This case involves third-party claims for negligence, contribution, and indemnification against Banyan Air Service, Inc., arising from the 2007 crash of a Cessna aircraft in the Bahamas due to an alleged engine fuel pump failure. The claims were brought by Covington Aircraft Engines, Inc., Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation, and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation after the plane's owner, Agape Flights, Inc., sued them over the loss of the aircraft. Banyan, a Florida-based fixed-base operator that had serviced the engine while it was rented to another customer, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that Banyan's limited contacts with Oklahoma (Covington's home state) were too attenuated and not purposefully directed at the forum to support either general or specific personal jurisdiction.
This case involves plaintiff Jonathon Alexander, a father whose parental rights were terminated by the Choctaw Nation's Court of Indian Appeals after guardians petitioned to adopt his two children while he was incarcerated. Alexander sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in federal district court to halt the adoptions and restore his rights, arguing issues with the transition from CFR courts to the Choctaw Tribal Court and lack of due process. The court dismissed the action, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The core reasoning was that the undisputed facts showed no basis for federal court intervention in the tribal court proceedings.
In this case, plaintiff Jimmy D. Eakle sought a declaratory judgment invalidating a Non-Compete Agreement (NCA) he signed as part of selling his security systems company, ACS, to defendant Grinnell Corporation for $650,000. The NCA restricted Eakle from competing in Arkansas and Oklahoma for five years and included a Delaware choice-of-law clause. The court granted summary judgment to Grinnell, holding the NCA valid and enforceable. It reasoned that Delaware law governed the agreement and did not violate Oklahoma public policy, as the restrictions were reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and business activities covered. The court rejected Eakle's arguments regarding alleged promises of continued employment or equitable grounds for invalidation.
The case involved former KBR employees Jessie Pierce and Cecil Elizondo suing the company for age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, with Elizondo also claiming national origin discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, based on their May 2002 terminations. KBR moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings under its Dispute Resolution Program (DRP), which mandates binding arbitration for employment disputes including those involving age and national origin discrimination. The court granted the motion, holding that the claims fell within the DRP's scope, the agreement was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act's policy favoring arbitration, the DRP was not illusory because amendments required at least 10 days' notice to employees, and evidence showed the plaintiffs had received notice of the DRP terms through company mailings.
This case involved a challenge by labor unions to Oklahoma's right-to-work law, enacted via voter-approved constitutional amendment in 2001, which prohibits requiring union membership, dues, or related payments as a condition of employment and bars certain union practices like exclusive hiring halls without consent. Plaintiffs argued that key provisions were preempted by federal statutes including the NLRA, LMRA, RLA, CSRA, and PRA under the Supremacy Clause, and also violated the Oklahoma Constitution. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the federal preemption claims lacked merit because the NLRA and related laws explicitly permit states to ban union-security agreements, and Supreme Court precedent such as Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co. confirms states' authority to prohibit both compulsory union membership and non-membership discrimination. The court further declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
This case is a medical negligence action in which plaintiff John Alton Woodruff alleges that substandard care at the Carl Albert Indian Health Facility and the Oklahoma City Indian Clinic (OCIC) led to the surgical removal of his bladder, and he seeks $15 million in damages. Defendant Dr. C. Thomas Covington moved to dismiss, claiming FTCA immunity as an OCIC employee or, alternatively, lack of diversity jurisdiction. The court held that OCIC, established as a temporary demonstration project under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and excluded from the Indian Self-Determination Act, is not a federal agency whose employees qualify for FTCA coverage, so Covington is not entitled to immunity. However, because the court has original FTCA jurisdiction over the Carl Albert claims and the allegations against Covington arise from the same course of treatment, supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) applies to the state-law claim against him. Covington’s motion to dismiss was therefore denied.
