District Court, W.D. Oklahoma — appointed by Gerald Ford
Rocking Chair Enterprises, L.L.C. v. MacErich SCG Ltd. Partnership
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2005-12-27 · cited 4×
This case concerns a copyright infringement claim by Rocking Chair Enterprises against MacErich SCG Ltd. Partnership and other defendants for allegedly using the melody of its song "Baby-Shaped Hole in My Heart" without permission as a theme song for a children's club at a shopping mall and in associated television commercials. The defendants sought partial summary judgment solely on damages issues. The court granted summary judgment to limit recoverable damages to infringements occurring within the three-year statute of limitations before the April 2004 filing date, to allow only one set of statutory damages for the single copyrighted work involved, and to bar recovery of indirect profits as too speculative due to insufficient evidence of causation between the song's use and any mall revenue increases. It denied summary judgment on enhanced damages because factual disputes existed regarding whether any infringement was willful. The reasoning applied the Copyright Act's provisions on limitations periods and statutory damages, along with precedent requiring a direct causal link for profit-based recovery.
business & regulatoryproperty
Equal Employment Commission v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2005-12-08 · cited 3×
The case involved the EEOC suing Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway on behalf of applicant Thomas Freeman, claiming the company violated the ADA by withdrawing a conditional offer for a Conductor Trainee position after regarding Freeman as disabled due to weakness and reduced grip strength in his left arm from a prior injury. Burlington moved for summary judgment, arguing that its determination was limited to Freeman's inability to perform one essential function of train service jobs—holding onto the exterior of a moving train—and did not extend to a broad class of positions. The court granted the motion, holding that the EEOC could not establish the required element that Burlington regarded Freeman as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, because the undisputed facts showed he remained qualified for numerous other jobs outside the narrow train service category.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Wicker Ex Rel. Estate of Wicker v. Ford Motor Co.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2005-07-01 · cited 3×
The case involved a products liability claim by the estate of Brent Wicker against Ford Motor Company after Wicker died from thermal burns when the 1952 Ford 8N tractor he was operating flipped over during an attempt to remove a fence post by 'high hitching' a chain above the rear axle. The plaintiff alleged the tractor was unreasonably dangerous due to instability and lack of a roll-over protection system (ROPS), along with failures to warn about rollover risks, improper towing, and the need for ROPS, as well as a failure to retrofit or provide post-sale warnings. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiff could not establish the essential elements of a manufacturer's products liability claim under Oklahoma law. The reasoning was that ROPS did not exist when the tractor was manufactured in 1952 and Ford had no post-sale duty to retrofit decades-old tractors; the absence of ROPS was not a hidden danger; and even if defective, the plaintiff failed to show causation because the death resulted from burns and the fire could have occurred regardless of ROPS.
torts & liability
Spine Surgery, Inc. Ex Rel. Odor v. SANDS BROS.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2005-03-10 · cited 4×
This case involved motions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award arising from claims by Spine Surgery, Inc. and Jim Odor against Sands Brothers entities and individuals for inappropriate investments, breach of fiduciary duty, and related statutory violations. The arbitration panel awarded the claimants $261,000 plus attorneys' fees and costs after a multi-day hearing with evidence and witness testimony. The court denied the defendants' motion to vacate and granted the plaintiffs' motion to confirm, applying the narrow standard of review under the Federal Arbitration Act and Tenth Circuit precedent, which permits vacatur only for corruption, fraud, arbitrator misconduct, exceeding powers, or manifest disregard of the law. Defendants' arguments regarding excluded evidence on a ratification defense and other alleged errors did not meet this high threshold, as courts must give extreme deference to arbitration outcomes and cannot second-guess factual findings or legal interpretations.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Charles MacHine Works, Inc. v. Digital Control Inc.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2003-04-21
The case involved a declaratory judgment action by Charles Machine Works, Inc. (CMW) against Digital Control Inc. (DCI) seeking a ruling that twelve of DCI's patents relating to horizontal directional drilling equipment were invalid or not infringed by CMW's products. DCI moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that no actual controversy existed to support jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act and that the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction even if it existed. The court granted the motion after reviewing affidavits and documents, finding that CMW failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence an objectively reasonable apprehension of an infringement suit based on DCI's conduct toward CMW or its customers, and separately exercising its discretion not to hear the claim.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Keenan v. Barnhart
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2003-02-28 · cited 1×
This case involves judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of a plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits, where she alleged disability due to back problems, arthritis, and related conditions. The Commissioner moved to remand the matter for further administrative proceedings to update the record and apply current medical criteria, and the plaintiff objected, arguing that the former Listing § 9.09 on obesity should govern her claim without retroactive deletion and that benefits should be awarded outright. The magistrate judge recommended granting the remand, finding that the record needed supplementation and that the SSA's deletion of the listing applied retroactively under agency authority and relevant case law such as Landgraf v. USI Film Products. The district court conducted de novo review, adopted the recommendation in full, and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) without directing an award of benefits, as entitlement was not clearly established.
federal powerprocedurehealthcare