Terence C. Kern

The case concerns whether a health insurance plan offered through St. John Medical Center qualifies as an ERISA-governed welfare benefit plan or instead constitutes an exempt "church plan" under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33). Plaintiff sued in Oklahoma state court alleging bad faith breach of the insurance contract and moved to remand after the defendant removed the case to federal court on the basis of ERISA preemption. The court denied the motion to remand without prejudice, finding that the plan has been administered in accordance with ERISA requirements since 1975 and that the sponsoring religious order does not exercise sufficient ongoing control to satisfy the church-plan exemption, but it permitted the plaintiff to conduct limited discovery on governance and control issues before filing a second remand motion by June 13, 2011.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryreligious libertyprocedure

The case concerned a class action brought by the daughter and estate administrator of a deceased Medicaid recipient against Unified Life Insurance Company, alleging that a dental insurance policy sold directly to nursing home residents violated Oklahoma Administrative Code provisions governing Medicaid-covered services. The plaintiff claimed the policy was illegal and void because it was not purchased by the nursing facility from its daily rate, featured co-pays and caps, and duplicated services already provided free under Medicaid, supporting claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, and unfair practices under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. Unified moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of a private right of action under the regulations, receipt of the bargained-for performance, improper conversion claim for money, and exemption from the OCPA. The court applied the Twombly plausibility standard, rejected the private-right-of-action defense, and analyzed whether the claims could proceed based on the alleged regulatory violations and the nature of the payments made.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves Rick Bjorklund's termination as President and CEO of the Tulsa County Fairgrounds by the trustees of the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority after disputes over handling rent payments and inspections for the Big Splash Water Park tenant. Bjorklund claimed he received an instruction to keep issues "off the radar," later disclosed details to the media, and was fired following public accusations that he lied about the events and his actions. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on claims including deprivation of a liberty interest without due process, focusing on the need for a name-clearing hearing and whether the plaintiff adequately requested one prior to suit under applicable precedents. The analysis examined the factual timeline of meetings, media articles, executive sessions, and the trustees' unanimous termination vote, while applying due process standards for public employees.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a former employee's claim under ERISA that the company administering its 401(k) plan breached fiduciary duties when her investment direction form was not forwarded to the plan trustee, resulting in her account being placed in a default fund and suffering approximately $100,000 in losses. The plaintiff had completed forms electing investment in a stable value fund and delivered them to a company manager designated to collect such documents, but the enrollment form was filed internally rather than transmitted. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff against the company on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding that the company had a duty to ensure proper handling and forwarding of participant investment instructions as part of its fiduciary responsibilities. It dismissed claims against individual officers and the plan itself, holding that only the company as plan administrator owed and breached the duty in this instance.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Marilyn Barnes, a long-time employee at Occidental Petroleum Corporation, was terminated after a recorded conversation in which she made derogatory and racially charged remarks about a colleague was left on the colleague's voicemail and reported to management. Barnes sued the company alleging age discrimination under the ADEA, race and association discrimination under Title VII, and related state-law claims. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Barnes failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or show that the company's stated reason for termination—her inappropriate comments—was pretextual. The decision rested on the absence of evidence that age, race, or any other protected characteristic played a role in the termination, which occurred immediately after the company's investigation of the incident.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which former employees alleged that AHS Tulsa Regional Medical Center submitted false Medicaid claims for inpatient psychiatric services provided to minors in its behavioral health unit from 2003 to 2005. The relators claimed that various practices, including the use of unlicensed staff and incomplete care plans, violated federal and state "active treatment" regulations. The court denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether false claims were submitted. The core reasoning was that the relevant regulations constituted conditions of payment rather than mere conditions of participation, such that violations could support FCA liability if they affected the government's payment decisions.

healthcarecriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In Walker v. Progressive Direct Insurance, the plaintiffs sued their insurer for bad faith after Progressive investigated their claim for a stolen 2003 Chevrolet Tahoe under a comprehensive policy, citing red flags such as the vehicle being listed for sale, an uncompromised ignition column, and the insureds retaining all keys. Progressive referred the matter to its special investigations unit, requested original vacation receipts and questioned the authenticity of provided photos, and ultimately concluded there was no evidence the plaintiffs were involved in the theft, though it had earlier communicated under a reservation of rights. The court granted Progressive's motion for summary judgment on the bad faith claim. It reasoned that an insurer's investigation need only be reasonable, not perfect, that Progressive's handling of the third key and photographs met this standard, and that the plaintiffs failed to show any damages from the alleged unreasonable conduct.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Larry Hausler sued defendant for breach of contract and indemnification, alleging that defendant failed to assume liabilities under an agreement for the sale of Burger King franchise interests and thus should cover additional lease payments plaintiff was forced to make to Networks XIX after a default by HMF. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss based on claim preclusion. The core reasoning was that the new claim involved the same contract and parties as the prior lawsuit (05-CV-289) in which plaintiff had already obtained a judgment, the claim had accrued by 2005 when demands were made and could have been included in the earlier action, and all elements of claim preclusion were satisfied including identity of subject matter and a final judgment on the merits.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a 1943 Declaration of Taking by the United States for a perpetual flowage easement on property now owned by Valley View Development, Inc., in connection with the Grand River Dam Project under the Declaration of Taking Act. Valley View challenged the easement's scope, including its application to elevations above the flood control pool and related counterclaims involving fill material, while the government moved to dismiss the claim as untimely and sought partial summary judgment. The court outlined the statutory requirements for a valid taking, noted that the extent of the property interest is fixed by the declaration of taking and not subject to judicial modification, and explained that the judiciary's role is confined to determining just compensation. It also addressed pending Daubert motions on expert testimony regarding the meaning of elevation terms in the easement language and indicated that trial evidence would be needed to resolve interpretive issues.

propertyfederal power

The case arose from garnishment and declaratory judgment actions following a state-court tort judgment against insureds CVSS and Dr. Cohlmia for negligence and intentional interference with business relationships, resulting in a $5 million award to plaintiff Yousuf. ANPAC had issued general commercial liability policies but refused to defend the suit or contribute to defense costs, while PLICO provided a defense under reservation of rights and later sought contribution. The court granted in part the motions for summary judgment, holding that ANPAC owed a duty to defend the negligence claim because it potentially fell within policy coverage for bodily injury, that ANPAC must reimburse PLICO for a portion of defense costs attributable to that claim, and that PLICO was not entitled to full reimbursement or equitable contribution given differences in policy scope.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute over benefits under a Cancer and Dread Disease Insurance Policy issued to the plaintiff's former husband, under which she was an insured, after her 2004 breast cancer diagnosis and related chemotherapy. The plaintiff submitted claims for the drugs Neupogen and Neulasta, which the defendants denied as not covered, prompting claims for breach of contract and bad faith (with negligence dismissed). On summary judgment motions by the defendants, the court interpreted the policy terms regarding chemotherapy administration and related drugs, concluding that the language covers the supportive medications as integral to safe and effective treatment based on the policy's plain meaning and similar judicial interpretations. The court addressed the contract interpretation as a matter of law, noted remaining issues on damages, and resolved related matters such as bad faith and veil-piercing allegations.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves a dispute over claims under a cancer insurance policy, where plaintiff Terri Tomlinson sued multiple insurance companies for breach of contract, bad faith, and negligence, also seeking to pierce the corporate veil and treat the defendants as alter egos. The court had previously ruled that veil-piercing claims would be governed by the law of each defendant's state of incorporation rather than Oklahoma law. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, arguing that applying Texas and Colorado law would violate Oklahoma public policy due to stricter standards for veil piercing and citing exceptions under the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws. The court denied the motion, holding there was no clear error or manifest injustice, as Oklahoma courts follow the Restatement, the majority of jurisdictions apply the incorporation state's law to such claims, and no special circumstances justified an exception under §306 or a public policy override.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff sued defendant insurer in Oklahoma state court for breach of contract, bad faith denial of an uninsured motorist claim, and punitive damages, seeking over $10,000. Defendant removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, but plaintiff moved to remand. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that defendant failed to meet its burden under Tenth Circuit precedent by proving jurisdictional facts showing it was possible that more than $75,000 was at stake; defendant established only a $25,000 contract exposure and provided no reasonable estimate or evidence for the bad faith or punitive claims. The opinion explains that removal requires the defendant to affirmatively establish the amount in controversy through the petition, other documentation, or summary-judgment-type evidence, with any doubts resolved against federal jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

