Isaacson v. Isaacson

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 19, 2012
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
MARCIE ISAACSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 11-6201
(D.C. No. 5:10-CV-00678-M)
JOE B. ISAACSON, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Marcie Isaacson appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to her ex-husband, defendant Joe B. Isaacson, D.D.S., and its denial of
her motion for partial summary judgment in this suit alleging violations of the
Oklahoma wiretap act, formally known as the Security of Communications Act,
Okla. Stat. tit. 13, §§ 176.1-176.14, and the federal wiretap act, formally known
*
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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
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.
as Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2510-2522. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
I. Background
The parties divorced on July 30, 2008, and were awarded joint custody of
their five-year old twin boys. From mid-February into July 2009, Dr. Isaacson
recorded the telephone conversations the boys had with their mother at his house
by means of a recording device he caused to be placed on his home phones.
On January 19, 2010, Dr. Isaacson filed a motion in the divorce case to
terminate joint custody. It was during that litigation that Ms. Isaacson learned
that Dr. Isaacson had been taping the boys’ conversations with her while they
were at his home. She filed a motion in limine to prevent his use of the tape
recordings, asserting that they were obtained in violation of the law. Dr. Isaacson
argued in response that he had a good faith concern for his minor sons’ welfare
and, as a result, the taping was not illegal under the vicarious consent and
extension phone exceptions to the federal wiretap act. On June 24, 2010, the state
court granted Ms. Isaacson’s motion to suppress, ruling from the bench that both
the state and federal wiretap acts applied, that there was an intercepted
communication in violation of both acts, and that no exceptions to the acts
applied. See Aplt. App., Vol. 1, at 127-28.
-2-
Ms. Isaacson filed this federal suit on June 29, 2010. In her amended
complaint, she asserted that Dr. Isaacson had violated the federal and state
wiretap acts. Id. at 212-13. In his November 10, 2010, motion for summary
judgment, Dr. Isaacson argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on his
affirmative defenses of consent, vicarious consent, and the extension phone
exceptions to the federal wiretap act. See, e.g., id. at 25-31. He made thirty-two
assertions of undisputed material facts, see id. at 10-20, and attached evidentiary
material to his summary judgment motion, see, e.g., id. at 32-88. Ms. Isaacson
filed a combined response and motion for partial summary judgment on
November 22, 2010. Aplee. Supp. App. at 22. She admitted half of
Dr. Isaacson’s assertions of undisputed material facts, see id. at 27-34, and
presented no evidence to controvert the others. In particular, she admitted
sending her ex-husband text messages in January and early February 2009 stating,
“your kids cannot stand you,” “Kids are the true judges. . . . I’m taking your
rights away[,]” and directing him to get his attorney because she thought that she
could prove that he was “not a proper parent[,]” that the boys “don’t want to
come to your house anyway[,]” and that she could get more money and time with
her children. Id. at 29-30 (regarding alleged undisputed material facts number 10,
13, and 15). She did not request additional time under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) in
which to procure unavailable evidence. She later filed an amended motion for
-3-
partial summary judgment and a reply brief in response to Dr. Isaacson’s
summary judgment motion. See Aplt. App., Vol. 1, at 89, 192.
In her pleadings, Ms. Isaacson argued that the issue of Dr. Isaacson’s
affirmative defenses was res judicata based on the state court’s bench ruling on
her suppression motion in their still-pending custody dispute. See Aplee. Supp.
App. at 27, 39, 41-42; Aplt. App., Vol. 1, at 92-93, 192-93. She also purported to
make an argument that there were genuine issues of material fact to be tried, but
she did not include a single citation to any evidentiary materials in her argument.
See Aplee. Supp. App. at 37-43. On April 6, 2011, the district court entered an
order granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Isaacson, holding that both the
vicarious consent exception and the extension phone exception applied.
Aplt. App., Vol. 2, at 220-22. 1 The court rejected Ms. Isaacson’s contention that
res judicata applied because the state court had not yet issued a final decision in
the custody dispute. Id. at 223.
On May 2, 2011, Ms. Isaacson filed a “motion for new trial” under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60, arguing that new evidence showed that summary
judgment was improperly granted. Aplt. App., Vol. 2, at 231, 238. She asserted
that Dr. Isaacson’s deposition, which she had taken on April 1, 2011, as well as
his response to discovery requests filed in the divorce case showed that he taped
1
It is not clear on what basis Ms. Isaacson’s state-law claim was rejected,
but no issue is raised on appeal with regard to this claim.
-4-
their sons’ conversations with her at the advice of his divorce attorney and in
anticipation of litigation, not solely because he was concerned about the boys’
welfare, as stated in the sworn affidavit he had attached to his summary judgment
motion, so the exceptions to the federal wiretap act should not have applied.
