FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 17, 2009
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
PUBLISH Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
THE LAW COMPANY, INC., a
Kansas corporation,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant–
Appellee,
v. No. 08-3076
MOHAWK CONSTRUCTION AND
SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation,
Defendant/Counter-Claimant–
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas
(D.C. No. 6:06-CV-01043-JTM)
David E. White (Joshua C. Dickinson and Barry L. Pickens, Spencer Fane Britt &
Browne LLP; and Richard W. Saxe, Jr., Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C.,
with him on briefs), Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C., Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania for Defendant/Counter-Claimant – Appellant.
Ron Campbell (Lyndon W. Vix with him on the briefs), Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson
& Kitch, L.L.C., Wichita, Kansas for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant–Appellee.
Before BRISCOE, SEYMOUR, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
LUCERO, Circuit Judge.
The Law Company, Inc. (“Law”), a general contractor, sought a declaratory
judgment that one of its subcontractors, Mohawk Construction and Supply
Company, Inc. (“Mohawk”), is barred from collecting delay damages under the
parties’ subcontract. Mohawk counterclaimed for breach of contract. On
summary judgment, the district court refused to consider two affidavits and
numerous documents submitted by Mohawk and declined to address several of
Mohawk’s legal arguments. After excluding these submissions, the district court
granted summary judgment in favor of Law.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the district court erred by
refusing to consider discovery documents produced by Law in its initial
disclosures that were printed on Law letterhead. The court also erred by
categorically refusing to consider other exhibits. We leave for the district court
to determine on remand which documents should be excluded under a non-
categorical approach.
We further conclude that the district court committed an error of law when
it discounted two affidavits submitted by Mohawk without first analyzing their
admissibility under the sham affidavit rule. Lastly, we hold that the district court
erred in relying on the pretrial order to exclude legal theories relevant to the
-2-
central issue in the case—whether the subcontract barred Mohawk from obtaining
delay damages.
Because the district court has not yet determined what evidence is properly
submitted and has not yet considered all relevant arguments, we cannot determine
at this stage whether a disputed issue of material fact exists. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse the grant of summary judgment
and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
I
A
Law served as the general contractor for construction of a Cessna Aircraft
Company C-10 Citation Service Center in Wichita, Kansas (“the Project”), and in
that capacity subcontracted with Mohawk for installation of metal wall panels.
Mohawk was originally scheduled to begin its work on October 9, 2003, and to
complete its portion of the Project on February 9, 2004. As a result of disruptions
beyond its control, Mohawk could not complete work on the Project until
November 2004. Mohawk claims that it spent more than a year on a four-month
job, in part because of Law’s failure to properly coordinate other subcontractors
on the Project.
On October 29, 2003, Mohawk notified Law that the Project was well
behind schedule and Mohawk could not begin most of its work as anticipated.
-3-
Mohawk noted that “[a]ny delays will require additional compensation.”
According to the affidavit of Mark Cybulski, Mohawk’s project manager, Law did
not respond to this letter or address Mohawk’s assertion that delays would have to
be compensated. Yet, Law was not completely silent. Cybulski testified that
Doug Kimple, the project manager for Law, told him that Mohawk would
“definitely” be paid for additional costs and expenses. Law representatives
informed Cybulski that another subcontractor, Steel Service Corporation, would
be held accountable for all costs incurred by Mohawk as a result of Project
delays. Law acknowledged to Mohawk that “we initiated the idea of expediting
your work and offered and will compensate for premium costs of this. . . . I agree
the [sic] will be some additional costs and we will be fair about this.”
On November 17, 2004, as Mohawk’s portion of the Project neared
completion, Mohawk notified Law by letter that it sought a revised total of
$255,753 in damages caused by delay. Law did not invoke the contractual
provisions purporting to bar delay damages in response. Law did not mention
these provisions until the current litigation commenced.
B
In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Law sought a
declaration that Mohawk was not entitled to delay damages. This claim rests on
several clauses in the parties’ subcontract, which on their face appear to bar
Mohawk from recovering such damages. The subcontract provides:
-4-
Subcontractor specifically acknowledges that extension of time shall
be Subcontractor’s sole remedy for delay unless the same shall have
been caused by Owner’s or Contractor’s intentional interference with
the Subcontract Work, and then only after Subcontractor has
provided timely notice to Contractor and Owner has approved such
request for extension.
A separate clause states: “Subcontractor agrees to make no claims against
Contractor or Owner should the Schedule not be strictly adhered to, it being
understood that Contractor will endeavor to expedite completion of the Project as
rapidly as possible.” Yet another clause provides that “Subcontractor recognizes
that revisions will be made to the Schedule and agrees to comply with such
revisions without additional compensation.” Mohawk’s answer to Law’s
complaint raises several affirmative defenses, including waiver, and Mohawk
counterclaimed for breach of contract. Also included in the answer is a list of
damages Mohawk incurred, including additional equipment and overhead costs.
After the close of discovery, Law moved for summary judgment on both its
declaratory judgment claim and Mohawk’s counterclaim. Relying primarily on
the above-cited provisions of the parties’ subcontract, Law also argued that
Mohawk could not recover because the claimed damages were actually incurred
by one of Mohawk’s subcontractors, Viking Erectors Corporation (“Viking”). 1 To
support the latter contention, Law cites to the deposition of Dominick DeSalvo, a
damages expert designated by Mohawk, to the effect that “in reality, most of the
1
Viking has the same ownership structure as Mohawk, a shared venture
between David Kowcheck and Ray Jennings, but is a separate legal entity.
-5-
damages are associated with Viking.” DeSalvo nevertheless acknowledged that
overhead and profit were properly attributed to Mohawk.
Attached to Mohawk’s summary judgment response are numerous
documents Mohawk obtained through disclosures and discovery, including
deposition testimony and affidavits from Cybulski and Kowcheck. Mohawk
contends the “no damages for delay” provisions are unenforceable under Kansas
law and had been waived by Law. Mohawk also argues the extensive delay at
issue fell outside the scope of the provisions. Law replies that the Cybulski and
Kowcheck affidavits partially contradicted prior deposition testimony and thus
should be disregarded and that Mohawk’s documentary submissions should be
stricken because they were not authenticated. Before the district court ruled,
Mohawk moved to file a surreply brief and affidavit from one of its attorneys
indicating that all of the correspondence attached to Mohawk’s opposition was
provided by Law in its Rule 26 initial disclosures. The request was denied.
In its memorandum opinion and order, the district court found that “no
damages for delay” provisions are generally enforceable. It refused to consider
Mohawk’s argument that the delay at issue falls outside the scope of the
provisions because the only defenses identified in the pretrial order were waiver
and estoppel. Seemingly conflating waiver and modification, the district court
determined that the contractual provisions precluding oral modification barred
Mohawk’s waiver and estoppel defenses. The court further concluded that
-6-
modification was invalid without consideration and there was no genuine issue of
material fact regarding modification. Finally, the district court found that most of
Mohawk’s alleged damages had accrued to Viking rather than Mohawk. Based on
these rulings, the court granted summary judgment to Law.
In reaching its conclusions, the district court refused to consider many of
the documents submitted by Mohawk because the documents were not supported
by an authenticating affidavit. These documents had been provided to Mohawk
by Law under Rule 26, and many of them were written on Law letterhead.
Further, the district court refused to consider the Cybulski and Kowcheck
affidavits because they “advance[d] factual positions different from those
reflected in their depositions.” Law Co. v. Mohawk Constr. & Supply Co., 523 F.
Supp. 2d 1276, 1283 (D. Kan. 2007). It neither explained how the affidavits
differed from the earlier depositions, nor did it find that the affidavits created
sham issues of fact. Several months later, by stipulation of the parties, the district
court dismissed Mohawk’s remaining counterclaim with prejudice and entered
final judgment. Mohawk appeals.
II
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Howard v.
Waide, 534 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate
when the “pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any
-7-
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
At the outset, the parties dispute whether the district court erred by refusing
to consider certain attachments to Mohawk’s summary judgment opposition.
Mohawk asks us to conclude that the district court impermissibly excluded the
Cybulski and Kowcheck affidavits. Mohawk also contends that the district court
impermissibly excluded self-authenticating documents produced by Law as part of
its Rule 26 disclosures. 3 We are further asked to consider whether the district
court erroneously ignored several of Mohawk’s arguments as falling outside the
scope of the pretrial order.
A
“[A]n affidavit may not be disregarded [solely] because it conflicts with the
affiant’s prior sworn statements. In assessing a conflict under these
circumstances, however, courts will disregard a contrary affidavit when they
conclude that it constitutes an attempt to create a sham fact issue.” Franks v.
2
This version of Rule 56(c) became effective on December 1, 2007—nine
days before the court entered its summary judgment order. Because the revised
Rule applies “insofar as just and practicable” to “all proceedings then pending,”
see Orders of the Supreme Court of the United States Adopting and Amending
Rules, Order of April 30, 2007, ¶ 3, and the revision was “intended to be stylistic
only,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s notes, 2007 Amendment, we refer
only to the revised version.
3
In its opening brief, Mohawk also contested the district court’s refusal to
allow a surreply brief regarding the authentication of these documents, but at oral
argument Mohawk clarified that it was not appealing that decision.
-8-
Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1237 (10th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). We have
described cases in which an affidavit raises but a sham issue as “unusual.” Id. In
determining whether an affidavit creates a sham fact issue, we consider whether:
“(1) the affiant was cross-examined during his earlier testimony; (2) the affiant
had access to the pertinent evidence at the time of his earlier testimony or
whether the affidavit was based on newly discovered evidence; and (3) the earlier
testimony reflects confusion which the affidavit attempts to explain.” Ralston v.
Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965, 973 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotation
omitted).
We review the district court’s decision to exclude affidavits at the summary
judgment stage for abuse of discretion. Mitchael v. Intracorp, Inc., 179 F.3d 847,
854 (10th Cir. 1999). “A district court abuses its discretion when it commits an
error of law.” Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius, 443 F.3d 1247, 1252 (10th Cir.
2006).
We explicitly require that a district court first “determine whether the
conflicting affidavit is simply an attempt to create a ‘sham fact issue’” before
excluding it from summary judgment consideration. Durtsche v. Am. Colloid
Co., 958 F.2d 1007, 1010 n.2 (10th Cir. 1992) (quoting Franks, 796 F.2d at 1237).
Unlike our prior cases in which we affirmed a district court’s exclusion of
affidavits for inconsistency with prior testimony, see Lantec, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.,
306 F.3d 1003, 1016 (10th Cir. 2002); Ralston, 275 F.3d at 973; Mitchael, 179
-9-
F.3d at 854-55; Sports Racing Servs., Inc. v. Sports Car Club of Am., Inc., 131
F.3d 874, 893 (10th Cir. 1997); Rios v. Bigler, 67 F.3d 1543, 1552 (10th Cir.
1995), the district court excluded the subject affidavits without having first
considered whether they raised a sham issue. It did not so much as identify how
the affidavits conflicted with prior deposition testimony. Law itself fails to
identify any such contradiction. 4 Exclusion on this basis was an error of law
4
Our preliminary review of the record regarding the waiver evidence
indicates that Cybulski’s deposition testimony as to the assurances he received
from Law seems consistent with his affidavit. During his deposition, Cybulski
testified as follows:
A. I don’t recall the discussions that we’ve had, but I know on more
than one occasion that it was brought up to us that all of these
concerns that we had about us not getting our work in a timely
manner would be taken care of.
Q. Do you recall the words he used? “Taken care of,” is that your
word?
A. That’s my word, I guess, yeah.
Q. And –
A. I can’t really quote it [at] this time.
Q. And I can appreciate that, after three years, but this is my
opportunity to find out what you’re going to say about what Mr.
Kimple told you in regard to any claims you were proposing, and so
–
A. I did not ever, at no time were we ever told that we would not get
paid for our extension of the schedule.
Q. Were you ever told that you would definitely get paid?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Kimple told you that you would get paid?
A. Yes.
In his affidavit, Cybulski swore: “Doug Kimple from Law continuously
assured me and other Mohawk representatives that Mohawk would be paid for any
additional costs and expenses incurred at the Project due to the delays, schedule
(continued...)
- 10 -
constituting an abuse of discretion. See Wyandotte Nation, 443 F.3d at 1252.
Because the district court has not made factual findings on this issue, we decline
to address it. We will allow the district court to make such findings on remand.
B
With respect to the documentary evidence summarily rejected by the
district court, “[i]t is well settled in this circuit that we can consider only
admissible evidence in reviewing an order granting summary judgment. While
the party opposing summary judgment need not produce evidence in a form that
would be admissible at trial, the content or substance of the evidence must be
admissible.” Wright-Simmons v. City of Okla. City, 155 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th
Cir. 1998) (quotation and ellipsis omitted). We review a district court’s refusal to
consider evidence at the summary judgment stage for abuse of discretion. Sports
Racing Servs., Inc., 131 F.3d at 894.
We do not require an affidavit to authenticate every document submitted
for consideration at summary judgment. Anderson v. Cramlet, 789 F.2d 840, 845
(10th Cir. 1986). Rather, documents produced during discovery that are on the
letterhead of the opposing, producing party are authentic per se for purposes of
4
(...continued)
impacts, inefficiently performed work, out-of-sequence work, and suspensions of
work,” and that “Law never indicated that Mohawk would not be compensated for
the detrimental impacts being caused by [other subcontractors].” At least as to
these portions of the deposition and affidavit, there appears to be no conflict.
We further see no apparent conflict between the Kowcheck affidavit and
the portions of his deposition in the record.
- 11 -
Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Chavez v. Thomas & Betts Corp., 396 F.3d 1088,
1101 (10th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds as recognized in Metzler v.
Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164, 1171 n.2 (10th Cir. 2006);
Denison v. Swaco Geolograph Co., 941 F.2d 1416, 1423 (10th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion when it refused to consider
numerous letters, facsimiles, and memoranda attached to Mohawk’s opposition
that were printed on Law letterhead and produced by Law.
Mohawk also submitted numerous documents that were not printed on Law
letterhead. These exhibits are not automatically authenticated under our Denison
rule. See Denison, 941 F.2d at 1423; 31 Charles Alan Wright & Victor James
Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 7109, at 86-87 n.36 (2000).
As to these documents, Rule 56(c) and the Federal Rules of Evidence control. 5
By the text of Rule 56, affidavits are merely one form of submission that can
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (“The
judgment sought should be rendered 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.”
(emphasis added)). Because evidence must be admissible to be considered on
5
We need not address the contention that even if these documents should
be considered under the Rule 56 standards they are nonetheless barred by District
of Kansas Local Rule 56.1(d). If Rule 56 allows their consideration, a local rule
cannot validly conflict with that determination. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1).
- 12 -
summary judgment, the proper inquiry here is under Federal Rule of Evidence
901: “The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition
precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).
Rather than considering each document to determine whether it was
authenticated, the district court summarily disregarded these exhibits because “no
authentication by any witness [wa]s offered.” Law Co., 523 F. Supp. 2d at 1282.
Because no authenticating affidavit is required, Anderson, 789 F.2d at 845, the
district court committed an error of law by categorically discarding these exhibits
and therefore abused its discretion, see Wyandotte Nation, 443 F.3d at 1252.
Mohawk’s submitted exhibits might be sufficiently authenticated taking
into consideration the “[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or
other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances,”
901(b)(4), even if they do not appear on Law letterhead. On remand, the district
court should consider authentication of each document individually.
C
In its summary judgment ruling, the district court refused to consider three
alternative arguments advanced by Mohawk. Mohawk asserted that even if the
“no damages for delay” provisions were valid and had not been waived or
modified, the provisions did not apply to the conduct at issue because: (1) such
an extreme delay was not contemplated by the parties; (2) the delay was
- 13 -
“unreasonable”; and (3) Law’s alleged actions constituted a “fundamental
breach.” The district court concluded that these arguments were not encompassed
within the final pretrial order and thus did not consider them.
We review a district court’s interpretation of a pretrial order for abuse of
discretion. Perry v. Winspur, 782 F.2d 893, 894 (10th Cir. 1986). Pretrial orders
are to be “liberally construed to cover any of the legal or factual theories that
might be embraced by their language. We have cautioned that a pretrial order is a
procedural tool to facilitate the trial of a lawsuit on its merits and not to defeat it
on a technicality.” Trujillo v. Uniroyal Corp., 608 F.2d 815, 818 (10th Cir. 1979)
(quotations omitted). The primary purpose of pretrial orders is to avoid surprise.
See Wilson v. Muckala, 303 F.3d 1207, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002).
Here, the final pretrial order listed the following under “Legal Issues”:
“Does the Subcontract language prevent Mohawk from making any delay claims
against Law or any other types of claims based on adjustment to the work
schedule?” We conclude the district court abused its discretion by refusing to
consider Mohawk’s alternative arguments when ruling on the summary judgment
motion because these arguments fall within the scope of the pretrial order.
Law moved for summary judgment advancing the argument that the “no
damages for delay” provisions in the parties’ subcontract barred any recovery by
Mohawk. There is no doubt that the validity of this argument was encompassed
within the pretrial order; it was the central issue in the case. In opposing
- 14 -
summary judgment, Mohawk was entitled to challenge whether the “no damages
for delay” provisions applied to bar its claim for damages. This was not a case in
which Mohawk unfairly attempted to surprise Law with new factual allegations at
trial or to inject a new claim or defense at the eleventh hour. Both parties and the
court were fully aware that application of the “no damages for delay” provisions
would be the subject of summary judgment briefing, and each of Mohawk’s
alternative arguments addressed that issue. 6 On remand, the district court should
address Mohawk’s three alternative contentions as to why these provisions may
not apply.
D
Because the district court did not consider all of the properly submitted
evidence and contentions when it found no disputed issue of material fact and
because we defer to the district court to determine which of Mohawk’s submitted
documents were authenticated, we decline to determine whether summary
judgment is appropriate. As discussed below, we also reject the district court’s
alternative basis for its decision. Accordingly, “we adopt the better practice of
leaving the matter to the district court in the first instance.” Evers v. Regents of
6
If there be any surprise in this case stemming from arguments not
discussed in the pretrial order, Mohawk may well have been the surprised party.
Law did not identify in the pretrial order Mohawk’s alleged lack of standing to
sue for damages incurred by Viking even though Law relied on that defense at
summary judgment. We discuss aspects of this standing issue in greater detail
below. See Part III, infra.
- 15 -
Univ. of Colo., 509 F.3d 1304, 1310 (10th Cir. 2007).
III
We consider finally the alternative basis provided by the district court for
granting summary judgment: “that most of [Mohawk’s] claims are not any claims
for damages to Mohawk, but an attempt to recover for damages to Viking,
Mohawk’s subcontractor.” Law Co., 523 F. Supp. 2d at 1286. We cannot rely on
this alternative basis to affirm the grant of summary judgment. Even if the court
were correct, this issue would not dispose of Mohawk’s claims entirely because
there is evidence in the record that some of the claimed damages were incurred by
Mohawk. Moreover, there may also be a disputed issue of material fact as to the
existence of a valid informal agreement between Viking and Mohawk allowing
Mohawk to proceed against Law for damages to Viking, depending on the district
court’s admissibility determinations on remand.
Mohawk sought damages for several forms of overhead and additional
equipment costs, as noted in both its answer and the pretrial order. In its
attachments to the opposition to summary judgment, Mohawk included several
letters sent to Law regarding delay damages. An August 5, 2004 letter itemized
these damages as including profit, equipment costs, and several forms of
overhead. The Kowcheck affidavit provides similar support for the contention
that Mohawk suffered damages in its own right. The August 5 letter and the
Kowcheck affidavit, if admissible, would each create a disputed issue of material
- 16 -
fact as to whether Mohawk itself incurred damages. Because we allow the district
court to decide in the first instance whether these documents are admissible at
summary judgment, we cannot now determine whether a disputed issue of
material fact exists. 7
It is not Mohawk’s contention that it entered into a written liquidation
agreement with Viking to allow a pass-through claim. Instead, Mohawk argues
that it informally agreed to pass a portion of its damages to Viking and that
Viking has consented to Mohawk bringing this lawsuit. 8 The parties dispute
whether an informal agreement without a writing is sufficient to confer standing.
Standing presents a legal issue that we review de novo. Stewart v. Kempthorne,
554 F.3d 1245, 1254 (10th Cir. 2009).
Both parties cite Roof-Techs International, Inc. v. Kansas, 57 P.3d 538,
7
The district court’s memorandum and order is less than clear on this point.
