Cascade Energy v. Banks

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 6 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CASCADE ENERGY & METALS
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
and
DR. HAROLD MASUNAGA; YUKIO
AYABE; THE ESTATE OF MARIAN
HARADA; RESOURCE CONCEPTS,
INC.; TELEGRAPH GOLD
CORPORATION, as successor in
interest to the claim of George
Pingree,
Surety-Plaintiffs-Appellants,
No. 98-4185
(District of Utah)
v.
(D.C. No. 82-CV-1223-J)
JEFFREY G. BANKS; KENNETH
CALDWELL; COASTAL
COMPUTER INVESTMENTS;
ELMER J. DAVIS; ROGER A.
MANN; H. E. MOSES; ROBERT A.
NICKERSON; PETER P. SAMARIN;
HERBERT W. STOLTENBERG;
EDWIN STOLTENBERG; PATRICIA
STOLTENBERG; CHRIS WAUGH;
SAMUEL HARMATZ; BERNARD
HODOWSKI; MANN CALDWELL
PARTNERSHIP; DELFORD R.
ASHLEY; GEORGE SLATER;
PATRICIA SLATER; ROBERT
DOUB; SAM HAMBARIAN; ALYCE
HAMBARIAN; LIONEL ASCHER; A.
C. MEJEDLY; THE ESTATE OF R. E.
DONAHEY; GRACE V. DUNCAN;
ELLIOT WEINBERG,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
The appellant sureties appeal the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to the judgment creditors and denying it to the sureties, thus allowing
the judgment creditors to enforce the underlying judgment by collecting on
supersedeas bonds posted by the Sureties. The sureties assert four bases to
reverse the district court’s order: (1) material facts were in dispute; (2) the district
court erred in concluding that the judgment creditors did not actively conceal
pertinent information; (3) the district court erroneously determined the judgment
creditors’ failure to disclose judgment recordings did not constitute a material
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
non-disclosure under Restatement of Securities § 124; and (4) the district court
incorrectly decided that the judgment creditors did not impair the sureties’
collateral. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
affirms.
This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same legal standards used by the district court. See Charter Canyon Treatment
Ctr. v. Pool Co., 153 F.3d 1132, 1135 (10th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is
appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In applying this standard,
this court views the facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most
favorable to the non-moving party. See Kaul v. Stephan, 83 F.3d 1208, 1212
(10th Cir. 1996).
Because the district court sufficiently set out the undisputed material facts
in its order, this court need not repeat those facts here. After conducting a de
novo review of the parties’ briefs and contentions, the district court order, and the
entire record on appeal, this court finds no reversible error. Thus, the order of the
-3-
United States District Court for the District of Utah granting summary judgment
to the judgment creditors is hereby AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-