Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    Finch v. Coe, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Carlos Finch filed a lawsuit against his former employer Pahaska Tepee Resort asserting nine causes of action related to his alleged mistreatment and wrongful termination from seasonal employment in 2003. 2) After a two-day bench trial, the district court found in favor of the defendants. Finch appealed, challenging the district court's factual findings and credibility determinations. 3) The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the district court's factual findings were supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous, and that the district court correctly interpreted and applied the law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Finch v. Coe, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    46 views4 pages
    1) Carlos Finch filed a lawsuit against his former employer Pahaska Tepee Resort asserting nine causes of action related to his alleged mistreatment and wrongful termination from seasonal employment in 2003. 2) After a two-day bench trial, the district court found in favor of the defendants. Finch appealed, challenging the district court's factual findings and credibility determinations. 3) The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the district court's factual findings were supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous, and that the district court correctly interpreted and applied the law.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-01-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-8008

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Carlos Finch filed a lawsuit against his former employer Pahaska Tepee Resort asserting nine causes of action related to his alleged mistreatment and wrongful termination from seasonal employment in 2003. 2) After a two-day bench trial, the district court found in favor of the defendants. Finch appealed, challenging the district court's factual findings and credibility determinations. 3) The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the district court's factual findings were supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous, and that the district court correctly interpreted and applied the law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    46 views4 pages

    Finch v. Coe, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Carlos Finch filed a lawsuit against his former employer Pahaska Tepee Resort asserting nine causes of action related to his alleged mistreatment and wrongful termination from seasonal employment in 2003. 2) After a two-day bench trial, the district court found in favor of the defendants. Finch appealed, challenging the district court's factual findings and credibility determinations. 3) The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the district court's factual findings were supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous, and that the district court correctly interpreted and applied the law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    January 12, 2006


    Elisabeth A. Shumaker

    Clerk of Court

    CARLOS FINCH,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    ROBERT COE; PAHASKA
    COMPANY,

    No. 05-8008
    (D.C. No. 04-CV-12-D)
    (D. Wyo.)

    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

    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.
    Plaintiff-appellant Carlos Finch appeals from the district courts judgment
    following a two-day bench trial. We affirm.
    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.

    Finch filed this lawsuit asserting nine causes of action based on alleged
    mistreatment and wrongful termination from his employment at the Pahaska
    Tepee Resort in Wyoming. Finch began work as a seasonal maintenance worker
    in May 2003, and was terminated on July 14, 2003, as a result of confrontations
    with and threats against his co-workers.
    Although it is less than clear, Finch apparently challenges the district
    courts factual findings, and in particular its credibility determinations.
    Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not
    be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the
    opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 52(a). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is without factual
    support in the record or if the appellate court, after reviewing all the evidence, is
    left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Manning
    v. United States, 146 F.3d 808, 812 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted). 1 After
    reviewing the record, we conclude that the district courts factual findings are
    supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

    To the extent that Finch attempts to argue that the district courts
    conclusions of law were error, we likewise disagree. We review legal conclusions
    de novo. Manning, 146 F.3d at 813. As to each of his nine claims for relief, we
    find no reversible error in the courts interpretation and application of the law to
    the facts.

    -2-

    Finch also argues that the district court erred in failing to sanction Coe for
    his alleged discovery abuse in failing to timely disclose the addresses of two
    witnesses. In a motion to disqualify Coes lawyer, Finch claimed the existence of
    a conspiracy to keep the witnesses whereabouts a secret. The magistrate judge to
    whom the motion was referred found that it was without merit and . . .
    frivolous, holding that there was no evidence of a conspiracy or even discovery
    misconduct. Aplt. App., Vol. II, doc. 68 at 2. The district court affirmed the
    magistrates recommendation.
    Whether we view Finchs argument as a challenge to a discovery ruling or a
    refusal to impose sanctions, the result is the same. In general, discovery rulings
    and sanctions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. RTC v. Dabney, 73 F.3d
    262, 265 (10th Cir. 1995); GWN Petroleum Corp. v. OK-Tex Oil & Gas, Inc.,
    998 F.2d 853, 858 (10th Cir. 1993). Here, the record supports the district courts
    denial of sanctions and/or discovery.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    We GRANT Finchs motion for leave to file exhibits. We DENY his
    motion to proceed in forma pauperis and he is responsible for immediate payment
    of any unpaid filing fee.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -3-

    -4-

    You might also like