Plaintiff Jerry Lee Vandagriff sued two IRS employees in state court, seeking to invalidate a Notice of Federal Tax Lien on his property on grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment, was not derived from a trial or state court judgment, and deprived him of property without due process. The United States removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity barred the suit. The court held that the claims were effectively against the United States because the employees acted in their official capacities when filing the lien, making removal proper and the real party in interest the federal government. It granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), finding that the limited waiver of sovereign immunity in 28 U.S.C. § 2410 applies only to procedural irregularities in lien establishment, not to challenges to the government's underlying authority to assess or collect taxes via liens. The court denied the plaintiff's motions to remand and for sanctions.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

The case concerns a federal lawsuit brought by the law firm Crowe & Dunlevy against a judge of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court. Crowe, which had represented the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town in an internal tribal leadership dispute filed in Muscogee courts, challenged a tribal court order directing the firm to repay over $371,000 in attorneys' fees to the Tribe's treasury. The federal district court considered the firm's motion for a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of that order and the tribal judge's motion to dismiss, focusing on questions of tribal sovereign immunity, jurisdiction over non-members, and the availability of prospective injunctive relief under the Ex Parte Young doctrine.

federal powerprocedure

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by state inmate Andre Lasuan Marshall challenging his Oklahoma convictions for Assault With a Dangerous Weapon, Shooting With Intent to Kill, Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction, and Entering a Building With Unlawful Intent, which arose from a 2001 incident in which he allegedly fired at police officers during a traffic stop and vehicle search. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed two counts but affirmed the others; post-conviction claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise issues like ineffective trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were denied by state courts. The federal district court denied the petition, holding that the unexhausted ineffective assistance claims were procedurally barred and that the remaining claims lacked merit because appellate counsel was not deficient in omitting non-meritorious arguments under Strickland v. Washington. The court also rejected any challenge to the state courts' adjudication as an unreasonable application of federal law.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves AllTech Communications suing its former COO Robert Brothers and competitor TowerWorx for breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, patent infringement, and related claims arising from Brothers' move to TowerWorx while remaining an AllTech owner. Brothers filed counterclaims against AllTech seeking a declaratory judgment on the patent's validity and an accounting of distributions, plus third-party claims against AllTech's principals for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment related to ownership interests and financial records. The court granted the principals' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, denied Brothers leave to amend his counterclaim, and granted leave to amend the answer. Dismissal was based on the third-party claims failing to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) requirements for derivative liability, while the proposed amended counterclaim was deemed futile under Rule 13(h) because it targeted only non-parties without also asserting claims against existing parties.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Dayton, the defendant faced federal charges for distributing and possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 and moved to suppress oral and written statements made to FBI agents during execution of a search warrant at his home, arguing that the statements were obtained without Miranda warnings in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion to suppress. The core reasoning was that the questioning occurred in a non-custodial setting, as a reasonable person in the defendant's position would not have believed his freedom was restricted to the degree associated with formal arrest: the atmosphere was calm and cooperative in the defendant's own home, other family members were nearby, the questioning was not coercive or accusatory, and officers had not yet decided to arrest based on the evidence found.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Babb v. Eagleton, a divorced father sued his ex-wife, her new husband, her divorce attorney, the attorney's law firm, and the court-appointed parenting coordinator, alleging violations of the federal wiretap statute (Title III) based on the ex-wife's recording of his telephone conversations with their minor children and the subsequent use and disclosure of those recordings by the defendants in ongoing custody proceedings. The court previously denied motions to dismiss by the parents, ruling that parental immunity did not apply and that the pleadings precluded dismissal under the extension-phone or consent exceptions, and denied the attorney and firm's motion to dismiss, rejecting a state-law litigation privilege defense. On the remaining motions for summary judgment, the court addressed discovery limits stemming from the parenting coordinator's appointment order, state-court rulings denying further discovery, and whether the attorney's receipt and use of the recordings during a custody hearing constituted prohibited conduct under the statute, while deferring final resolution on certain arguments.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In this case, Accounting Principals, Inc. sued Manpower, Inc. and IBM alleging tortious interference with contractual and business relations, along with breach of a staffing agreement, all arising from efforts to solicit API employees working at IBM. The court considered API's motion to disqualify the law firm Crowe & Dunlevy from representing Manpower, noting that the firm had previously represented API in a 2005 lawsuit against a different competitor involving similar claims of improper employee solicitation. The court granted the motion under Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(a) and 1.10(a), concluding that the two matters were substantially related and that an irrebuttable presumption existed that confidential information from the prior representation would be shared within the firm. Disqualification was ordered to protect API's confidential information and maintain fairness in the litigation, with Manpower directed to obtain new counsel.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory