Timothy D. DeGiusti

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

business & regulatory

The case involves a New York sculptor suing Oklahoma Casting Co., Legend Lighting, and Gary Smith for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, breach of 1999 licensing agreements for failure to pay royalties, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. The plaintiff holds registered copyrights for animal-themed sculptures like the Old Fox Series, Server Series, and Old Monkey, which were allegedly copied in defendants' lighting fixtures and decorative items; the parties had previously resolved a dispute via royalty payments and licensing deals. The court considered the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on three copyright claims and the breach claim, applying the standard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and elements requiring valid copyrights plus copying of protectible elements. It concluded that the plaintiff owns the copyrights at issue, rejected arguments that certain works were created by independent contractors, granted a motion to amend to add a related claim, and noted that factual disputes on royalties and limitations periods precluded full resolution at summary judgment.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is an insurance coverage dispute arising from the loss of a yacht stranded on a reef in Mexican waters, with the British insurer seeking a declaratory judgment of non-coverage under federal admiralty jurisdiction and the Oklahoma vessel owner asserting counterclaims for breach of contract, bad faith, and negligence. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment that turned on the enforceability of a choice-of-law clause in the marine insurance policy, which provided for U.S. federal admiralty law and, where no entrenched precedent exists, New York substantive law. The court reviewed undisputed facts about the policy's formation and terms, applied the summary judgment standard under Rule 56, and analyzed admiralty jurisdiction principles to determine governing law, rejecting arguments that Oklahoma law should apply based on the forum or policy situs. The decision focused on whether the clause was valid and controlling for the tort and contract claims at issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Trinity Baptist Church's tort claim of insurer bad faith against GuideOne Elite Insurance Company arising from the handling of a property insurance claim for tornado damage to the church building that occurred in May 2003. Defendant moved for partial summary adjudication under Rule 56, arguing that the claim was barred by Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations because the original 2005 state-court petition filed pro se by the pastor was invalid for a corporation and the later amended petition filed by counsel in 2006 was untimely. The court reviewed the undisputed facts regarding the timeline of the loss, the church's consultations with multiple attorneys and a public adjuster, the filing and service of pleadings, and removal to federal court. It applied the summary judgment standard, considered whether the original petition was effective and whether relation-back under procedural rules could save the claim, and addressed the governing legal propositions without resolving the motion in the excerpted portion.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involves a former Garfield County Sheriff's Department employee who sued the sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his termination violated the First Amendment after he criticized the department's management and safety practices in a local newspaper article and internal complaints; he also asserted a state-law wrongful discharge claim under Burk v. K-Mart Corp. alleging violation of Oklahoma public policy. The court granted the sheriff's motion for summary judgment on both claims. On the federal claim, the court held that the plaintiff's statements were either made pursuant to his official duties (and thus unprotected under Garcetti), were recklessly false, or that the termination was based on legitimate non-retaliatory reasons such as insubordination and performance issues. On the state claim, the court found no evidence that the sheriff acted outside the scope of employment or that the discharge violated a clear public policy. The undisputed facts showed the plaintiff had received reprimands and that his complaints followed internal disciplinary actions.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved claims by former Jefferson County road crew foreman Richard Phillips against District 3 Commissioner John Dale and the Board of County Commissioners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Oklahoma tort law. Phillips alleged that Dale demoted and then terminated him in November 2006 in retaliation for Phillips reporting Dale's alleged misuse of county resources and improper treatment of a DOC inmate worker, as well as for Phillips' statements during his unsuccessful 2006 campaign to unseat Dale. The court applied the summary judgment standard and found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Phillips engaged in protected speech, whether Dale knew of it, and whether the speech was a motivating factor in the termination, precluding judgment as a matter of law on the First Amendment retaliation claim. It also found that the same factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the pendent state-law public policy claim, while noting that the Board's liability would depend on separate municipal policy issues not resolved in this excerpt.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

In this case, a state prisoner sued two detention center officers and the sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers used excessive force during a cell search in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that the sheriff failed to supervise them or investigate complaints. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, primarily arguing that the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, denying the motion as to the officers because material factual disputes existed but granting it as to the sheriff because the plaintiff had not separately exhausted remedies on the distinct failure-to-supervise claims. The core reasoning was that PLRA exhaustion must be completed for each claim before filing suit, and the record showed exhaustion attempts only regarding the officers' conduct, not the sheriff's.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death claim by the estate of Terry Dobbs against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, alleging that the antidepressant Effexor caused his 2002 suicide due to inadequate warnings about suicide risk; the plaintiff asserted Oklahoma tort claims for strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and misrepresentation. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment, contending that FDA regulations on prescription drug labeling preempted the state-law claims because the FDA had determined at the time that the warning sought lacked scientific support and would not have approved it. The court analyzed federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause, evaluating whether a direct conflict existed between federal labeling requirements and state tort duties, the manufacturer's ability to unilaterally update labels, and an alternative argument on causation under state law.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory