Garrett v. Cook, No. 10-2214 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDaniel Cook appealed a district court's order that awarded fees and costs to his opponents Wells Fargo Bank and Scott and Pamela Garrett. The case stemmed from a 2003 lawsuit initiated by the Garretts as trustees of the Scott and Pamela Garrett Family Trust. The Trust was a shareholder in Hydroscope Group, Inc. and sued Mr. Cook for actions he took as an officer and director of HGI and its subsidiaries. A state district court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo and the Garretts on its claims against HGI. Mr. Cook filed several post-judgment motions, but before they could be heard, he appealed the state district court's decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. That court dismissed his appeal and remanded the case to the district court for disposition of the outstanding motions. Meanwhile, Mr. Cook filed a complaint against the Garretts and Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo replied with an application for an injunction to enjoin Mr. Cook from filing further pleadings. The court eventually enjoined Mr. Cook from filing anything else because he had "engaged in a pattern of litigation activity that [was] abusive and vexatious such that his access to [the Court] should be restricted." Mr. Cook subsequently filed a notice of removal of the case to federal court. He sought to remove all the cases pending before the state district court, arguing that the judge presiding over them was racially biased against him. The federal district court found that removal was not objectively reasonable. Accordingly, the district court awarded fees and costs to the Garretts and Wells Fargo. Upon review of the lengthy and complicated procedural history of this case and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and costs to the Garretts and Wells Fargo. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.