Koch v. City of Del City

Decision Date02 November 2011
Docket NumberNo. 10–6105.,10–6105.
Citation660 F.3d 1228
PartiesVicki KOCH, a/k/a Vicki Butrick, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF DEL CITY, a municipal corporation; John Beech, an individual, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Valerie Williford, Oklahoma City, OK, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Randall J. Wood (Robert S. Lafferrandre with him on the brief), of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, LLP, Oklahoma City, OK, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, EBEL, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Beginning in 2004, PlaintiffAppellant Vicki Koch and her parents assumed control over the property and care of an elderly woman, Gladys Lance. Ms. Lance's niece became concerned about her aunt's welfare, and in September 2005, when she could no longer locate Ms. Lance, she obtained an order from an Oklahoma state court appointing her as Ms. Lance's special guardian. Several days later, DefendantAppellant John Beech, an officer of the Del City Police Department, was told by his supervisor that a “pickup” order had been issued for Ms. Lance, and that he should go to Ms. Koch's residence to check on Ms. Lance. When he did, he encountered Ms. Koch on her front doorstep. He asked Ms. Koch where Ms. Lance was located, but Ms. Koch refused to tell him, instead telling him to leave her property and talk to her attorney. When Ms. Koch persisted in her non-responsiveness and turned to leave, Officer Beech arrested her for obstruction. During the arrest, a scuffle ensued, which concluded when Officer Beech brought Ms. Koch to the ground and handcuffed her.

Ms. Koch sued Officer Beech and Del City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, claims for false arrest and excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Officer Beech was entitled to qualified immunity. Ms. Koch now appeals that decision. The appellees, in turn, challenge our jurisdiction to hear Ms. Koch's appeal. As discussed below, we conclude that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercising that jurisdiction, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
1. The relationship between Vicki Koch and Gladys Lance

At all relevant times, Ms. Koch was a resident of Del City, Oklahoma, while Ms. Lance resided in Oklahoma City. Although the parties dispute the nature of their relationship, beginning at least in 2004, Ms. Koch and her parents, Hugh and Lucille Butrick, acted in some sort of care-giving capacity to Ms. Lance. For instance, on January 5, 2004, Ms. Lance signed an affidavit purportedly revoking power of attorney from her niece, Patricia Loar (who resided in Kansas), and granting power of attorney to Ms. Koch and the Butricks. On January 19, 2004, Ms. Lance signed another affidavit in which she purported to name Ms. Koch and the Butricks as her “attorneys-in-fact” and the “conservators or guardians” of her property. (Aplt. App'x at 105, 111.) On July 29, 2005, Ms. Lance signed a document appointing Hugh Butrick as her guardian, and Ms. Koch as her successor guardian, in the event she became incapacitated.

On August 29, 2005, Ms. Lance signed a typewritten document in which she, in return for Ms. Koch's alleged care-giving services, agreed to pay Ms. Koch $1,500 per month. On September 1, 2005, Hugh Butrick sold Ms. Lance's home, and several days later he placed Ms. Lance in a nursing home.

2. The order appointing Loar as Special Guardian

Beginning at least in August 2005, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (“DHS”) began to have concerns about Ms. Lance's welfare. At some point, Ms. Loar came to share these concerns. It appears that by the time Butrick placed Ms. Lance in a nursing home, however, neither DHS nor Ms. Loar could locate Ms. Lance. Accordingly, Ms. Loar filed a petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County seeking to be appointed as “Special Guardian” to Ms. Lance and her property. ( Id. at 242.)

On September 8, 2005, the court granted Ms. Loar's petition, finding that there was “imminent danger that the health or safety and the financial resources of Gladys Lance [would] be seriously impaired and dissipated unless an immediate appointment of a special guardian occur[ed].” ( Id. (the Order”).) The court also ordered Ms. Koch or her family to “immediately tell DHS, Petitioner and Gladys Lance's family (relatives) the whereabouts of Gladys Lance and why she was removed from her home.” ( Id.) In order to facilitate Ms. Loar's search efforts, the court granted her the “authority to file missing persons police reports, obtain law enforcement assistance, and do that which is necessary to find the whereabouts of Gladys Lance.” ( Id.) The court also set forth Ms. Loar's powers as Special Guardian, including the power to “take action to prevent the transfer of [Ms. Lance's] property, including her home.” ( Id.)

On September 9, 2005, a copy of the Order was placed on Ms. Koch's door. On the same day, Ms. Koch's attorney, Joyce Good, received a letter from DHS stating that it needed to hear from Ms. Koch “regarding the whereabouts of Gladys Lance and asking to avoid “the need for involvement by the Sheriff's office.” ( Id. at 277.) Ms. Good informed Ms. Koch that day that DHS was looking for Ms. Lance. Despite this notice and the fact that Ms. Koch knew at that time that her father had placed Ms. Lance in a nursing home, Ms. Koch apparently did not convey Ms. Lance's whereabouts to Ms. Good, Ms. Loar, or DHS.

