Kenmen Engineering v. City of Union

• Decision Date: 17 December 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01-6145.,01-6145.
• Citation: 314 F.3d 468
• Parties: KENMEN ENGINEERING, a partnership composed of Kenneth Miles and Ken Menz; Kenneth Miles, an individual; Ken Menz, an individual; Miles Specialty Company, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation d/b/a El Reno Terminal Grain Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF UNION, an Oklahoma Municipal corporation; Fred Allen, individually and in his official capacity as Fire Chief for the City of Union; Brandon Ellis, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Union; Unknown Defendants, or person having responsibility or involvement in the circumstances of the violations of the civil rights of the Plaintiff including private persons acting in concert or joint participation with the Defendants or other unnamed Defendants, whether in their individual or official capacity, and who are joined herein for purposes of relief by way of damages as may be appropriate, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 468

314 F.3d 468

KENMEN ENGINEERING, a partnership composed of Kenneth Miles and Ken Menz; Kenneth Miles, an individual; Ken Menz, an individual; Miles Specialty Company, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation d/b/a El Reno Terminal Grain Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF UNION, an Oklahoma Municipal corporation; Fred Allen, individually and in his official capacity as Fire Chief for the City of Union; Brandon Ellis, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Union; Unknown Defendants, or person having responsibility or involvement in the circumstances of the violations of the civil rights of the Plaintiff including private persons acting in concert or joint participation with the Defendants or other unnamed Defendants, whether in their individual or official capacity, and who are joined herein for purposes of relief by way of damages as may be appropriate, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6145.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

December 17, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mark Lea (Beau) Cantrell (Blake M. Bostick, Oklahoma City, OK, with him on the briefs), El Reno, OK, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Ambre C. Gooch (David W. Lee, with her on the brief), Lee & Gooch, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before TACHA, ALDISERT,^* and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's order dismissing their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

I. Background

Plaintiffs-appellants in this action are: (1) Kenmen Engineering, a partnership composed of Kenneth Miles and Ken Menz; (2) Miles Specialty Company (d/b/a El Reno Terminal Grain), a corporation in which Mr. Miles is the principal; and (3) Mr. Miles and Mr. Menz in their individual capacities. Defendant-appellee is the City of Union City, Oklahoma, and various Union City officers ("Union City").

Plaintiffs participated in the United States Department of Defense ("DOD") "Return to Manufacturer" recycling program. Through the DOD's program, plaintiffs obtained sixteen tons of magnesium. Plaintiffs stored the magnesium in a grain-storage facility in Union City, Oklahoma.

The appeal before us centers on the effect of a prior state-court judgment. On March 12, 1999, Union City proceeded to Oklahoma state court seeking to enjoin plaintiffs from storing their magnesium within Union City. The Oklahoma state court entered a temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing for March 22, 1999. During the March 12, 1999 hearing, the Oklahoma state court remarked:

You understand that if, in fact, the order is found to not be necessary and if there are any costs [plaintiffs] may want to come back against the City of Union City for the payment of costs and moving and storage.... I think it would be prudent for the grain, Terminal Grain people that you might want to keep track of all of your expenses and everything else that this order of the Court has because it may be something that at a later date you may make an application for the costs if the Court feels that to be appropriate.

Mr. Miles and Mr. Menz were both present at the March 12, 1999 hearing.

On March 22, 1999, the state court entered a subsequent order, granting Union City's "Motion for a Temporary and Permanent Injunction." There is no indication that the Oklahoma state court conducted a hearing at this time. The state-court order designated Miles Specialty Company as the sole defendant. Kenmen Engineering, Mr. Menz,¹ and Mr. Miles² were not named as parties in the state-court order.³ The Oklahoma state court scheduled another hearing for May 13, 1999, but cancelled it on May 12, 1999.

According to plaintiffs, as a result of the state court's order, they were forced⁴ to sell the magnesium at a discounted price, resulting in economic loss. Plaintiffs also allege that "the judicial proceedings in the [state court] went to [the] issue of temporary injunctive relief and maintenance of the status quo, and [the state court] made no findings or orders beyond such interim measures, and that no consideration was given in said proceedings to any rights deprivation claim by [plaintiffs]."

