Ralph Gordon Thompson

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involves a former union president's ERISA claim against the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund seeking pension benefits based on contributions made while he served as union president. The Fund denied eligibility, finding that the plaintiff had not worked the minimum required hours and that some contributions came from a non-covered employer, the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee. Applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review because the Plan granted the trustees discretionary authority to interpret its terms, the court upheld the denial as reasonable and found no conflict of interest affecting the decision. The court also rejected the plaintiff's additional claims for an accounting and restitution of the JATC contributions, concluding there was no legal basis under ERISA for such relief since the plaintiff had not personally paid those funds and alleged no ERISA violation. The court granted the defendant's summary judgment motion and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion.

labor & employment

In this products liability case, plaintiffs Dee and Don Hollander sued Sandoz Pharmaceuticals (now Novartis) claiming that the drug Parlodel caused Dee Hollander to suffer a stroke after taking it to prevent postpartum lactation. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' expert witnesses failed to provide reliable scientific evidence of causation under the Daubert standard. After a hearing, the court found the experts' opinions unreliable because their hypotheses were untested and did not adequately rule out other causes, such as the increased stroke risk postpartum. Consequently, the court excluded the expert testimony and granted summary judgment to the defendant due to lack of admissible evidence on causation.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involves Alfred Brian Mitchell's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1992 Oklahoma state court convictions for first-degree murder, robbery, larceny, rape, and forcible sodomy, along with his death sentence. The district court reviewed eighteen grounds for relief plus supplemental claims, including challenges to the competency standard, admission of statements, jury instructions, search and seizure evidence, sufficiency of evidence, and sentencing procedures. Relying on the state appellate court's factual findings and applying procedural bar rules and AEDPA deference, the court denied relief on all claims, finding that many were exhausted or defaulted in state proceedings and that the remaining constitutional claims lacked merit. The decision upholds the state court's determinations that the trial was fair and the sentence valid under federal constitutional standards.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Zeran v. Diamond Broadcasting, Inc., plaintiff Kenneth Zeran sued radio station KRXO after its morning show hosts read aloud an AOL advertisement for offensive t-shirts referencing the Oklahoma City bombing, repeatedly broadcast his business phone number, and encouraged listeners to call, resulting in increased threatening calls and alleged emotional harm. Zeran asserted claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages. The court granted the station's motion for summary judgment, holding that the broadcast was not defamatory per se and that Zeran failed to show any actual injury to his reputation or the special damages required for slander per quod. The court further found insufficient evidence that the broadcast placed Zeran in a false light or caused distress severe enough to meet the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

free speechtorts & liability

This case involved the seizure of copies of the film "The Tin Drum" from libraries, video stores, and an individual by Oklahoma City police, following a citizen complaint that it violated child pornography laws. The police obtained an oral opinion from a state judge without a hearing or written order, and removed the films without returning them. The court addressed whether this removal constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment rights. It concluded that constitutional law requires a prior adversarial hearing before such removal, and thus granted a preliminary injunction ordering the return of the films pending further proceedings on whether the film actually violates the law.

free speechcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendants charged in a 1992 indictment with criminal violations of federal banking statutes for mismanaging banks through improper nominee loans, following prior OCC administrative sanctions that included a consent order banning their banking participation and imposing monetary fines for the same transactions. The court addressed whether the criminal prosecution violated double jeopardy after the Tenth Circuit remanded for review of the fines' punitive nature. It found that the indictment and consent order addressed identical conduct, as violations of the OCC statutes necessarily encompassed the charged misapplication of bank funds under 18 U.S.C. § 656. The court further determined that the civil penalties were punitive rather than solely remedial, given their deterrent purpose and lack of connection to government losses or restitution, leading to dismissal of the indictment on double jeopardy grounds.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In Stafford v. Maynard, a state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Oklahoma County convictions for six counts of first-degree murder and resulting death sentences, asserting claims including the withholding of exculpatory evidence, improper use of posthypnotic testimony, ineffective assistance of counsel, a conflict of interest by trial counsel, and an unconstitutionally vague jury instruction on the "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" aggravating circumstance. The district court conducted a de novo review, adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations on the first four claims, and addressed the sentencing issue by examining the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' handling of the invalid aggravating factor after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Maynard v. Cartwright. The court concluded that the state appellate court's reweighing of the remaining valid aggravating factors against the mitigating evidence met constitutional standards under cases like Stringer v. Black, so no remand was required. It therefore denied the habeas petition in full and dismissed the action with prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the priority of tax liens filed by the Oklahoma Tax Commission and the Internal Revenue Service against the proceeds from the sale of a former homestead property owned by Vernon and Letha Burrus. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, determining that the federal tax liens were superior to the state tax liens. The core reasoning was that the state liens were not choate or enforceable at the time the federal liens attached because the Oklahoma homestead exemption prevented the state liens from attaching to the real property, whereas federal tax liens are not subject to that exemption. Therefore, the United States was entitled to the interpleaded funds.

taxesfederal powerproperty

In White v. York International Corp., plaintiff David L. White sued his former employer York under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Oklahoma law, claiming he was terminated due to his ankle disability after two non-work-related injuries. The court granted York's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that although there was a factual issue as to whether White had a disability, he failed to show he could perform the essential functions of his machine operator job with reasonable accommodation, as his statements were conclusory and York demonstrated no suitable positions or accommodations were available; additionally, the termination followed a neutral 12-month absentee policy.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved the IRS seeking to enforce a tax levy under 26 U.S.C. § 6332 against James Michael Morey for over $55,000 in unpaid taxes owed by attorney Raymond Burger. Morey had entered a 1986 fee agreement with Burger that liquidated prior debts and future services at $200,000 payable from an expected inheritance, but after firing Burger and litigating the claim, Morey settled with Burger's estate for $100,000 following Burger's death without honoring the IRS levy served during the lawsuit. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on whether Morey held any property or rights to property of Burger subject to the levy at the time it was served. It denied the IRS's motion, concluding that the contractual obligation was not a fixed chose in action or other leviable interest because the underlying debt remained disputed and contingent.

taxesprocedure

The case involved a Colombian permanent resident convicted of drug offenses in Texas who petitioned for a writ of mandamus to require the Immigration and Naturalization Service to hold his deportation hearing before he completed his prison sentence. The court denied the petition after reviewing the magistrate judge's recommendation. It determined that the relevant statute does not create a private right of action enforceable by mandamus, that the Attorney General has sufficient time to initiate proceedings before the petitioner's release, and that the petitioner failed to respond to the government's motion to dismiss. The court adopted the majority view among circuits that no such mandamus relief is available.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

The Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma sued the State of Oklahoma and its Governor under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to compel the State to negotiate in good faith a Tribal-State compact governing Class III gaming on tribal lands. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the suit was barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and that IGRA violated the Tenth Amendment by unconstitutionally interfering with state sovereignty. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, holding that the State had not waived or been validly stripped of its Eleventh Amendment immunity and that IGRA exceeded Congress's powers by coercing states into regulating gaming or facing federal imposition of compact terms, in violation of the Tenth Amendment's protections for state sovereignty.

federal power

This case involved two union members suing their union under 29 U.S.C. § 185 for breaching its duty of fair representation, alleging the union conspired with their employer AT&T Technologies to justify their suspensions and discharge and then mishandled their grievances, including coercing an unfavorable settlement and delaying arbitration. The court denied the union's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Holt, holding that the six-month statute of limitations began to run upon settlement of his grievance and that exhaustion of internal union remedies was not required due to the inadequacy of those procedures for obtaining back pay. Regarding plaintiff Cantrell, the court reserved final decision on summary judgment pending supplemental briefing on whether any damages claim remained after he received back pay through arbitration. The court granted summary judgment to the union on both plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress damages.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the FDIC's motion to confirm a settlement agreement reached with former directors and officers of a failed savings association in related lawsuits, seeking to bar contribution and indemnity claims against those parties in the present action against other defendants and to cap any setoff at $725,000. The court confirmed the good faith settlement, issued orders barring such claims, and specified that the setoff would not be cumulative with amounts from other actions. The court reasoned that confirmation was necessary to enable the overall settlement of claims stemming from the institution's failure, applied a pro tanto settlement bar rule to determine the effect on non-settling defendants, and found the proportionate rule inappropriate under the circumstances.

business & regulatoryprocedure