District Court, W.D. Oklahoma — appointed by George W. Bush
Dobbs v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2011-06-13 · cited 19×
This case involves a products liability action brought by the widow of Terry Dobbs, who committed suicide in 2002 after taking the antidepressant Effexor manufactured by Wyeth. The plaintiff alleged Oklahoma tort claims for strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and misrepresentation, asserting that the FDA-approved label inadequately warned of suicide risks for adult patients. Following the Supreme Court's Wyeth v. Levine decision establishing a "clear evidence" standard for conflict preemption, the Tenth Circuit vacated a prior summary judgment ruling and remanded for reconsideration of whether FDA regulations preempt the claims. The court applied the summary judgment standard to assess if undisputed facts showed the FDA had considered and rejected the specific enhanced suicidality warnings urged by the plaintiff, relying on evidence of FDA's prior rejections of similar proposals and its class-wide treatment of antidepressants.
torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory
Palmer v. BD. OF COM'RS FOR PAYNE COUNTY OKLAHOMA
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2011-01-18 · cited 2×
This case involves a pretrial detainee who sued Payne County officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs after contracting MRSA while in the county jail. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review. It granted summary judgment to Sheriff Bagwell in his official capacity, Deputy Hall in his official and individual capacities, and Jail Administrator Myers in his official capacity, as well as dismissing the John Doe defendants. The court denied summary judgment only as to the claim against Myers in his individual capacity for deliberate indifference on August 2 or 3, 2007, finding that the record evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, could permit a rational jury to conclude that Myers knew of a substantial risk of harm, disregarded it, and caused the plaintiff considerable pain.
civil rightscriminal law
K-Mar Industries, Inc. v. United States Department of Defense
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2010-11-04 · cited 4×
K-Mar Industries sued the Department of Defense and Department of the Army under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging violations of insourcing procedures when the agencies decided to perform Training Support Center services in-house rather than continuing to contract with the plaintiff at Fort Sill, Oklahoma; the complaint also included a FOIA claim for records. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Tucker Act as amended by the ADRA and the Contract Disputes Act placed exclusive jurisdiction over the procedures-based claims in the Court of Federal Claims and that administrative remedies had not been exhausted on the FOIA claim. The court examined the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity, the scope of Tucker Act jurisdiction over bid protests and insourcing decisions, and the absence of any solicitation or contract at issue, ultimately concluding that district court jurisdiction was proper because the Tucker Act did not expressly or impliedly forbid APA review in this context.
procedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory
Brady v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2010-03-12 · cited 1×
This case involves a class action lawsuit filed in federal court against UBS Financial Services, where the plaintiff seeks damages and the court must determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants moved for reconsideration of the court's prior order denying their motion to dismiss, arguing that attorney fees cannot be included in the amount-in-controversy calculation because the complaint did not properly plead them under a specific statute like 12 O.S. § 936, and any fees would instead arise under the common-fund doctrine or other exceptions to the American Rule. The court analyzed precedents from the Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit, distinguishing removal cases from original federal filings, and examined whether fees under the common-fund doctrine could be awarded against defendants or only from a recovered fund. It concluded that certain exceptions, including common-fund and bad-faith conduct, do not support including attorney fees in the jurisdictional amount without specific allegations or evidence in the complaint, and that aggregation across the class renders the estimate speculative.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Graves v. Mazda Motor Corp.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2009-12-17 · cited 18×
This case is an automotive product liability action under Mississippi law in which plaintiff Cheryl Graves alleged that a rented 2006 Mazda6 with a gated shifter was defectively designed because it was prone to false park or unintended shifting, causing the vehicle to strike her after she exited it. The court addressed defendant's Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' liability expert Stephen R. Syson and the related motion for summary judgment. It granted the Daubert motion, finding that Syson's opinions lacked a reliable factual foundation, adequate testing or methodology, and proper application to the specific facts of the shifter design and accident sequence, rendering them inadmissible under Rule 702. Because plaintiffs conceded they could not proceed without admissible expert testimony, the court granted summary judgment to Mazda. Other pending motions were rendered moot.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Langford v. GRADY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2009-11-17 · cited 4×
This case involves a state prisoner, Norman Joe Langford, who brought a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Grady County Detention Center officials and staff, alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights related to conditions of confinement, including being fed sack lunches and use of a restraint chair. The court adopted the magistrate judge's supplemental report and recommendation in full after de novo review of the objected-to portions. It granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to some defendants on certain individual capacity claims, granted dismissal to others including the detention center itself, denied dismissal or summary judgment as to remaining individual and official capacity claims against several defendants, and denied the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, leaving various claims for trial.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure