Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13
 
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under thedoctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The courtgenerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an orderand judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
F I L E D
United States Court of AppealsTenth Circuit
JUN 7 2004
PATRICK FISHER 
Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
CURTIS DELASHAW;JENNICE DELASHAW, husbandand wife, d/b/a Delashaw Farm,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.TYSON FOODS, INC.; THE PORKGROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees,andDANIEL YOUNT, d/b/a Daniel YountConstruction,Defendant. No. 02-7145(D.C. No. 02-CV-121-S)(E.D. Okla.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
 *
Before
HENRY
,
MURPHY
, and
TYMKOVICH
, Circuit Judges.
 
1
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the TysonDefendants on each of plaintiffs’ other claims, and plaintiffs are not challengingthe entry of summary judgment on their other claims. In addition, plaintiffs arenot appealing the dismissal of the claims they asserted against defendant DanielYount. With respect to defendant Yount and the appellate jurisdictional issuereferred to in the order entered by this court on December 27, 2002, we havedetermined that plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Yount were fully adjudicatedin the orders entered by the district court on November 13, 2002 and December18, 2002. We are therefore satisfied that the district court fully adjudicated all of  plaintiffsclaims and that its orders were final and subject to appeal.-2- After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determinedunanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oralargument.
See
 Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is thereforeordered submitted without oral argument.Plaintiffs Curtis and Jennice Delashaw filed a petition in Oklahoma statecourt in February 2002, asserting a number of contract and tort claims againstdefendants-appellees Tyson Foods, Inc. and the Pork Group, Inc. (collectively the“Tyson Defendants”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, the TysonDefendants removed the case to federal court. The only claim at issue in thisappeal is plaintiffs’ claim that the Tyson Defendants were negligent in designingand overseeing the construction of swine barns on plaintiffs’ property.
1
 Thedistrict court granted summary judgment in favor of the Tyson Defendants on plaintiffsnegligence claim, concluding that the claim was barred by the two-yearstatute of limitations in Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(3). Our jurisdiction arises under
 
-3-28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse the entry of summary judgment against plaintiffs on their negligence claim and remand this matter to the district court forfurther proceedings.I.The district court summarized the factual background pertaining to the parties’ dispute as follows:Sometime in 1993, Tyson and Plaintiffs had discussionsregarding the possibility of Plaintiffs producing swine for Tysonunder a contractual arrangement. In order for this contract withTyson to come to fruition, Plaintiffs necessarily had to possess swine production barns. Tyson required that these swine barns be builtaccording to its plans and specifications. On July 8, 1993, Tyson andCurtis Delashaw entered into a written contract wherein Tyson wasobligated to provide certain supplies and materials for theconstruction of the swine barns in exchange for Curtis Delashaw’s promise to repay Tyson for such supplies and materials.  Additionally, on November 16, 1993, Curtis Delashaw entered into aseparate construction contract with Defendant Daniel Yount . . . forthe construction of the swine barns. Yount completed constructionof the swine barns in June 1994. Plaintiffs began producing swinefor Tyson pursuant to a four-year swine production contract enteredinto in April 1994. Plaintiffs began experiencing problems with the swine barnsalmost immediately after construction was completed in June 1994. The record establishes Plaintiffs discovered the following problemsin 1994: conduit lines not properly buried with some lines above theground, light switches causing shocks, wiring deficiencies in thelactation area causing short outs, sows’ heads being stuck betweenfeeding troughs and feeding tubes, improper functioning of automaticcurtain machines, substandard construction of loading ramps andwalkway rails, improper installation of water spouts, cracking of concrete floors, and faulty welding and fabrication of breeding pens. Other problems with the swine barns surfaced thereafter including

Ihre Neugier belohnen

Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505