David Lynn Russell

This case involved cross-motions for summary judgment over the interpretation of benefits under a cancer insurance policy's radiation and chemotherapy provisions, which referred to reimbursement based on "actual charges" or "actual expenses." The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 3651 applies to the policy and defines those terms as the amounts actually accepted by providers as full payment, thereby limiting the benefits owed. The core reasoning rested on principles of statutory construction finding no conflict or improper retroactive effect that would impair the contract, along with the absence of bad faith by the insurers in applying the statute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves multiple plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, particularly its minimum coverage provision, on grounds including lack of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause and taxing powers, violation of the Tenth Amendment, infringement on religious freedoms and conscience regarding abortion funding, denial of equal protection, due process violations, and Fourth Amendment privacy concerns over medical information disclosure. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims for lack of standing and ripeness. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint but dismissed the Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Claims for all plaintiffs due to failure to allege sufficient injury for standing. It also dismissed the First, Second, Third, and Sixth Claims for plaintiffs with existing health insurance on standing and ripeness grounds, while denying dismissal of those same claims for three uninsured plaintiffs who sufficiently alleged imminent injury and a direct current impact from the Act.

healthcarefederal powerreligious libertycivil rights

The case involved a career teacher suing her school district and officials after her contract was not renewed for the 2009-10 school year, asserting federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of substantive and procedural due process as well as state claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. It reasoned that the district followed required procedures under Oklahoma law through multiple evaluations, professional improvement plans, written recommendations, and hearings, that the plaintiff received adequate process and showed no protected property interest violation, and that she presented insufficient evidence to support the state law claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case is a federal habeas petition by Gregory Thompson challenging his Oklahoma conviction for first-degree felony murder arising from an attempted armed robbery during which the victim was killed. The district court reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, considered the petitioner's objections focused on evidentiary sufficiency, and denied relief. The court held that the state court's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia, as the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, permitted a rational jury to find that Thompson aided and abetted the underlying felony and that the death resulted from it. The opinion clarified that Oklahoma felony-murder law requires proof of intent to commit the predicate felony but not specific intent to cause death.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which the relator alleged that Red River Service Corporation and related defendants submitted false or fraudulent invoices to the government for work that was not performed, was performed by others, or was improperly billed as separate charges rather than included in original contract scopes. The court denied the motion to dismiss the FCA claims, finding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state plausible claims under Twombly and Rule 9(b), including specific examples of misbilling for labor, equipment, and contract modifications. However, the court granted dismissal of the anti-retaliation claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) because the relator did not allege that defendants knew of his investigation or reports to federal authorities. The court also dismissed claims against certain individual defendants for lack of allegations but denied dismissal of the state-law claims, as supplemental jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Moser, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss a criminal complaint, claiming inadequate time to respond to the government's psychiatric evaluation motion, a Speedy Trial Act violation from the failure to indict within 30 days, and the absence of a probable cause or detention hearing despite over six months of detention. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying dismissal. The court reasoned that defense counsel had declined additional preparation time with no shown prejudice, the Speedy Trial clock was tolled by competency proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A), competency motions may be filed at any time and suspend proceedings, and the arrest warrant already provided the required probable cause determination.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Monica Linville, an Ecuadorian citizen, and her husband Paul Linville, who filed suit seeking to compel USCIS, the FBI, and DHS to adjudicate her pending I-485 application for adjustment of status based on an approved I-130 petition. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion, concluding that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the APA because immigration officials have a nondiscretionary duty to process and decide such applications within a reasonable time, even though the ultimate grant or denial is discretionary. The court applied APA standards for unreasonable delay and found that defendants had not provided enough information to show the delay was reasonable as a matter of law.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

The Sac and Fox Nation sued the Secretary of the Interior seeking a declaratory judgment that proposed amendments to the tribe's constitution had been approved by operation of law under 25 U.S.C. § 476 because the Secretary failed to act within 45 days after a tribal election, along with an injunction against any contrary ruling. The Secretary moved for summary judgment, contending the court lacked jurisdiction under the Indian Reorganization Act, the tribe had not exhausted administrative remedies regarding election protests, abstention was warranted, or the claims were moot because approval had already occurred. The court examined whether the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 503, allowed the Sac and Fox Nation to invoke the IRA's election and approval provisions and associated judicial enforcement rights despite 25 U.S.C. § 473, and determined that the tribe possessed a statutory right to seek enforcement in federal district court regardless of its participation in the pending administrative protest process.

federal powerprocedure

This case involves the United States seeking to reduce unpaid federal income tax assessments against Glenn Stinson to judgment, set aside allegedly fraudulent property transfers to trusts, declare those trusts as Stinson's nominees or alter egos, and foreclose tax liens on the property. Defendant Stinson filed motions to dismiss or quash the case, arguing lack of jurisdiction, improper assessments, and various procedural irregularities, supported by an affidavit claiming no taxable income. The court denied the defendant's motions, holding that it has jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7403, the motions were untimely or failed to show no material facts, and the government's evidence of assessments was unrebutted. The court granted summary judgment to the government on the tax liabilities and related claims.

taxesfederal powerpropertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs consisting of the estate of Alfred D. Goldman and related trusts seeking refunds of federal income taxes paid for 1990-1992, based on their failure to deduct legal and accounting fees incurred by Primeo Management Company in connection with a state-court lawsuit between Alfred and Monte Goldman over control and accounting of family business entities and assets. The IRS had disallowed the deductions, leading to the refund claims. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment after stipulations of facts, examining whether the fees qualified as deductible ordinary business expenses, the proper characterization of the refund claims, and potential jurisdictional issues that could be cured by amendment or related filings.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit by plaintiff Minnie Mae Luttrell, a hospital nurse, against the United States after she was injured when a federal inmate in custody at Park View Hospital bit her thumb while she attempted to administer medication. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the discretionary function exception to the FTCA applied to the Bureau of Prisons' decisions regarding the number of staff escorts for the inmate. The court reasoned that Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5538.04 granted the warden discretion over escort staffing levels without a mandatory directive for additional personnel, and such decisions are presumed to involve policy considerations under Berkovitz and Gaubert. Alternatively, the court found no breach of duty by BOP personnel even if jurisdiction existed, as the evidence showed the inmate's escorts complied with orders and the decision not to transfer the inmate was made by the attending physician rather than prison staff.

criminal lawfederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the University of Oklahoma seeking recovery on two defaulted educational loans to Marek Greer (one Lew Wentz Foundation note cosigned by Eldon Greer and one Federal Perkins loan), after the defendants tendered checks marked as payment in full that omitted required collection costs. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding the unpaid principal and interest plus reasonable collection costs and attorney's fees. The decision rested on the defendants' admissions to the loan terms and balances, explicit provisions in both notes authorizing fees and costs, federal regulations under 34 C.F.R. § 674.45 permitting reasonable collection expenses, and the absence of any valid estoppel defense against the state university.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a former student's claims against a school district employee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX arising from alleged incidents in 1997 or 1998. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the claims were barred by Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. The court held that both the § 1983 and Title IX claims are subject to that two-year limit, which the Tenth Circuit has applied to analogous federal civil rights statutes, rather than a separate limitations period for childhood sexual abuse claims. Because the plaintiff reached age eighteen in November 1999 and did not file suit until June 2001, more than one year after the disability of minority was removed under the applicable tolling statute, the claims were time-barred and summary judgment was granted.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved claims under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA) by third-party plaintiffs against third-party defendants who acted as debt collectors and attorneys seeking to recover past-due student loans owed to the University of Oklahoma. The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on the OCPA claims, ruling that the statute does not apply to third-party debt collectors or attorneys who were not parties to the underlying consumer transaction that created the debt. The decision rested on the language of the OCPA and prior unpublished district court orders reaching the same conclusion, while noting the absence of controlling Oklahoma Supreme Court precedent. The court denied the defendants' request for sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and declined to certify questions of law to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

business & regulatory

The case concerned defendants' motion to dismiss a complaint by Bank of America for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the national bank was a citizen of Oklahoma due to its numerous branches there under 28 U.S.C. § 1348, which would destroy diversity, and that a forum selection clause required suit in Oklahoma state courts. The court denied the motion, ruling that the bank is a citizen only of North Carolina (its principal place of business and the state in its organization certificate) for diversity purposes, creating complete diversity with the Oklahoma defendants. The court reasoned that the term "located" in § 1348 refers only to those two locations, following the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in Firstar Bank and similar district court decisions, as Congress would have used different language if intending citizenship in every state with a branch; this aligns with pre-1992 uniform case law. The forum selection clause was held permissive, not mandatory, and thus did not bar federal jurisdiction.

procedure

In Nunley v. Pioneer Pleasant Vale School District 56, the plaintiff brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX against the school district, alleging that former teacher and coach John Kerr repeatedly raped, sexually abused, and assaulted her as a minor. Kerr moved to intervene as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), arguing that the outcome could impair his employment prospects and reputation. The court granted the motion, determining that Kerr has a direct interest in the underlying transactions, that disposition of the case could practically impair his ability to protect that interest, and that the school district defendants might not adequately represent him because they could prevail without disproving the specific allegations against Kerr. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim that the intervention motion was primarily a tactic to obtain civil discovery for use in a related state criminal prosecution.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

The case involved non-minority construction companies challenging Oklahoma's Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Act, which provided a five percent bid preference to certified minority-owned businesses on state contracts. The plaintiffs argued that this racial preference violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court applied strict scrutiny, examined evidence of past discrimination in state contracting, and found it insufficient for most minority groups while also concluding that the program was not narrowly tailored. As a result, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and declared the Act unconstitutional.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case involved students at Tecumseh High School challenging the school district's policy requiring suspicionless drug testing for participants in extracurricular activities, including non-athletic ones like band, choir, and academic teams, as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the policy's application to competitive non-sports activities. The court analyzed the policy under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standards, finding that the school context presented special needs justifying warrantless, suspicionless testing, even without evidence of a severe drug problem. It concluded that students in extracurriculars had reduced privacy expectations and that the testing procedures adequately protected confidentiality, leading to summary judgment upholding the policy as constitutional.

civil rights

In Leonard v. Filkins, the plaintiff filed a small claims action in Oklahoma state court seeking to enforce an attorney's fee lien under state law against a defendant and a retirement plan administrator for fees from a prior divorce case. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction on the ground that ERISA completely preempted the state claim because it involved recovery of benefits from an ERISA-governed plan. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the well-pleaded complaint rule barred removal since the complaint alleged only a state-law claim, and that the complete preemption doctrine did not apply because the defendants had not shown that the claim fell within ERISA's civil enforcement provisions or could be replaced by a federal cause of action.

procedurefederal power

In Marshall v. American Federation of Government Employees, the plaintiff, a union member, alleged that the defendants violated his free speech rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) by bringing internal disciplinary charges against him in retaliation for his opposition to the union president and his candidacy for office, and that he was denied a full and fair hearing under the statute. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the union's rules were reasonable, that the disciplinary process complied with LMRDA requirements including an unbiased tribunal and some evidence of misconduct, and that related claims like defamation were time-barred or lacked publication. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to show the constitutional provisions were unreasonable, that evidence supported the discipline, and that the hearing process did not present a significant risk of bias distinguishable from precedent cases like Wildberger. The court noted that the investigation stemmed from local officers' requests and that the trial committee selection and proceedings met legal standards without actual bias.

labor & employmentfree speech