descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Gary B. Hobbs v. Security National Bank of Sapulpa, Oklahoma Security National Bancshares Inc. Of Sapulpa, Oklahoma Michael E. Bezanson Dwight W. Maulding Jack Sellers Lon T. Jackson Edward A. Carson Wiley W. Smith Solaray Corporation Interstate Distributors, Inc. John Bingman Bradd Bingman Irving Bartlett Jerry Robertson Walter E. Brown Unknown Co-Conspirators, and the Other Unnamed Directors of Security National Bank, Their Corporations, Partnerships, Joint Ventures, Sole Proprietorships, Heirs, and Assigns, and the Other Presently Bingman Era Properties, Gary B. Hobbs v. Dale L. Thomason Robert Baker Manek Anklesaria Howard Kirsch Juanita Palmer Harvey Russell Dewey Gunter John Gerkin Lisa Baker Patti Tucker H. Gates Williams, Jr. Cross Roads Savings and Loan Association Cross Roads Financial Services, Inc Vaden Bales David Cameron, Jr. Dean Luthey Jones, Givens, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C. Marcia Boswell-Carney David Thornburg Mary Carole Stoltz Brian McCormally Sam Morgan Gable & Gotwals, Inc. Theodore Q. Elio

Citations: 46 F.3d 1151; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 6949Docket: 93-5149

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; January 8, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by a disbarred attorney, the plaintiff-appellant, who challenged the dismissal of his complaints against multiple defendants. These complaints, filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and including state claims, were dismissed by the district court for failing to state a claim as required under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found the federal claims frivolous and the complaints inadequate under Rule 8(a) for not providing a short and plain statement. The Tenth Circuit conducted a de novo review and affirmed the district court's dismissal, citing the plaintiff's inability to sufficiently allege the conduct necessary to meet the civil RICO claim standards. The court denied motions to dismiss one appeal and motions to provide and supplement the record. The appellate court's order and judgment are not binding precedent, although mandates will be issued immediately. The panel also declined to consider documents not part of the original district court record. Thus, the district court's judgments were upheld, and the plaintiff's appeals were not successful.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of District Court's Decision

Application: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing with the dismissal of both federal and state claims.

Reasoning: The court affirmed the district court's decision.

Citing Unpublished Opinions

Application: Unpublished opinions may be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue and are provided to the Court and all parties.

Reasoning: Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they hold persuasive value on a material issue and are provided to the Court and all parties, as per the General Order of November 29, 1993.

Civil RICO Claims Standards

Application: The plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to meet the legal standards for civil RICO claims as determined in relevant case law.

Reasoning: Hobbs failed to sufficiently allege conduct necessary to meet the legal standards for civil RICO claims, referencing relevant case law.

Consideration of Documents on Appeal

Application: The appellate court will not consider documents submitted by the plaintiff that were not part of the district court record.

Reasoning: Additionally, the panel will not consider documents submitted by the plaintiff that were not part of the district court record.

Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim

Application: The district court dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), finding the federal claims frivolous and lacking sufficient allegations.

Reasoning: Gary B. Hobbs, the plaintiff-appellant, is appealing district court orders dismissing his complaints against multiple defendants for failing to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Immediate Issuance of Mandates

Application: Mandates will be issued immediately following the affirmation of the district court's judgments.

Reasoning: Mandates will be issued immediately.

Non-Precedential Effect of Order and Judgment

Application: This order and judgment are not binding precedent except under limited doctrines and are generally disfavored for citation.

Reasoning: This order and judgment do not serve as binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, with the court generally disfavoring the citation of such orders and judgments.

Requirement for a Short and Plain Statement

Application: The complaints failed to meet the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requirement for a short and plain statement, leading to their dismissal.

Reasoning: However, his complaints did not meet the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) for a short and plain statement.