See id. at 232-35. She did not attach Dr. Isaacson’s responses to her requests for
production of documents filed in the divorce case, which she also had not
presented to the district court during the summary judgment proceedings. She did
attach Dr. Isaacson’s April 1, 2011, deposition to her motion for new trial, but she
had not presented it to the district court during the summary judgment
proceedings or sought an extension of time in which to present the facts to be
adduced from his deposition. Dr. Isaacson contended in his opposition to
Ms. Isaacson’s motion for new trial that she had received his responses to her
requests for production in the custody case on March 29, 2010, more than a year
before the district court entered summary judgment in his favor. See Aplt. App.,
Vol. 2, at 384, 408-12. He also argued that she had waited until the April 1,
2011, discovery cut-off date to depose him, even though his counsel had offered
to submit him for deposition as early as August 18, 2010, several months before
he filed his motion for summary judgment. See id. at 387.
The district court construed Ms. Isaacson’s motion for new trial as a motion
for reconsideration and denied it because Ms. Isaacson offered “no new evidence
previously unavailable,” and because her arguments were either “addressed in the
-5-
Court’s April 6, 2011 Order [or] could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id.
at 451. Ms. Isaacson appeals from the district court’s July 28, 2011, order
denying her motion for new trial. 2
II. Issues on Appeal and Standards of Review
“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal
standard as the district court.” Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 653 F.3d 1281, 1286
(10th Cir. 2011). “Summary judgment is proper when there is ‘no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “The evidence should be viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id.2
Dr. Isaacson suggests that because Ms. Isaacson’s notice of appeal
designates only the July 28, 2011, order denying her motion for new trial, the
notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over all of Ms. Isaacson’s
arguments on appeal. Aplee. Br. at 1. His unsupported suggestion is without
merit. Although, technically, Ms. Isaacson’s May 2, 1011, motion for new trial
was improper because no trial had been held, the substance and timing of it made
it a tolling motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). See Jones v. Nelson,
484 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1973). The time for taking the appeal was
suspended by that timely filed motion. See id. at 1168. In addition, “it is clear
the appeal probes the validity of the summary judgment and we therefore find the
technical error [in the notice of appeal] to be harmless.” Id.; see also Sanabria v.
United States, 437 U.S. 54, 67 n.21 (1978) (citing Jones in support of the
proposition that “[a] mistake in designating the judgment appealed from is not
always fatal, as long as the intent to appeal from a specific ruling can fairly be
inferred by probing the notice and the other party was not misled or prejudiced”).
Thus, we may also review the district court’s decision on any interlocutory
orders. See Miami Tribe of Okla. v. United States, 656 F.3d 1129, 1137 (10th Cir.
2011).
-6-
But “although our review is de novo, we conduct that review from the
perspective of the district court at the time it made its ruling, ordinarily limiting
our review to the materials adequately brought to the attention of the district court
by the parties.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir.
1998). If the moving party carries his or her burden to “demonstrat[e] the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact[,]” id. at 670, “the burden shifts to the
nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts that would be
admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact
could find for the nonmovant[,]” id. at 671 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“To accomplish this, the facts must be identified by reference to affidavits,
deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits[.]” Id.; see Rule 56(c) (stating that
“[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the
assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,” and listing
numerous examples of such materials).
Ms. Isaacson raises numerous arguments on appeal challenging the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to Dr. Isaacson and its denial of her motion
for summary judgment and subsequent motion for new trial. We reject her
arguments because she did not raise them during the summary judgment
proceedings and because she seeks to rely on evidence that she neither presented
to the district court during the summary judgment proceedings nor has shown to
us to have been unavailable to her at that time.
-7-
Our adversarial system endows the parties with the
opportunity—and duty—to craft their own legal theories for relief in
the district court. It is the significant but limited job of our appellate
system to correct errors made by the district court in assessing the
legal theories presented to it, not to serve as a second-shot forum . . .
where secondary, back-up theories may be mounted for the first time.
Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1130 (10th Cir. 2011) (ellipsis in
original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
During the summary judgment proceedings in the district court,
Ms. Isaacson chose to focus on the asserted res judicata effect of the state court’s
bench ruling on her suppression motion rather than to present evidence to
controvert Dr. Isaacson’s asserted facts. On appeal, she has not filed a reply brief
to controvert Dr. Isaacson’s contention that she is relying on new legal theories
and previously available evidence not submitted to the district court. She is not
permitted a second opportunity on appeal based on legal arguments and factual
submissions that were available before summary judgment was entered. See id.AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-8-