Filed: May 27, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80294 (303) 844-3157 Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk June 25, 1997 TO: All recipients of the captioned Order and Judgment RE: 96-3310, Quinstar Corp. v. Stoecker May 27, 1997 Please be advised of the following corrections to the captioned decision: In the caption, Third-Party Defendant Ronald J. Filbrun is erroneously listed as Richard Filbrun
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80294 (303) 844-3157 Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk June 25, 1997 TO: All recipients of the captioned Order and Judgment RE: 96-3310, Quinstar Corp. v. Stoecker May 27, 1997 Please be advised of the following corrections to the captioned decision: In the caption, Third-Party Defendant Ronald J. Filbrun is erroneously listed as Richard Filbrun...
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Tenth Circuit
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80294
(303) 844-3157
Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk
June 25, 1997
TO: All recipients of the captioned Order and Judgment
RE: 96-3310, Quinstar Corp. v. Stoecker
May 27, 1997
Please be advised of the following corrections to the captioned decision:
In the caption, Third-Party Defendant Ronald J. Filbrun is erroneously
listed as Richard Filbrun. The second error is found on page 3 of the decision,
wherein the Court stated “At the conclusion of the trial, the jury answered each of
the 52 questions on the special verdict form in favor of Falcon Bridge and Mr.
Stoecker.” In actuality, the jury answered each question in favor of Quinstar
Corporation and Ronald J. Filbrun.
A corrected Order and Judgment is attached for your convenience.
Very truly yours,
Patrick Fisher, Clerk
Susie Tidwell
Deputy Clerk
encl.
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
MAY 27 1997
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
QUINSTAR CORPORATION,
a Kansas corporation,
Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-
Defendant - Appellee, No. 96-3310
(D.C. No. 95-CV-1098)
v. (D. Kan.)
FALCON BRIDGE INDUSTRIES,
INC.,
Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff,
and
WILLIAM J. STOECKER,
Defendant-Counter-Claimant -
Appellant,
v.
RONALD J. FILBRUN,
Third-Party-Defendant -
Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and LUCERO, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant William J. Stoecker, as the primary shareholder of Falcon Bridge
Industries, Inc., entered into a written agreement to purchase the stock of
Plaintiff Quinstar Corporation from its sole shareholder, Ronald J. Filbrun. In its
complaint, Quinstar alleged that Mr. Stoecker and Mr. Filbrun also entered into an
oral contract under which Mr. Filbrun was to authorize an advance of $200,000 to
Mr. Stoecker on Quinstar’s line of credit. In return, Mr. Stoecker was to pay,
within a week, $500,000 on the total amount Quinstar owed on the line of credit.
Although Mr. Stoecker received the money, he failed to pay any amount toward
the line of credit.
*
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.
-2-
Quinstar sought damages for breach of the oral contract and fraudulent
misrepresentations related to the purchase agreement and the oral contract.
Falcon Bridge and Mr. Stoecker filed counterclaims and third party claims against
Quinstar and Mr. Filbrun, alleging fraud and breach of contract. At the
conclusion of the trial, the jury answered each of the fifty-two questions on the
special verdict form in favor of Quinstar Corporation and Mr. Filbrun. It awarded
Quinstar compensatory damages of $233,675 and punitive damages of $50,000.
Mr. Stoecker 1 appeals from the judgment entered upon the jury verdict. He
argues that the district court erred (1) in admitting prejudicial evidence of
representations that contradicted provisions of the written purchase agreement;
(2) in reserving ruling on his motion for judgment as a matter of law, made at the
close of evidence, and denying the motion as moot after the jury returned its
verdict, and (3) in submitting the special verdict form to the jury. Each of these
claims of error necessitates a reasoned review of the evidence presented to the
district court. See United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 108 F.3d 1228, 1236 (10th
1
Mr. Stoecker was represented by counsel in the district court but proceeds
pro se on appeal. He filed a pro se notice of appeal purportedly on behalf of
himself and Falcon Bridge. Because a corporation can appear only through
counsel, see DeVilliers v. Atlas Corp., 360 F.2d 292, 294 (10th Cir. 1966), we
dismiss the appeal as to Falcon Bridge. We also note that the issues Mr. Stoecker
raises on appeal concern only Quinstar’s claims, and not his counterclaims or
claims against Mr. Filbrun. As a consequence, Mr. Filbrun is not implicated in
this appeal.
-3-
Cir. 1997) (holding that, without transcripts, the appellate court has no means of
determining whether the district court properly admitted allegedly prejudicial
evidence); Weese v. Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 547 (10th Cir. 1996) (requiring a de
novo review of the evidence to determine the propriety of the district court’s
ruling on a motion for a judgment as a matter of law); United States Fire Ins. Co.
v. Pressed Steel Tank Co.,
852 F.2d 313, 318 (7th Cir. 1988) (determining, on
appellate review, whether the special verdict form included all material issues
raised by the pleadings and evidence).
Mr. Stoecker has failed to include a trial transcript in the record on appeal.
An appellant bears the responsibility of providing this court with a proper record
on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10; 10th Cir. R. 10.1.1. The record must contain
all portions of the transcript necessary to give the court of appeals a complete and
accurate record of the proceedings related to the issues on appeal. See King v.
Unocal Corp., 58 F.3d 586, 587 (10th Cir. 1995). Absent a transcript of the trial,
we are effectively barred from any review of Mr. Stoecker’s arguments on
appeal. See id..
-4-
We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-5-