At first, it states that “most of [Mohawk’s] claims are not any claims for damages
to Mohawk, but an attempt to recover damages to Viking.” Law Co., 523 F.
Supp. 2d at 1286 (emphasis added). A few sentences later, the district court says
that “the only damages sought by Mohawk are damages that were actually
incurred by Viking.” Id. (emphasis added).
8
The concurrence would rule that Mohawk failed to preserve this issue
below. However, Mohawk’s argument on this point is adequate to preserve the
issue. It argued in its summary judgment opposition that “Viking has notified
Mohawk of its claims and has chosen to wait for payment from Mohawk pending
a resolution of Mohawk’s claim against Law.” Both Law and the district court
addressed Mohawk’s contention as raising the issue of a pass-through claim.
Under these circumstances, we conclude the issue was preserved. See United
States v. Pena, 216 F.3d 1204, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding an issue was
preserved when both the opposing party and the district court understood
defendant to be asserting argument on point).
- 17 -
550-54 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002), for the proposition that Kansas law recognizes
liquidation agreements and pass-through claims. Such an agreement would permit
Mohawk to sue Law and pass on a portion of any recovery to Viking, allowing
Viking a possible recovery despite its lack of privity with Law. But Roof-Techs
requires neither a writing nor any other procedural formality to create a valid
liquidation agreement. Id. Thus, the sufficiency of a liquidation agreement
becomes largely a question of fact.
The concurrence “fail[s] to see anything in Mohawk’s district court
opposition brief that would allow a reasonable jury to find” that Mohawk had
agreed to be liable to Viking to the extent of any recovery from Law on Viking’s
behalf. (Concurring Op. at 3.) But Kowcheck, a 50% owner of both Mohawk and
Viking, averred that “Viking has notified Mohawk of its claims and has chosen to
wait for payment from Mohawk pending a resolution of Mohawk’s claim against
Law. . . . Mohawk intends upon passing down to Viking a certain portion of any
proceeds recovered from Law.” Taking those statements in the light most
favorable to Mohawk, Howard, 534 F.3d at 1235, this affidavit raises a disputed
issue of material fact as to whether Mohawk agreed to be liable to Viking (if the
Kowcheck affidavit is admissible). Accordingly, because of the evidentiary error
in discarding the Kowcheck affidavit, see Part II.A., supra, summary judgment in
favor of Law on this point was in error.
- 18 -
Law contends further that Mohawk should be estopped from recovering
Viking-related damages because Mohawk represented to Law that all
subcontractors had been paid in full. We disagree. Mohawk certified that “all
persons or entities from whom [Mohawk] obtained labor, materials, or equipment
for the Project have been paid in full and no such person or entity has any claim
or lien against the Project for work performed on the Project, or labor, materials,
or equipment supplied for the Project.” That same certification provided:
The signing and execution of this Certification of Payment of
Outstanding Retainage Amount is not meant to affect or relinquish
[Mohawk’s] right to claim or recover the following:
(a) Any and all damages incurred by [Mohawk] at the Project,
regardless of whether said damages resulted from the actions or
inactions of [Law], including but not limited to all damages of which
[Law] has been placed on notice by [Mohawk] in its letter to [Law]
dated November 17, 2004 . . . .
(Emphasis added). Based on the plain language of the certification, Mohawk
cannot be said to have released any claims identified in its November 17, 2004,
letter. That letter claimed $255,753 in damages—the same damages for delay
figure Law cited in its declaratory judgment complaint. Accordingly, the
damages claimed in the November 17 letter are the very damages at issue here,
and Mohawk is not estopped from claiming them.
- 19 -
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the grant of summary judgment
and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- 20 -
08-3076, The Law Co. v. Mohawk Constr. and Supply Co.
BRISCOE, J., Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part and dissent in part. Although I agree with much of the
majority opinion, I respectfully disagree with its decision to remand for further
proceedings the question of whether an informal pass-through agreement existed
between Mohawk and Viking. At no point during the district court proceedings
did Mohawk mention any such pass-through agreement. It is beyond too late for
Mohawk to now make this claim. On remand, I would therefore limit Mohawk’s
claims to only damages it allegedly incurred, and would not permit Mohawk to
pursue damages allegedly incurred by Viking.
What follows are the relevant portions of the district court pleadings
regarding the question of whether Mohawk had any authority to recover on behalf
of Viking: On April 25, 2007, the district court issued its pretrial order which
outlined, in pertinent part, the parties’ factual contentions and legal theories.
Absent from that order was any mention by Mohawk of Viking, Viking’s
damages, or any agreement between Mohawk and Viking allowing Mohawk to
seek damages incurred by Viking. On April 30, 2007, Law moved for summary
judgment “on both its own claim for declaratory judgment and on [Mohawk’s]
counterclaims.” App. at 83A. In the brief in support of its motion for summary
judgment, Law expressly argued that Mohawk could not properly pursue damages
incurred by Viking. Id. at 109A-111A. Mohawk, in a section of its opposition
brief entitled “Mohawk’s Statement of Facts,” conceded that “[a] portion of [its]
claim against Law in this action [wa]s related to additional costs and expenses
incurred by . . . Viking.” Id. at 434A. Mohawk proceeded to allege, in that same
“Statement of Facts” section, that (a) Viking “ha[d] no contractual privity to file a
legal action against” Law, (b) Viking “ha[d] notified Mohawk of its claims and
ha[d] chosen to wait for payment from Mohawk pending a resolution of
Mohawk’s claim against Law,” and (c) “Mohawk intend[ed] upon passing down
to Viking a certain portion of any proceeds recovered from Law.” Id. at 435A. In
the ensuing “Argument” section of its brief, Mohawk simply repeated these
allegations and stopped. It cited no cases and neither mentioned nor attempted to
apply to the facts it had alleged any legal principles, particularly the concept of
“pass-through” agreements.
In light of Mohawk’s untimely concession that some of the damages at
issue had actually been incurred by Viking, as well as its paltry response to Law’s
legal arguments as to why it could not recover on behalf of Viking, I cannot fault
the district court for granting summary judgment in favor of Law on this issue.
To now reverse the district court’s ruling on this issue, based upon Mohawk’s
newly asserted arguments and authorities, is unfair to both the district court and
Law, and flies in the face of general litigation principles we normally apply. E.g.,
MacArthur v. San Juan County, 495 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (10th Cir. 2007)
(“[M]ere conclusory allegations with no citations to . . . any legal authority for
-2-
support does not constitute adequate briefing.”). The majority provides no basis
or rationale for now permitting Mohawk to pursue this new legal theory on
remand – but rather concludes that if the legal issue is considered on the merits,
issues of material fact remain.
Moreover, even if we were to ignore our general rules of procedure and
overlook the serious deficiencies in Mohawk’s district court opposition brief and
the omission of the pass-through claim in the pretrial order, I am not persuaded
that the meager facts Mohawk alleged in its district court opposition brief were
sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact under the new authority it now
cites on appeal, i.e., Roof-Techs Int’l, Inc. v. State, 57 P.3d 538 (Kan. Ct. App.
2002). Under Roof-Techs, so-called “pass-through” or “liquidating” agreements
have three basic elements: (1) the imposition of liability upon the subcontractor
(Mohawk) for the sub-subcontractor’s (Viking’s) increased costs, thereby
providing the subcontractor with a basis for legal action against the general
contractor (Law), (2) a liquidation of liability in the amount of the
subcontractor’s recovery against the general contractor, and (3) a provision that
provides for the “pass-through” of that recovery to the sub-subcontractor. Id. at
551. I fail to see anything in Mohawk’s district court opposition brief that would
allow a reasonable jury to find that the first of these elements was satisfied.
Although Viking was apparently hoping to partake in any recovery made by
Mohawk, there is no allegation that Mohawk agreed to be liable (even absent a
-3-
successful recovery from Law) for Viking’s increased costs. The best evidence
the majority can muster is Kowcheck’s statement that Mohawk “intended” to pass
down to Viking “a certain portion” of any proceeds recovered from Law. This
statement does not, however, reasonably establish that Mohawk agreed to be
liable to Viking for all of the damages it incurred.
In sum, I would limit our remand to encompass only Mohawk’s damage
claims, and exclude any consideration of Viking’s alleged damages.
-4-