’s February 28, 2008, Order Denying Motion for Class Certification.
Motion to Dismiss
Our review of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is de novo. See Duran v. Carris,
238 F.3d 1268, 1270 (10th Cir. 2001). In their opening brief, appellants take
issue only with the district court’s dismissal of their § 1981 claims. Accordingly,
they have waived appellate consideration of the dismissal of their other claims.
See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979, 984 n.7 (10th Cir. 1994).
The district court analyzed appellants’ complaints and concluded that the
majority of their § 1981 claims failed to meet the pleading standards set forth in
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-69 (2007). We agree and
affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s March 31,
2008, Order on Motions to Dismiss.
-4-
The district court also dismissed Ms. Ridgeway’s § 1981 retaliation claim
against Wendy Alexander, concluding that under this court’s precedent the claim
was actionable only under Title VII. Several weeks later, the Supreme Court held
that § 1981 encompasses retaliation claims. CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries,
128 S. Ct. 1951, 1954-55 (2008). We need not consider the applicability of
CBOCS West on our precedent, however, because the dismissal was nonetheless
proper. See United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994)
(“We are free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds for which there is
a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds not relied upon by
the district court.” (quotation omitted)). Ms. Ridgeway’s complaint against
Ms. Alexander does not set forth a well-pleaded § 1981 retaliation claim. See
Carney v. City and County of Denver, 534 F.3d 1269, 1276 (10th Cir. 2008)
(setting forth the elements of a § 1981 retaliation claim). Particularly, the
complaint does not adequately allege facts establishing that Ms. Alexander took
an action that a reasonable employee would regard as materially adverse. Thus,
the claim was properly subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-5-