Sharp v. Cox

── Sharp v. Cox ── Case No.: 25-1268 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 03, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1268 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 3, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court In re: DEVIN DAVID SHARP; AMY BETH SHARP, Debtors. ------------------------------ AMY BETH SHARP, Appellant, v. No. 25-1268 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-02873-CNS) NICK COX; GEORGIA FORSEE, (D. Colo.) Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, EBEL, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Defendant-Appellant Amy Beth Sharp appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of two of her former employees, Plaintiffs-Appellees Nick Cox and Georgia Forsee (collectively “Plaintiffs”). The bankruptcy court determined that Ms. Sharp owed Plaintiffs a * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-1268 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 2 nondischargeable debt for unpaid salaries under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). On appeal, Ms. Sharp challenges the bankruptcy court’s ruling based on an argument that she did not raise in the bankruptcy court proceedings. Because she did not raise this argument before the bankruptcy court and has not met her burden of establishing plain error on appeal, we affirm the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 In 2015, Ms. Sharp formed a company to transport and deliver cannabis and hemp products from manufacturers to dispensaries throughout Colorado. She was the sole owner of this company, Equal Exchange FTC, LLC d/b/a Sharp Solutions Courier (“the Company”). Ms. Sharp hired Plaintiffs to work for the Company in the spring of 2018. Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers and also performed marketing and administrative work for the Company. They worked closely with Ms. Sharp, who directed their daily activities. When they were hired, Ms. Sharp agreed to pay them each $15 per hour for their delivery work. Beginning in August 2018, she also agreed to pay them each a monthly salary of $3,500 for their administrative and marketing work. Ms. Sharp promised Plaintiffs that they would receive their accrued salaries and back pay when the Company received investment funding. 1 Because neither party challenges the bankruptcy court’s factual findings on appeal, “we draw the following description of the events underlying this suit from those findings.” In re Joelson, 427 F.3d 700, 703 (10th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, 584 U.S. 709 (2018). 2  Appellate Case: 25-1268 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2026 Page: 3 Plaintiffs both worked for the Company for approximately two years. Over the cours