Timothy D. Leonard

In this case, plaintiff Rochelle Converse, a longtime employee of the Oklahoma City School District, alleged that her lateral transfer from Executive Director of Student Performance to Executive Director of School and Community Services was retaliation for her complaints about an officer's use of force on an African-American student and related speech, along with claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the Equal Pay Act, and state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress against the District and individual defendants. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the plaintiff's speech occurred pursuant to her official duties and thus was not protected by the First Amendment, that she failed to show causation or a materially adverse action for her § 1981 claim, that the Equal Pay Act claims lacked evidentiary support, and that she could not establish the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves the family of Kenneth Trentadue, an inmate who died in federal custody in 1995, suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the government's failure to disclose the extent of his injuries or the performance of an autopsy. The district court had previously ruled for the plaintiffs and awarded damages, a decision affirmed in part on appeal, and this order addresses a second remand from the Tenth Circuit limited to making individualized findings on whether each plaintiff's emotional distress was severe under Oklahoma law. The court outlines the four elements of the tort, notes that the first three were already established, and emphasizes that severity must be assessed separately for each family member given their different vantage points, such as directly viewing the body versus receiving oral reports, while considering factors like the intensity and duration of distress and the outrageousness of the conduct. The opinion sets forth the legal standard that distress must be so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawfederal power

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Little Giant Pump Company, assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,322,326 for a modular condensate pump assembly, sued Diversitech Corporation after the latter began selling its own competing pump assembly. The patent claims require a support plate and pump assembly that are 'removably supported' by the collection tank and each other. Diversitech moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, arguing that its device uses permanent rivets rather than removable fasteners. The court construed 'removably supported' according to its ordinary meaning and the patent specification, which emphasizes modularity, field serviceability, and the use of non-permanent attachments such as screws, and held that riveted components fall outside both literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Dr. Jan K. Voda against Cordis Corporation regarding three patents for angioplasty guide catheters and methods of using them. A jury found that Cordis infringed all three patents, that the relevant claims were not invalid due to anticipation or obviousness, and that the infringement was willful, awarding Voda a 7.5% reasonable royalty on gross sales. The court had previously granted prejudgment interest, enhanced damages, and attorney fees but denied injunctive relief. In this order, the court sets forth the legal standards under Rules 50 and 59 for reviewing the defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on issues including infringement, validity, willfulness, laches, and marking, as well as the motion for a new trial and other post-trial requests by both parties.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Patricia Stafford suing Wyeth for injuries from the diet drug Pondimin (fenfluramine), asserting claims of negligence, design defect, failure to warn, and misrepresentation after the drug was withdrawn from the market in 1997 amid litigation over valvular heart disease. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted Wyeth's motion for summary judgment. Under Oklahoma's learned intermediary doctrine for prescription drugs, all claims depended on showing that inadequate warnings proximately caused the injury, but the prescribing physician testified he would not have altered his decision to prescribe the drug even with full knowledge of the risks. The court found this rebutted the presumption that an adequate warning would have changed the outcome, so plaintiff could not establish proximate cause.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved the United States seeking to reduce IRS tax assessments against Tommy D. and Linda Jean Davenport for tax years 1990, 1992, and 1993 to judgment and to foreclose federal tax liens on real property transferred by the Davenports to various trusts. Following a bench trial on the remaining disputed issues, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the characterization of cancellation-of-indebtedness income as ordinary or capital, the availability of a worthless stock deduction, the Davenports' proper filing status for 1992 and 1993, and the validity of the property transfers. The reasoning relied on the Davenports' refusal to supply supporting documents or cooperate with the audit, their revocation of prior returns and powers of attorney, standard IRS procedures for substitute returns when no election is made, and the trusts' own provisions disclaiming tax liability and IRS jurisdiction.

taxesfederal powerproperty

The case concerned a defendant convicted on multiple counts of conspiracy and filing false income tax refund claims who filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the Western District of Oklahoma's jury selection system that relied on voter registration lists. After the Tenth Circuit remanded for further inquiry, the district court held evidentiary hearings to assess whether counsel's decision not to pursue a jury composition challenge was strategic and whether the underlying claim of minority underrepresentation had merit. The court found that counsel had researched the issue, concluded a challenge would likely fail, and declined to file one, while statistical evidence showed only small absolute disparities in the representation of African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans on the jury wheels. It therefore held that the jury selection process complied with the Jury Selection and Service Act and the Constitution, so the failure to raise the issue did not constitute deficient performance or prejudice.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Tin Trong Nguyen against the INS, seeking release from prolonged detention since 1996 pending deportation. The court, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation, granted the petition in part, ordering the petitioner's release on the grounds that indefinite detention violates the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process protections. The reasoning relies on Tenth Circuit precedent requiring the government to demonstrate that detention is temporary and that deportation can occur within a reasonable time, and recognizes the petitioner's fundamental liberty interest in freedom from bodily restraint. Other claims regarding denial of counsel, interpreter, and jurisdiction were denied for lack of demonstrated prejudice.