Plaintiffs then brought the present action in federal court, seeking damages for losses incurred in connection with the magnesium sale, under two theories: (1) Union City's actions amounted to an unlawful taking of plaintiffs' property without due process of law and (2) the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act preempted Union City's application of its municipal fire code to plaintiffs' activities. Plaintiffs also sought to recover for allegedly defamatory statements made by Union City officials.

The district court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint, concluding that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that Rooker-Feldman does not prohibit a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over their claims. First, they argue that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable here, because (1) the Oklahoma state court's injunction was not a judgment of the state's highest court, and (2) the Oklahoma state court's judgment was not an "appealable" or "final" order. Second, they argue that even if the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies, it does not bar their claims, because (1) plaintiffs' constitutional and preemption claims are not "inextricably intertwined" with the Oklahoma state court's judgment; (2) the Oklahoma state-court proceeding did not afford plaintiffs a full and fair opportunity to litigate the merits of their constitutional and preemption claims; and (3) Kenmen Engineering, Miles, and Menz were not named parties in the Oklahoma state court's judgment. We consider each of these contentions below.

II. Discussion

A. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

We review the district court's dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Johnson v. Rodrigues, 226 F.3d 1103, 1107 (10th Cir.2000).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, "federal review of state court judgments can be obtained only in the United States Supreme Court." Kiowa Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1169 (10th Cir.1998) (citing Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)). As a result, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits a lower federal court from considering claims actually decided by a state court, Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and claims "inextricably intertwined" with a prior state-court judgment. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303. In other words, Rooker-Feldman precludes "a party losing in state court ... from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of [a] state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994).

B. Whether the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Applies to the Oklahoma State Court's Judgment.

Initially, plaintiffs argue that the Rooker-Feldman does not apply to the Oklahoma state-court judgment in this case. We construe plaintiffs' argument to be twofold. First, plaintiffs contend that Rooker-Feldman does not apply where the state-court judgment under consideration is not that of the state's highest court. Second, plaintiffs argue that Rooker-Feldman does not apply where the state-court judgment at issue is not an "appealable" or "final" order. We reject both contentions.

1. Whether Rooker-Feldman Applies Where the State Court Judgment Under Consideration Is Not That of the State's Highest Court.

Plaintiffs contend that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to this case because the Oklahoma state-court judgment at issue is not that of the state's highest court. We disagree. Although the Supreme Court has never decided the question, we have previously applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to judgments of intermediate state courts. See, e.g., Facio v. Jones, 929 F.2d 541, 542-43 (10th Cir.1991) (applying Rooker-Feldman to the decision of an intermediate state-court judgment); Anderson v. Colo., 793 F.2d 262, 263-64 (10th Cir.1986) (same). Thus, in the Tenth Circuit, Rooker-Feldman applies to all state-court judgments, including those of intermediate state courts. Accord Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986) ("[T]he Feldman doctrine should apply to state judgments even though state court appeals are not final."); Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir.1986) ("We hold no warrant to review even final judgments of state courts, let alone those which may never take final effect because they remain subject to revision in the state appellate system.").

2. Whether Rooker-Feldman Applies Where the State-Court Judgment Under Consideration Is Not an "Appealable" or "Final" Order.

According to plaintiffs, the Oklahoma state court issued only temporary injunctive relief and made no findings or orders beyond such interim measures. Plaintiffs contend that the absence of a "final" state-court order renders the Rooker-Feldman doctrine inapplicable. We reject plaintiffs' contention for two reasons.

First, we disagree with plaintiffs' characterization of the Oklahoma state court's order. The March 22, 1999 order states that it is granting Union City's "Motion for a Temporary and Permanent Injunction." A permanent injunction is a "final" judgment under Oklahoma law. Morse v. Earnest, Inc., 547 P.2d 955, 957 (Okla.1976) ("A permanent injunction is the final judgment in an action; the final disposition following a hearing on the merits."). Further, plaintiffs' contention that the Oklahoma state-court injunction forced them to sell their magnesium belies their characterization of the state court's order as "temporary." Under...