3. Ms. Koch's arrest

On September 13, 2005, Officer Beech was told during his shift “lineup” that a “pick-up order” was in place for Ms. Lance, and that he should periodically check Ms. Koch's residence to see if anyone was there. ( Id. at 65.) If so, Officer Beech was charged with making contact with that person in order to check on the welfare of Ms. Lance, who was “supposed to be at th[e] residence.” ( Id.) The only information Officer Beech received about Ms. Koch and Ms. Lance was what he was told during this shift lineup.

Later that evening, Officer Beech went to Ms. Koch's residence and saw Ms. Koch standing outside of her home. Officer Beech approached Ms. Koch and asked her if she knew where Ms. Lance was located. Ms. Koch told him that he should not be on her property and that he should talk to her attorney. Officer Beech told her that he had an emergency pickup order for Ms. Lance and that if Ms. Koch did not tell him the whereabouts of Ms. Lance he would arrest Ms. Koch for obstruction. Ms. Koch again told him to leave her property. Shortly thereafter, Officer Beech informed Ms. Koch that she was under arrest for obstruction, and as Ms. Koch tried to enter her residence, Officer Beech grabbed her arm. A struggle ensued, they went to the ground, and Officer Beech placed handcuffs on Ms. Koch. At some point during the encounter, Ms. Koch told Officer Beech that Ms. Lance was in a nursing home in the town of Choctaw or Harrah. Ms. Koch alleges that Officer Beech used excessive force in arresting her, and that she sustained injuries as a result.1

Ms. Koch was charged with assault and battery upon a police officer and with obstruction. After the arrest, Ms. Lance was located in a nursing home in Choctaw. In February 2006, the district attorney dropped the charges against Ms. Koch.

B. Procedural Background

On March 8, 2007, Ms. Koch sued Officer Beech and Del City in Oklahoma state court, alleging various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as state-law claims for assault, battery, and false arrest under common law. On March 29, 2007, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Oklahoma.

1. Ms. Koch's discovery motions

On January 4, 2008, the discovery cut-off date, Ms. Koch filed a motion to continue the trial date and associated pretrial deadlines. The district court granted Ms. Koch's motion in part, extending the discovery deadline for thirty days for the limited purpose of allowing Ms. Koch to depose a police supervisor. Following this deposition, Ms. Koch filed another motion to extend the discovery deadline, but the district court denied this motion on August 18, 2008.

2. The defendants' summary judgment motions

On December 5, 2007, Officer Beech and Del City filed separate motions for summary judgment. On March 29, 2010, the district court granted those motions, concluding that Officer Beech was entitled to qualified immunity on Ms. Koch's federal claims and that Ms. Koch's state-law claims against Officer Beech and federal claims against Del City failed as a matter of law. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against Del City, and remanded those claims back to the state court.

II. APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Ms. Koch appeals from (1) the district court's March 29, 2010 order granting summary judgment in favor of Officer Beech and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against Del City, and (2) the district court's order denying in part her motion to continue. However, on June 19, 2010, the defendants filed in this Court a motion to dismiss Ms. Koch's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As discussed below, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over Ms. Koch's appeal and therefore deny the defendants' motion to dismiss.

A. The Summary Judgment Order

The defendants argue that the district court's order granting summary judgment in their favor is not a final appealable order because the court remanded Ms. Koch's state-law claims to state court without directing entry of a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Thus, according to the defendants, the litigation has not been fully terminated for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The defendants are mistaken.

28 U.S.C. § 1291 provides in relevant part that the United States Courts of Appeal “shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” “A...

To continue reading

Request your trial
532 cases
  • Ortiz v. New Mexico
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 22 juillet 2021
    ...exception also applies when a witness "directly contradict[s] her [own] deposition testimony." Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1240 (10th Cir. 2011). There is no sound reason to depart from the Tenth Circuit's treatment of the blatant-contradiction exception.Second, the Defendants ......
  • United States v. Alderete
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 19 juillet 2021
  • Herington v. City of Wichita
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 17 décembre 2021
    ......at 350 n.7, 108 S.Ct. 614 ("[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine .. will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims."); Koch v. City of Del City , 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (" ‘When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.’ ") (quoting Smith v. City of Enid , 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 [10th Cir. 1998] ). Thus, ......
  • Ganley v. Jojola
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 30 août 2019
    ...dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims." Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm'n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998) ). That conclusion is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...(1) Arrests. (a) Generally. Arrests are considered the most intrusive form of seizure. Koch v. City of Del City (10th Cir.2011) 660 F.3d 1228, 1239. See "Arrests," ch. 5-A, §2.1.2(2)(a). For this reason, arrests generally require both probable cause and a warrant to be reasonable under the ......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...4-C, §9.1.2(1)(b) Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 119 S. Ct. 484, 142 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1998)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.2 Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2011)— Ch. 5-A, §2.2.3(1)(a) Kotteakos v. U.S., 328 U.S. 750, 66 S. Ct. 1239, 90 L. Ed. 1557 (1946)—Ch. 5-C, §4.3.1(2)(b) Krolikowski ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT