D.C.W. v. Whaley , 170 F. App'x 549 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    March 2, 2006
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    D.C.W., a minor child; Y.Y.W.,
    mother of D.C.W., a minor child,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    No. 05-4034
    v.                                               (D.C. No. 2:05-CV-21-DB)
    (D. Utah)
    RAYMOND WHALEY; OLETA
    WHALEY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before LUCERO, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their action for lack
    of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Exercising
    jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , we AFFIRM.
    *
    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. 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    not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
    Plaintiffs, who are enrolled members of the Navajo Tribe of Indians, filed
    the underlying suit in federal district court, seeking an injunction staying
    proceedings in the Seventh Judicial District Court of San Juan County, Utah, Case
    No. 0447-0075, where defendants sought grandparent visitation rights with
    plaintiff D.C.W. Plaintiffs also sought an injunction preventing the defendants
    from seeking future state court relief concerning D.C.W.’s domestic relations.
    They further requested declarations that (1) the Navajo Nation Courts are the
    most appropriate fora for resolution of all legal disputes arising in Indian
    Country, including domestic issues concerning D.C.W. and the defendants’
    grandparent visitation rights, and (2) any law, judgments, orders, or decrees from
    the Navajo Nation Courts are entitled to full faith and credit under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1738
    . Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on
    several justiciability grounds, including standing, ripeness, and the absence of an
    actual case or controversy between the parties. In a summary order that relied on
    the reasons set forth in defendants’ brief as its legal basis, the federal district
    court dismissed the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). The district court also
    summarily denied plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration and a new trial. This
    appeal followed.
    In their appellate brief, plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in
    failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Fed. R.
    -2-
    Civ. P. 52(a). Rule 52(a), however, provides that “[f]indings of fact and
    conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56
    or any other motion except as provided in subdivision (c) of this rule [governing
    judgments on partial findings at trial].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Accordingly, the
    district court did not err by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of
    law in its decision of defendants’ Rule 12 motion.
    Plaintiffs have not raised any other substantive arguments concerning the
    basis for the district court’s dismissal or the district court’s denial of their
    motions for reconsideration and a new trial. Instead, they address only the merits
    of the underlying dispute as to whether jurisdiction is proper in the Navajo Nation
    Courts or the state courts of Utah, and whether orders of Navajo Nation Courts
    are entitled to full faith and credit under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1738
    . Therefore, plaintiffs
    have waived their right to appeal the substance of the district court’s ruling that it
    lacked subject matter jurisdiction and its other order denying plaintiffs’ motions
    for reconsideration and a new trial. See Lifewise Master Funding v. Telebank,
    
    374 F.3d 917
    , 927 n.10 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding that appellant waived its right to
    appeal district court rulings not substantively addressed in its opening brief). 1
    1
    Although not a basis for our disposition of this appeal, it appears from the
    record that the case is now moot because, on June 22, 2005, the Utah state court
    dismissed with prejudice the action that gave rise to plaintiffs’ federal action.
    See Moongate Water Co. v. Dona Ana Mut. Domestic Water Consumers Ass’n,
    (continued...)
    -3-
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs-Appellants’
    motion to file a supplemental brief and appendix is DENIED.
    Entered for the Court
    David M. Ebel
    Circuit Judge
    1
    (...continued)
    
    420 F.3d 1082
    , 1088 (10th Cir. 2005) (explaining that, to avoid mootness, an
    actual controversy must exist at all stages of appellate litigation, not just when an
    action is initiated).
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4034

Citation Numbers: 170 F. App'x 549

Judges: Ebel, Lucero, Murphy

Filed Date: 3/2/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023