FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 15, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
MARK DUHALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 09-1405
(D.C. No. 1:07-CV-00040-REB-BNB)
LENNAR FAMILY OF BUILDERS, (D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit
Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Mark DuHall, who describes himself as a black man
born in Africa, brought this action against defendant Lennar Family of Builders
(Lennar) in connection with his purchase from Lennar of a house in Colorado
Springs and his extensive attempts to get Lennar to fix the defects in the house.
In his complaint, Mr. DuHall described his efforts to have Lennar repair the
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
problems in his new house, particularly problems involving a faulty furnace and a
defective handrail. He alleged that a Lennar employee, Jeff Gerhard, repeatedly
ordered the wrong materials and made disparaging racial remarks to him.
Ultimately, when he got no satisfaction from the Lennar employees in Colorado
Springs, Mr. DuHall contacted Lennar headquarters in Houston, Texas. No one
from the Houston office responded, but Mr. DuHall did talk with Brian Sorsby in
the Denver office. Mr. Sorsby eventually sent Mr. DuHall a check for $5000 as
part of a settlement agreement between the parties. Despite the settlement,
Mr. DuHall filed this action alleging that Lennar’s repeated failure to fix the
problems caused him considerable economic damage. Mr. DuHall’s complaint
asked for relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a, and 1988 and 29 U.S.C.
§ 216(b), of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The district court disposed of this case in two separate orders. In its
April 22, 2008, order, the district court dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1981a claim for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because that statute “only
prohibits intentional discrimination in employment” and Mr. DuHall had not
alleged that his employer had discriminated against him on account of his race.
R. Vol. 1 at 231. Similarly, because Mr. DuHall did not allege an
employer-employee relationship between himself and Lennar, the district court
adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the FLSA
claim as well.
-2-
In a second order dated August 10, 2009, the district court granted
summary judgment to Lennar on Mr. DuHall’s remaining 1981 claim. R. Vol. 2
at 201. 1 Mr. DuHall’s postjudgment motions were denied on November 3, 2009. 2
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review the district
court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by
1
Because Mr. DuHall’s § 1981a and § 1981 claims failed, his § 1988 claim
implicitly failed as well.
2
On September 10, 2009, Mr. DuHall filed an “Informal Brief of Petitioner”
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to which he attached
a copy of the district court’s August 10, 2009, order and in which he challenged
the district court’s ruling. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(d), the Clerk of the
Federal Circuit Court transmitted Mr. DuHall’s document to the Clerk for the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado noting that it had been
received at the Federal Circuit on September 10, 2009. The district court
construed the filing as a notice of appeal and transmitted it to this court for
docketing. Mr. DuHall then filed an amended notice of appeal.
At the time the notice of appeal and the amended notice of appeal were
filed, Mr. DuHall’s postjudgment motions remained pending in the district court.
When the district court disposed of those motions in its November 3 order, the
notice of appeal became effective to appeal the August 10 order. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).
As for appealing the denial of the postjudgment motions, although
Mr. DuHall did not file a new or amended notice of appeal challenging the
November 3 denial of those motions, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), he did
submit a document to this court captioned “Petition for Permission to Appeal”
which referenced the November 3 order. Further, Mr. DuHall’s brief on
appeal was filed within thirty days of the November 3 order. Under these
circumstances, we will construe Mr. DuHall’s filings as a notice of appeal under
Fed. R. App. P. 3 that is sufficient to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii)
thus allowing this court to review the district court’s November 3 order.
See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245 (1992) (holding that “a document intended
to serve as an appellate brief may qualify as the notice of appeal required by
Rule 3”).
-3-
the district court.” Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir. 2005)
(quotation omitted). Thus, we will affirm “if the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). An order denying a postjudgment motion is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 854
(10th Cir. 2005).
Turning to the merits of this appeal, we address Mr. DuHall’s issues in the
order in which he presents them in his brief. Mr. DuHall first argues that he has
grounds for relief from a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). That rule
allows relief from a final judgment when there exists “newly discovered evidence
that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59(b).” Mr. DuHall’s “new” evidence consists of an
affidavit from a witness who was present when Mr. Gerhard’s racist remarks were
made, an affidavit from a doctor regarding the effect defendant’s conduct had on
Mr. DuHall’s health, and his own affidavit. None of this evidence can be
considered “new” for purposes of Rule 60(b)(2). Newly discovered evidence has
to be newly discovered after the twenty-eight-day deadline for moving for a new
trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b) has expired. See Lyons v. Jefferson Bank &
Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 727 (10th Cir. 1993). Mr. DuHall makes no showing that the
additional evidence he presents was not discoverable, using due diligence, until
-4-
more than twenty-eight days after judgment entered. See id. Indeed, the
testimony of the witness, which is referenced in the district court’s August 10
order, and his own affidavit were obviously available to Mr. DuHall well before
he filed his postjudgment motions. Mr. DuHall did not show that, even with the
exercise of due diligence, he could not have obtained the affidavit from the doctor
or secured deposition testimony from him in a timely manner.
Mr. DuHall also argues that Rule 60(b)(5) provides him grounds for relief
from judgment. Rule 60(b)(5) allows relief from judgment where “the judgment
has been satisfied, released or discharged.” It has no application to Mr. DuHall’s
case. Similarly, Mr. DuHall does not show the exceptional circumstances that
would justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d
1090, 1096 n.8 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) “is
extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances” (further
quotation omitted)).
Mr. DuHall next argues that, even in the context of Lennar’s organizational
problems, which it cited as the reason for its failure to make timely repairs to
Mr. DuHall’s home, he was treated differently than the white home owners who
also had problems with Lennar. 3 Mr. DuHall bases this claim on the racist
3
This contention is somewhat undercut by Mr. DuHall’s previous attempt to
assert a class action on behalf of himself and his neighbors, some of whom were
white, alleging that they all suffered from the same ill treatment by Lennar.
-5-
comments of Mr. Gerhard. The district court held that these statements were
insufficient to establish a § 1981 claim against Lennar because there is no
evidence that Mr. Gerhard possessed management or decision-making authority
sufficient to impute discriminatory animus to his employer. See EEOC v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1247 (10th Cir. 1999) (ADA case applying
42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1)); see also Saulsberry v. St. Mary’s Univ. of Minn.,
318 F.3d 862, 867 (8th Cir. 2003) (refusing to admit evidence of alleged
race-based comments because they were made by nondecisionmakers);
cf. Johnson v. Weld County, 594 F.3d 1202, 1208-09 (10th Cir. 2010) (noting “an
employee’s statements are not attributable to his employer as a party-opponent
admission in an employment dispute unless the employee was involved in the
decisionmaking process affecting the employment action” (further quotation
omitted)).
Mr. DuHall argues that both Mr. Gerhard and Mr. Sorsby had sufficient
authority to permit the district court to impute Mr. Gerhard’s racist statements to
Lennar. Mr. DuHall’s conclusory statements in this regard are unavailing.
Mr. Sorsby never made racist comments to or regarding Mr. DuHall, and there is
no evidence that Mr. Gerhard had management or final decision-making authority
with Lennar. Ultimately, Mr. DuHall’s case fails because he has not shown that
Lennar intended to discriminate against him on the basis of his race. See
Hampton v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 247 F.3d 1091, 1101-02 (10th Cir. 2001).
-6-
Mr. DuHall’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of
costs or fees is GRANTED. His request that this court appoint a special master
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 and order a settlement conference is DENIED. The
motion to expedite is DENIED as moot. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Chief Judge
-7-