The case involved Ronald James, an employee at the Oklahoma Veterans Affairs Medical Center, who sued the Department of Veterans Affairs under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act alleging age discrimination in a promotion decision favoring a younger colleague and retaliation through a reprimand, suspension, and reassignment after complaining about discrimination. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and found that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case or pretext for the promotion and certain disciplinary actions, but determined there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the retaliatory reassignment claim, though it also addressed whether administrative remedies were exhausted for that claim.
This case involved a dispute between Bays Exploration, Inc., the operator of jointly owned oil and gas wells in Oklahoma, and PenSa, Inc., a non-operator working interest owner, regarding participation elections in wells, payment of joint interest billings, and related contractual obligations under joint operating agreements. Bays sought partial summary judgment on several issues, including the timeliness of PenSa's elections, its failure to pay billings, the validity of an operator's lien, and the non-existence of fiduciary or good faith duties under Oklahoma law. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that some elections were untimely based on the agreements, PenSa breached by not paying, the lien was valid, and no tort claims for fiduciary duty or good faith existed, but allowing certain contract-based claims to proceed due to factual disputes and contractual provisions.
The case involves a personal injury lawsuit brought by Veronica Muhammad against Comanche Nation Casino in Oklahoma state court after she slipped and fell on the premises. The defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on issues of tribal sovereignty and whether state courts have jurisdiction over tort claims against Indian tribes under federal law, including IGRA and Public Law 280. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that her complaint presented only a state-law tort claim without a federal question on its face. The court granted the motion to remand, reasoning that defenses involving tribal immunity or federal preemption do not convert a state-law claim into one arising under federal law for purposes of jurisdiction, and that complete preemption does not apply to such slip-and-fall claims.
This case involves a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs against aircraft and engine manufacturers following a fatal plane crash in Oklahoma in 2008. The defendant Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. (TCM), which manufactured the engine, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, claiming insufficient contacts with Oklahoma. The court denied the motion, concluding that TCM had sufficient minimum contacts through its distributorship agreement with a company in Oklahoma, supporting both specific and general personal jurisdiction. The reasoning centered on TCM's ongoing business relationship in the state over ten years, purposeful availment, and that exercising jurisdiction would not offend fair play and substantial justice.
In this case, plaintiff Zachary Bowdish, a former Federal Express employee, alleged he was wrongfully terminated due to his Caucasian race, male gender, and age, in violation of Title VII and the ADEA, and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination; he also claimed racial and age-related harassment by his supervisor and brought supplemental Oklahoma state-law claims for negligent supervision and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing insufficient evidence to establish prima facie cases, pretext, severe or pervasive harassment, or negligence. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, requiring background circumstances to support reverse discrimination claims under Tenth Circuit precedent from Notari, and finding that some claims lacked evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact under Rule 56 while others could proceed.
This case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in an adversary proceeding within Robert Mathews's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Mathews had received over $500,000 in purported profits from a Ponzi scheme operated by Marsha Schubert, which violated Oklahoma securities laws; the Oklahoma Department of Securities obtained a state court judgment requiring him to disgorge those funds under an unjust enrichment theory, which was affirmed on appeal. After Mathews sought to discharge that debt in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the Department, holding the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19). On appeal, the district court affirmed, ruling that the exception to discharge applies to debts resulting from judgments for disgorgement tied to state securities law violations, even if the debtor did not personally commit the violation, because the statute covers any such debt owed by the debtor without requiring direct action by the debtor. The court reviewed the legal issue de novo and found no error in the bankruptcy court's application of the statute or the underlying state law.