Lnv Corporation v. Mary Julia Hook

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
LNV CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARY JULIA HOOK,
Defendant - Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
DAVID LEE SMITH; PRUDENTIAL
HOME MORTAGAGE COMPANY,
INC.; SAINT LUKES LOFTS
HOMEOWNER ASSOCATION, INC.;
DEBRA JOHNSON, in her official
capacity as the Public Trustee of the City
and County of Denver, Colorado,
Defendants.
No. 20-1167
(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00955-RM-SKC)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
* After examining the briefs and 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. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 12, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1167 Document: 010110506122 Date Filed: 04/12/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mary Julia Hook, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
court’s March 2, 2020, Order Confirming Judicial Sale. Exercising jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
Ms. Hook previously appealed from the judgment in the underlying
foreclosure case. See LNV Corp. v. Hook (Hook I), 807 F. App’x 893 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 939 (2020). Hook I described Ms. Hook’s arguments
challenging the judgment as “wholly frivolous.” Id. at 895. “As an attorney, she
should have known that they lacked any merit before she argued them; and in large
part, the appellees’ briefs make that perfectly clear. We see no need to further
educate Hook.” Id. Accordingly, this court dismissed her appeal in Hook I. See id.
Ms. Hook’s opening brief largely reiterates the “wholly frivolous” arguments
she offered in Hook I. But given the law of the case doctrine, we will not revisit
those arguments. See Brokers’ Choice of Am., Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 861 F.3d
1081, 1099 (10th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that
decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same
case. An appellate court decision on a particular issue . . . governs the issue during
all later stages of the litigation in the district court and thereafter on any further
appeal.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). There are exceptions to
the doctrine, see id., but none applies here. And Ms. Hook’s request that this panel
vacate and set aside Hook I disregards well-established law that one panel cannot
Appellate Case: 20-1167 Document: 010110506122 Date Filed: 04/12/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
overrule the decision of another panel, absent intervening en banc or Supreme Court
authority. See Strain v. Regalado, 977 F.3d 984, 993 (10th Cir. 2020).
In addition to previously raised arguments, the opening brief appears to
advance new arguments challenging the April 2019 judgment. But the subject of this
appeal is the Order Confirming Judicial Sale, not the judgment. All challenges to the
judgment could, and should, have been raised in Hook I.
The few assertions in the opening brief that may be relevant to the Order
Confirming Judicial Sale are inadequately briefed. See Fuerschbach v. Sw. Airlines
Co., 439 F.3d 1197, 1209-10 (10th Cir. 2006) (collecting authorities holding that
inadequately briefed and underdeveloped theories are waived). Ms. Hook’s
conclusory assertions of procedural error fail to sufficiently identify or argue any
violations. She criticizes the district court for not holding a hearing before it issued
the Order Confirming Judicial Sale, but she does not show that she was entitled to
such a hearing, or even that she requested one. And she makes no argument for plain
error. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1131 (10th Cir. 2011)
(“[T]he failure to argue for plain error and its application on appeal . . . surely marks
the end of the road for an argument for reversal not first presented to the district
court.”).
Finally, Ms. Hook asserts that the district court was biased against her because
it denied her motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees and costs. But
as we have previously explained to her, “adverse rulings alone do not demonstrate
judicial bias,” meaning that an “argument rel[ying] solely on the district court’s
Appellate Case: 20-1167 Document: 010110506122 Date Filed: 04/12/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
adverse rulings . . . is devoid of merit.” Hook I, 807 F. App’x at 895 (brackets and
internal quotation marks omitted).
For these reasons, this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Ford v. Pryor,
552 F.3d 1174, 1180 (10th Cir. 2008) (“An appeal is frivolous when the result is
obvious, or the appellant’s arguments of error are wholly without merit.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). LNV Corporation’s pre-briefing motions to dismiss the
appeal and to release a notice of lis pendens are denied as moot. The requests in
Ms. Hook’s reply briefs for sanctions and attorney discipline are denied.
Entered for the Court
Carolyn B. McHugh
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-1167 Document: 010110506122 Date Filed: 04/12/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --