F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 15 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY, an
Oklahoma corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 97-5023
No. 97-5115
No. 98-5031
TRAVIS ANDERSON, an individual; (D.C. No. 95-CV-583-H)
METROPLEX PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a (N.D. Okla.)
Colorado limited liability company,
Defendants - Appellants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and GREENE,** Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Oral Roberts University owns certain real property in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
On September 27, 1994, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant Travis
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
**
Honorable J. Thomas Greene, Senior United States District Judge for the
District of Utah, sitting by designation.
Anderson (Anderson), under which Plaintiff granted Anderson an option to purchase
Plaintiff’s real property in return for Anderson executing a $2 million nonnegotiable
promissory note. The agreement provided that in the event Anderson did not timely
exercise the option, Anderson would release Plaintiff from its obligations under the
agreement and Plaintiff would return Anderson’s promissory note. The agreement also
provided that in the event of litigation, the prevailing party would be entitled to recover
attorneys’ fees from the losing party. Shortly after entering into the agreement, Anderson
assigned his interest in the option agreement to Defendant Metroplex Properties, L.L.C.
(Metroplex). Subsequently, the option expired and Defendants failed to execute a release
discharging Plaintiff from its obligations under the agreement. Plaintiff then filed the
instant action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
seeking a declaration that the option agreement had expired and that Defendants had no
further rights or interest in the property. Defendants responded arguing that the
agreement remained in effect and asserted counterclaims for specific performance and
breach of contract.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that once the
option expired and Plaintiff returned Defendants’ promissory note, Plaintiff was no
longer obligated under the agreement. Accordingly, the district court granted summary
judgment in favor of Plaintiff and denied Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
2
Defendants appealed.1
Plaintiff then filed a motion with the district court requesting attorneys’ fees and
non-taxable expenses. In a thorough and well-reasoned order, the district court granted
Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants then appealed that order.
Approximately one year after the district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and
awarded Plaintiff costs and attorneys’ fees, Metroplex filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) seeking to reopen the case. In its motion, Metroplex contended that it had
discovered new evidence relevant to the case which tended to show that Plaintiff’s
conduct with regard to the land sale was fraudulent. The district court denied
Metroplex’s motion on the grounds that the information was cumulative and would not
affect the outcome of the case. Metroplex appealed. We consolidated the appeals.
On appeal, Defendants argue that the district court erred by: (1) granting Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment; (2) awarding Plaintiff non-taxable costs and attorneys’
1
On January 23, 1997, Plaintiff filed a timely motion to amend or alter the
district court’s judgment. On February 10, 1997, while the motion to alter or amend was
pending before the district court, Defendants filed their notice of appeal. Under Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(4), Defendants’ notice of appeal did not ripen until April 7, 1997, when the
district court entered its order amending the judgment. Once the district court entered its
amended judgment, we obtained jurisdiction over the order identified in the February 10,
1997 notice of appeal. Absent an amended notice of appeal, however, we do not acquire
jurisdiction over the amended judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) advisory
committee’s note to 1993 amendment; Breeden v. ABF Freight System, Inc., 115 F.3d
749, 752 (10th Cir. 1997). Defendants did not file an amended notice of appeal.
Therefore, our jurisdiction regarding the district court’s disposition of the parties’
summary judgment motions is limited to the district court’s original judgment.
3
fees; and (3) not granting Metroplex’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Our jurisdiction
arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, Pietrowski v. Town of Dibble, 134 F.3d 1006, 1008 (10th Cir. 1998), its award
of costs and attorneys’ fees for abuse of discretion, Aguinaga v. United Food and Comm.
Workers Intern. Union, 993 F.2d 1480, 1481 (10th Cir. 1993), and its refusal to grant rule
60(b) relief for abuse of discretion. Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 576
(10th Cir. 1996).
We have heard oral argument and carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the district
court’s orders, and the entire record before us. Based upon our review of the record, we
conclude that the district court committed no reversible error.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
4