Hope's Architectural Products, Inc., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Lundy's Construction, Inc., Bank Iv Olathe, N.a.,defendants-appellees, 1 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 1993)

Before BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and BENSON,^*  District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^** 

BENSON, District Judge.

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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Hope's Architectural Products, Inc., a manufacturer of custom windows, brought suit against Lundy's Construction, Inc., general contractor on a school construction project, and Bank IV Olathe, N.A., surety for a Kansas statutory construction bond. Hope's had contracted with Lundy's to manufacture and install custom steel windows in a Kansas elementary school addition. Hope's complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit and sought damages from both defendants.

The district court granted partial summary judgment to Bank IV on Hope's claim against the statutory bond. After a short trial to the court, the district court entered judgment for defendants and against Hope's on the remaining issues. Hope's appeals, contending that the district court erred in 1) its ruling that Hope's claim is not covered by Bank IV's statutory bond, and 2) its ruling that Hope's could not demand assurances from Lundy's under the Kansas version of the UCC.

The district court's jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Neither party challenges the district court's application of Kansas law to this diversity action. We review that court's legal conclusions de novo, Estate of Holl v. Commissioner, 967 F.2d 1437, 1438 (10th Cir. 1992), and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard, O'Connor v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., 965 F.2d 893, 901 (10th Cir. 1992), without giving deference to the district court's interpretation of Kansas law, Salve Regina College v. Russell, 111 S. Ct. 1217, 1221-22 (1991).

Following our careful review of the record on appeal, together with the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly decided the issues on appeal in this case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned orders dated April 14, 1991, and December 18, 1991, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.