Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1372
D. Colorado
Defendant - Appellee.
After examining Ronald Fogles appellate filings and the appellate record,
this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially
assist in 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.
Fogle filed the instant action in federal district court against Tom Elliott,
his attorney in a previous civil case, alleging he suffered losses by virtue of
Elliotts malpractice. He labeled his action a claim for reimbursement, and
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
Although Elliott was the only party defendant identified in Fogles action,
his claim for reimbursement focused on an unidentified Federal Board of
Trustees that Fogle asserted could aid him in obtaining more than $3,000,000
from Elliott. As noted by the district court, the Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure do establish a fund to recompense Colorado state victims of attorney
misconduct. Those rules do not, however, establish subject matter jurisdiction
over a claim against the fund in federal court.
-2-
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-