Alexander v. Adelberg , 497 F. App'x 816 ( 2012 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 26, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JOHN ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 12-1054
(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02918-RPM)
KENNETH ADELBERG, (D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before GORSUCH, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and HOLMES,
Circuit Judge.
John Alexander is payee on a note made by Woodmoor Pines Golf & Country
Club, LLC, and guaranteed by KDGC Holdings, LLC. He brought this diversity
action against Kenneth Adelberg, seeking recovery from Mr. Adelberg for
nonpayment of the note, relying on Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-90-913(b). The district court
dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Specifically, the court held that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-90-913(b) was inapplicable to
Mr. Alexander’s claim because the assets of both Woodmoor Pines Golf & Country
Club and KDGC Holdings “were sold to Tri-Lakes Golf, LLC, in a sale approved by
the District Court, County of El Paso, Colorado, in the course of a receivership
proceeding after that court ordered dissolution under statutory authority for judicial
dissolution of corporations.” Aplt. App. at 59. The district court also observed that
Mr. Adelberg has some ownership in the purchasing entity, Tri-Lakes Golf, but
concluded that he “ha[d] no liability for its obligations because of [Colo. Rev. Stat.]
§ 7-80-705.” Id. Mr. Alexander filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district
court summarily denied.
This appeal followed. Mr. Alexander challenges the district court’s
conclusions that: (1) Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-90-913(b) is inapplicable to his claim, and
(2) the limited liability provisions of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-80-705 shield Mr. Adelberg
from liability.
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district
court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188,
1190 (10th Cir. 2012). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
-2-
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Additionally, “[i]n evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts may consider
not only the complaint itself, but also attached exhibits, and documents incorporated
into the complaint by reference.” Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098
(10th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because this is a
diversity case, “we review the district court’s determination of state law de novo.”
Butler v. Union Pac. R.R., 68 F.3d 378, 379 (10th Cir. 1995).
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, and
we need not restate either here. Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the
applicable law pursuant to the above-mentioned standards, we hold that
Mr. Alexander has not identified any reversible error in this case. We therefore
AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons stated
in its succinct February 9, 2012, order for dismissal. We GRANT Mr. Alexander’s
motion to strike materials contained in Mr. Adelberg’s supplemental appendix.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-3-