Stephen P. Friot

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

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 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

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

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

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

This case involves two groups of plaintiffs, including members of the Comanche and Kiowa tribes, who own or hold leasehold interests in Comanche Allotment No. 2329 and allege that officials of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe, a casino manager, and the Fort Sill Apache Casino trespassed on and damaged their property through casino operations. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 19 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, tribal sovereign immunity, and failure to join required parties such as the tribe and the United States. The court determined that federal-question jurisdiction was not established under the cited statutes for most counts because the allegations did not show viable claims arising under federal law, that sovereign immunity barred claims against the tribe and casino as an arm of the tribe, and that the tribe and United States were necessary parties who could not be joined, leading to dismissal of those claims; however, claims against individual defendants for actions outside their authority under certain counts survived. The core reasoning centered on the well-pleaded complaint rule for federal jurisdiction, the scope of tribal sovereign immunity, and Rule 19 joinder requirements, while noting that ultra vires actions by individuals could support limited individual liability.

propertyfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff David Bryson, who was convicted and imprisoned for over 17 years on kidnapping, rape, and sodomy charges he did not commit, brought § 1983 claims against the City of Oklahoma City, forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist, and prosecutor Robert Macy for malicious prosecution and bad-faith denial of access to exculpatory evidence under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, along with related state tort claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Gilchrist's serology analysis was misleading and excluded Bryson as the semen donor, and whether this evidence undermined probable cause; it therefore denied summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim and granted leave to amend the complaint to expressly include the serology evidence as a basis for that claim. The court rejected arguments that the preliminary hearing's probable cause finding insulated the defendants, citing Tenth Circuit precedent that later-discovered exculpatory evidence can eliminate probable cause and that officials who fabricate or suppress evidence cannot shift blame to prosecutors or magistrates.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In Graves v. Mazda Motor Corp., Oklahoma residents sued a Japanese car manufacturer in federal court after the wife was injured in a car accident in Mississippi while driving a rental Mazda 6, asserting strict products liability and negligence claims based on an alleged design defect. The defendant moved to determine applicable law, and the court had to decide whether Oklahoma or Mississippi substantive law governed the case under Oklahoma's choice-of-law rules. Applying the most-significant-relationship test from Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 as adopted in Brickner v. Gooden, the court weighed contacts including the place of injury (Mississippi), the place where the parties' relationship was centered (the car rental in Mississippi), the parties' domiciles (Oklahoma plaintiffs and Japanese defendant), and the location of the alleged conduct (neither state). The court concluded that Mississippi had the most significant relationship to the occurrence and parties, so Mississippi law applies.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns various motions in a civil dispute involving claims such as fraud, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract among business entities, including an interpleader action over funds, with one party (Jet Network, L.L.C.) in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The court denied a motion by Jet Network, Inc. and Stuart L. Cauff to expand the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) to cover claims against the non-debtor movants. The court reasoned that the stay applies only to actions against the debtor itself and that theories like alter ego or joint venture liability do not create the identity of interest needed for an exception, as any judgment against the movants would not automatically constitute a judgment against the debtor. The opinion then addresses three pending motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims and cross-claims.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of supplemental security income benefits to a plaintiff alleging disability from a spinal cord tumor beginning in September 2003. The administrative law judge issued a partially favorable decision finding disability only for a closed period ending in September 2004, and the Appeals Council made that the final decision. The magistrate judge recommended reversal and remand, finding that the ALJ failed to make the required findings at all three phases of step four in the sequential evaluation process regarding the plaintiff's past relevant work and residual functional capacity, and that those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The district court adopted the recommendation in full, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings.

healthcare

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford against its insured, NWM-Oklahoma, LLC, a weight-loss company. The insurer sought a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured in an underlying lawsuit alleging violations of federal wiretap law, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful discharge arising from secret recordings of customer and employee conversations. The court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the claims did not fall within the policy’s coverage for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. The court reasoned that the alleged emotional distress did not constitute bodily injury under Oklahoma law, the recordings did not involve an invasion of real property rights, and coverage was barred by the policy’s exclusion for willful violations of penal statutes.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a proposed class action by three plaintiffs against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife Securities, Inc., alleging that MetLife made material omissions about its conflicts of interest when selling its proprietary mutual funds, term life insurance, and other financial products. The four counts asserted federal securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, violations of the Investment Advisers Act, consumer protection and deceptive trade practices claims under the laws of 42 states, and a violation of the Oklahoma Insurance Code. The court addressed MetLife's motion to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, which also raised a facial challenge to standing under Rule 12(b)(1). It dismissed the Missouri and Oklahoma state-law claims for failure to state a claim while rejecting choice-of-law arguments at this stage and declining to defer standing determinations until after class certification.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case challenged Oklahoma laws, including a 2000 constitutional amendment, that permitted in-state wineries to sell directly to consumers while imposing a three-tier distribution system on out-of-state wineries. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Granholm v. Heald, the court previously ruled these laws unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and stayed its judgment to allow legislative action. When the Oklahoma Legislature failed to enact any corrective measures by the deadline, the court lifted the stay. It declared the laws void, judicially struck the in-state exception to restore uniformity in the regulatory scheme, and enjoined state officials from enforcing the discriminatory provisions.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a university professor who alleged that his personal laptop was improperly seized from his office without a warrant after reports of child pornography linked to him, bringing a state-law conversion claim against the Board of Regents and a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment against three individual administrators in their personal capacities. The court considered only the qualified immunity defense to the § 1983 claim and granted summary judgment to the defendants. It reasoned that the seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment's special needs exception applicable to public workplace investigations, especially in light of the reported policy violations and potential criminal activity, and that the law did not clearly establish any violation at the time of the events in 2002.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerned a challenge by Oklahoma liquor wholesalers to state constitutional and statutory provisions that permitted in-state wineries to ship wine directly to retailers and restaurants but required out-of-state wineries to sell only through licensed wholesalers. The plaintiffs argued that these laws violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Granholm v. Heald. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding the provisions unconstitutional because they treated in-state and out-of-state wineries differently without justification under the Commerce Clause. The decision emphasized that the three-tier distribution system could not include such discriminatory exceptions for local producers. The court deferred entry of a final injunction to allow the state time to enact a remedy.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Oklahoma liquor wholesalers suing the state's Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission, seeking a declaration that Oklahoma constitutional and statutory provisions granting preferences to in-state wineries violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, following the Supreme Court's decision in Granholm v. Heald, and requesting an injunction against enforcement of those provisions. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing under Article III. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged concrete economic injuries in fact, such as lost revenue from direct sales by in-state wineries and competitive disadvantages, which were traceable to the challenged laws and redressable by a favorable ruling.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case is a products liability, negligence, and failure-to-warn action brought by the survivors of Charles David Thornton against T & W Tire, L.P. after a recapped tire allegedly separated from a truck, causing the Thorntons' vehicle to roll over on an Arkansas interstate, killing Mr. Thornton and injuring his wife. The suit was first filed in Arkansas federal court against a John Doe defendant, T & W was added more than two years after the accident, that action was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs refiled in Oklahoma federal court within three years of the accident. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court determined that Arkansas has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and parties, so Arkansas law governs accrual, while Oklahoma's borrowing statute (12 O.S. § 105) determines which limitations period applies, and it analyzed whether the claims were timely filed under the longer of the two states' periods.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, physician Clark Ward and his professional corporation sued HealthSouth Corporation and its subsidiary over the 2000 purchase of a medical imaging center (MICO) and a related radiology services agreement, alleging fraud and breach of contract based on oral and written promises to upgrade equipment such as an MRI scanner. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court denied summary judgment on the fraud claim and the breach-of-contract claim arising from the oral promise to purchase new equipment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed when evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, including deposition testimony and internal analyses referencing equipment upgrades. It likewise denied summary judgment on the related set-off claim but granted the motion on other aspects of the contract claims. The decision applied the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) that summary judgment is inappropriate where sufficient evidence could support a jury verdict for the non-moving party.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned the Comanche Nation's challenge to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' approval and transfer of a 0.53-acre parcel of trust land (Comanche Allotment 2329, part of the former KCA Reservation) to the Fort Sill Apache Tribe for class III gaming, without providing the Comanche Nation notice or an opportunity to object as required under treaties, the Jerome Agreement, and IGRA. The court considered the defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (after previously issuing a temporary restraining order against publication of the gaming compact approval), ultimately analyzing whether the Comanche Nation received constitutionally adequate notice of the 1999 transfer decision. The core reasoning focused on the Comanche Nation's protectable interest in the land stemming from historical treaty rights and consent requirements, the BIA's failure to notify the tribe of the final agency decision before recording the deed, and due process principles from Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. requiring notice before depriving a known party of a property interest.

federal powerpropertyprocedure