Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pierce v. Gilchrist, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    38 views6 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Joyce Gilchrist's application for indemnification of attorney fees from the City of Oklahoma City. The district court had declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the application after the federal claims in the underlying case were dismissed pursuant to a stipulation. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) once the federal claims providing original jurisdiction were dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-02-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6150

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Joyce Gilchrist's application for indemnification of attorney fees from the City of Oklahoma City. The district court had declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the application after the federal claims in the underlying case were dismissed pursuant to a stipulation. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) once the federal claims providing original jurisdiction were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    38 views6 pages

    Pierce v. Gilchrist, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Joyce Gilchrist's application for indemnification of attorney fees from the City of Oklahoma City. The district court had declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the application after the federal claims in the underlying case were dismissed pursuant to a stipulation. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) once the federal claims providing original jurisdiction were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 6

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    February 10, 2006


    Elisabeth A. Shumaker

    Clerk of Court

    JEFFREY TODD PIERCE,


    Plaintiff,
    No. 05-6150
    (D.C. No. 02-CV-509-C)
    (W.D. Okla.)

    v.
    JOYCE A. GILCHRIST,
    Defendant-Appellant,
    and
    CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY,
    Defendant-Appellee.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *


    Before McCONNELL, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral

    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.

    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Joyce Gilchrist appeals a district court order denying for lack of
    jurisdiction her application for indemnification of attorney fees from the City of
    Oklahoma City pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 51, 162. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. 1291 and we affirm.
    I
    In April 2002, plaintiff Jeffrey Pierce, who is not a party to this appeal,
    filed a complaint against defendants Joyce Gilchrist, the City of Oklahoma City,
    and Robert H. Macy alleging the deprivation of his constitutional rights.
    Mr. Pierces first complaint was dismissed in July for failure to state a claim. In
    August, he filed his first amended complaint. Ms. Gilchrist then filed a motion to
    dismiss the first amended complaint, and an application for indemnification of
    attorney fees from the City pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 51, 162. The City filed a
    response objecting to Ms. Gilchrists request for indemnification. In October, the
    district court denied the motion to dismiss. The district court also denied the
    application for indemnification, but with leave to re-file when a final judgment
    was entered. Ms. Gilchrist appealed the district courts denial of her motion to
    dismiss. This court affirmed the district courts decision on March 2, 2004.

    -2-

    On January 13, 2005, plaintiff and defendants filed a Stipulation of Dismissal


    Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii).
    On February 11, Ms. Gilchrist filed her second application for
    indemnification of attorney fees. The City filed its objection to the application.
    The district court issued an order requesting supplemental briefing on the issue of
    whether it had jurisdiction to consider the application for indemnification after
    the stipulation of dismissal had been entered. Briefs were filed by both parties
    arguing that the district court did have jurisdiction. The district court ultimately
    concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and denied the application for
    indemnification. This appeal followed.
    The district court provided two alternative grounds for its jurisdictional
    denial. First, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
    over the indemnification application because the filing of the stipulation of
    dismissal terminated its jurisdiction over the merits of the case and the
    indemnification application could not be considered a collateral claim. Second,
    the district court determined that, even if the indemnification application were a
    collateral claim that survived the dismissal of the merits, it would decline to
    exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the purely state law claim.
    We review de novo the district courts decision that it lacked subject matter
    jurisdiction over the indemnification application. See Plaza Speedway Inc. v.
    -3-

    United States, 311 F.3d 1262, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002). We review for abuse of
    discretion the district courts decision to decline to exercise supplemental
    jurisdiction over the indemnification application. See Exum v. U.S. Olympic
    Comm., 389 F.3d 1130, 1139 (10th Cir. 2004).
    II
    On appeal, Ms. Gilchrist challenges both of the district courts
    jurisdictional grounds for the denial of her application. Because we conclude that
    the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental
    jurisdiction over the indemnification application, we will not address the district
    courts other ground for the denial.
    The district courts jurisdiction over this case arose from Mr. Pierces
    claims against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Because 1983 is a
    federal law, the district court had jurisdiction over the action pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. 1331, which states [t]he district courts shall have original
    jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
    the United States. After the stipulated dismissal was entered, those federal
    claims ceased to exist. Ms. Gilchrist then filed an application for indemnification
    of attorney fees pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 51, 162. This claim is solely a
    product of state law; it does not arise out of any federal statutes nor does it relate

    -4-

    to the violation of any federal rights. The district court therefore did not have
    original jurisdiction over this claim.
    The district court, however, had the ability to exercise supplemental
    jurisdiction over the indemnification application under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
    That section provides:
    Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly
    provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which
    the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall
    have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so
    related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that
    they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of
    the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall
    include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional
    parties.
    Id. Section 1367(c) provides, however, that:
    [t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
    over a claim under subsection (a) if-(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
    (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims
    over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
    (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
    original jurisdiction, or
    (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons
    for declining jurisdiction.
    In this case, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
    under 1367(c)(3) because, after the stipulation of dismissal was entered, it had
    dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Moreover, the
    indemnification application statute contemplates that there may be situations
    -5-

    where the federal trial court cannot hear the action, and it provides an
    alternative venue in which to file the application. See Okla. Stat. tit. 51,
    162(B)(1). The district court was within its discretion to decline to exercise
    supplemental jurisdiction over the indemnification application after the 1983
    claims were dismissed. See, e.g., Exum, 389 F.3d at 1138-39.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court

    Bobby R. Baldock
    Circuit Judge

    -6-

    You might also like