Your document has been successfully saved!

Search through millions of court cases, regulations, statutes and more...

Search for
Boolean Connector Use Result
AND Sleep AND Fall Records with both “Slip” and “Fall”
OR Lee OR Grant Records with either “Lee” or “Grant”
NOT Transaction NOT Fee Records that contain “Transaction” but exclude “Fee”
( ) (Tree OR Shrub) AND Fall Records containing “Tree” or “Shrub”, and the word “Fall”
" " "Capital Punishment" Records containing the exact phrase “Capital Punishment”
* Affirm* Records containing variations of the root word (such as “Affirmed”, “Affirming”, “Affirmation”, and etc…)
? Connect?r Records that contain single letter variations (such as “Connector” and “Connecter”)
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decision Date: 6/28/1991



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Jackson v. Integra Jackson v. Integra, Inc., 936 F.2d 583 (C.A.10 (Okl.), 1991)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 583

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        936 F.2d 583
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Unpublished Disposition
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36. 3 states that unpublished opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Roy L. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        INTEGRA, INC doing business as Residence Inn, Marriott, Inc Defendants-Appellees. Roy L. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        INTEGRA, INC doing business as Residence Inn, Marriott, Inc Defendants-Appellants.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Nos. 90-5097, 91-5029.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        June 28, 1991.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Before TACHA, BARRETT and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ORDER AND JUDGMENT

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                BARRETT, Circuit Judge.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34. 1. 9. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                These two appeals arise from the same district court proceeding. In appeal No. 90-5097, plaintiff challenges the district court's dismissal, under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12(b)(6), of his action seeking damages for breach of contract, wrongful discharge, and several related torts. In appeal No. 91-5029, defendants seek review of the district court's subsequent denial of their application for attorney fees.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Appeal No. 90-5097

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Plaintiff's appeal must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. On March 30, 1990, the district court entered an order granting defendants' motions to dismiss and directing counsel to prepare an appropriate form of judgment for filing. Within ten days of the district court's order, plaintiff submitted a "Motion to Vacate Order and Judgment, " in which he argued that the court had erred in several substantive respects. On April 23, 1990, the district court signed and entered the judgment prepared by defendants in accordance with the court's earlier direction, and a few days later plaintiff appealed. The motion to vacate was not denied until August 23, 1990, however, and plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal following that ruling.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Despite its nominal designation, plaintiff's motion to vacate was clearly a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 59(e). See Skagerberg v. Oklahoma, 797 F.2d 881 883 (10th Cir. 1986) ("regardless of how it is characterized, a post-judgment motion made within ten days of the entry of judgment that questions the correctness of a judgment is properly construed as a motion . . . under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 59(e)"); see also Martinez v. Sullivan, 874 F.2d 751 753 (10th Cir. 1989). The fact that the motion was filed after the district court indicated the action it would take but before formal entry of a judgment embodying that action does not alter its status under Rule 59(e). See Hilst v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 725 726 (10th Cir. 1989).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Any motion deemed to have been made pursuant to Rule 59(e) triggers the tolling provision of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Martinez, 874 F.2d at 753. Thus, the time for appeal in this case did not commence until August 23, 1990, when the motion to vacate was denied. See, e. g Hilst, 874 F.2d at 726. Accordingly, plaintiff's notice of appeal filed in the interim is a nullity, and his failure to file a separate notice following disposition of the motion to vacate leaves this court with no jurisdiction and no choice but to dismiss the appeal. See Martinez, 874 F.2d at 753-54.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Appeal No. 91-5029

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendants claim they are entitled to attorney fees as prevailing parties under Okla. Crim. Stat. tit. 12, Sec. 936, which states:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                In any civil action to recover on an open account, a statement of account, account stated, note, bill, negotiable instrument, or contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods, wares, or merchandise, or for labor or services, unless otherwise provided by law or the contract which is the subject of the action, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Specifically, defendants contend that this case, brought primarily to redress an alleged wrongful discharge in breach of plaintiff's employment contract, constitutes an action to recover on a contract for labor or services and, therefore, falls within the scope of section 936. The district court rejected this contention, holding that section 936 generally does not apply to wrongful termination suits. We agree.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The courts of Oklahoma have held for some time that section 936 applies only to actions for unpaid labor or services rendered, not to suits for damages otherwise arising from breach of a contract relating to labor or services. See Russell v. Flanagan, 544 P.2d 510 512 (Okla. Crim. 1975); see also ABC Coating Co. v. J. Harris & Sons Ltd 747 P.2d 271 273 (Okla. Crim. 1987) (reaffirming principle established in Russell ). Compare Ferrell Constr. Co. v. Russell Creek Coal Co 645 P.2d 1005 1011 (Okla. Crim. 1982) (section 936 inapplicable to claim for profits lost when defendant breached contract for plaintiff's services and thereby precluded plaintiff from performing) with Hamilton v. Telex Corp 576 P.2d 769 770 (Okla. Crim. 1978) (section 936 applicable to claim seeking compensation for plaintiff's services rendered). Indeed, we recently recognized and applied this principle in an action alleging wrongful termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-34, where we held that such a claim seeks "damages for the alleged breach of a labor contract and not for the value of services rendered, " and, therefore, does not come within the terms of section 936. Merrick v. Northern Natural Gas Co 911 F.2d 426 434 (10th Cir. 1990). These authorities control our analysis of section 936 and confirm the correctness of the district court's denial of defendants' application for attorney fees thereunder.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendants' argument for the existence of a contrary line of Oklahoma case law establishing the applicability of section 936 to the wrongful termination context is unpersuasive. Two of the three cases they cite in this regard are, for evident procedural reasons, restricted in analysis to the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 583

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Accordingly, plaintiff's appeal (No. 90-5097) is DISMISSED, the district court's order denying defendants' application for attorney fees (appeal No. 91-5029) is AFFIRMED, and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        * This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36. 3.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        * This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36. 3.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Cited By
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Negative Treatment

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Please, select a date range