immigrationcivil rightsfederal power

This case was a medical malpractice action under the Federal Tort Claims Act brought by plaintiff Sandra Bointy-Tsotigh against the United States for negligent failure to diagnose her colorectal cancer at Anadarko Indian Health Clinic and Lawton Indian Hospital. The plaintiff had made multiple visits to the facilities over seventeen months complaining of rectal bleeding and hemorrhoids, but physicians did not perform diagnostic tests despite her family history and other risk factors; the cancer was later discovered at Stage III after it had metastasized. The court found that the cancer was present and could have been diagnosed at earlier visits, that the delay caused her to undergo chemotherapy and radiation with severe side effects, and that her five-year survival chance dropped from 95-98% to approximately 20%. Applying Oklahoma substantive tort law and the loss-of-chance doctrine, the court held the defendant liable for proximately caused damages and awarded $475,000 after reducing the $500,000 award by five percent for the plaintiff's comparative negligence.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case arose from an injury to plaintiff Vernon Ray O'Dell, whose leg was amputated after becoming caught in a flat slat conveyor at a Weyerhaeuser paper mill in Oklahoma; the conveyor had been designed and installed by defendant Sunds Defibrator, Inc. in 1982, and the suit was filed in 1994. Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, manufacturer's products liability, and breach of warranty based on alleged defects in the conveyor's design. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on whether Oklahoma's statute of repose, 12 O.S. § 109, barred the tort claims by prohibiting actions filed more than ten years after substantial completion of an improvement to real property. The court determined that the slat conveyor qualified as an improvement to real property because it was permanently attached to the mill floor by design, intended to remain in place, and integrated into the facility's structure, applying factors such as permanence and the parties' intent. As a result, the statute of repose applied, plaintiffs' motion was denied, and defendant's counter-motion was granted, dismissing the relevant claims.

torts & liabilityprocedureproperty

This case arose after plaintiff Willhite settled her claims against the driver who caused her traffic accident and then sought uninsured motorist benefits from Allstate under a policy covering four vehicles with a $25,000 per-person limit. Allstate moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the policy's anti-stacking clause barred her from aggregating coverage beyond the stated limits. The court denied the motion, holding that Oklahoma law permits stacking when an insured has paid multiple premiums and that Allstate's higher premium for additional vehicles, combined with its refusal to offer separate UM options, effectively meant the plaintiff had paid two premiums. The court therefore allowed stacking but limited it to two vehicles rather than four.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the Secretary of Labor seeking a preliminary injunction under section 13 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against Dayton Tire for alleged violations of the lockout/tagout standard at its Oklahoma City plant, which requires specific procedures and training to prevent unexpected energization of machinery during servicing. The court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing and plant inspection, finding that the Secretary had not met the statutory requirements for injunctive relief. The core reasoning was that the evidence, including testimony from OSHA compliance officers and the lack of any indication of imminent danger during prior inspections, failed to show a danger that could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm before normal enforcement procedures could address it. The court noted that past injuries were not clearly tied to the violations and that employees sometimes needed powered equipment to perform tasks.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved debtors who filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, had a confirmed plan paying Chrysler Credit Corporation the full amount of its allowed secured claim on a 1986 Dodge van at 10% interest, and later converted the case to Chapter 7. After conversion, the debtors moved to redeem the van under 11 U.S.C. § 722 by paying $0, the remaining balance on the secured claim after the Chapter 13 payments. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, and the District Court affirmed on appeal. The court held that a debtor cannot redeem collateral in a Chapter 7 case by paying only the "stripped down" lien amount obtained in a prior Chapter 13 proceeding. The reasoning relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Dewsnup v. Timm that liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected and that conversion cannot be used to achieve results unavailable in a direct Chapter 7 filing, such as installment redemption over a creditor's objection or defeating unsecured creditors' expectations.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a school superintendent whose employment was terminated by the school board after it received and investigated employee complaints about his conduct. The plaintiff sued the school district and individual board members, alleging that the hearing tribunal was biased and thereby denied him due process. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants, concluding that the facts did not show an unconstitutional risk of bias, and additionally granted qualified immunity to the individual board members because their actions, such as receiving complaints and one member's distant relation to a complainant, did not violate clearly established law. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure