Claire Eagan

This case involves the SEC's civil enforcement action against George David Gordon alleging violations of federal securities laws through a 'pump and dump' scheme involving three target stocks, including false statements, manipulative trading, and unregistered sales. Gordon had previously been convicted on 23 counts in a related criminal prosecution for conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and other offenses based on the same conduct. The court granted the SEC's motion for summary judgment, holding that collateral estoppel barred Gordon from relitigating the factual and legal issues decided in the criminal case because those issues were identical, Gordon had a full opportunity to litigate them, and the criminal judgment was final. The court found complete overlap between the civil claims and the criminal convictions, including the elements of the securities fraud violations, and rejected Gordon's arguments that the issues differed or that he lacked a fair opportunity to defend himself.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a products liability suit by plaintiffs Brian and Suzanne Howard against medical device manufacturers, alleging that a knee implant (the Sulzer Natural Knee II Tibial Baseplate) failed due to manufacturing residue left from changes in the production process, causing pain, inflammation, bone loss, and the need for revision surgery. The plaintiffs asserted a negligence per se claim based on alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and its Medical Device Amendments (MDA) good manufacturing practices. The court granted the defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment on the negligence per se claim and deemed the plaintiffs' counter-motion moot, dismissing the remaining derivative claims for medical monitoring and loss of consortium. The core reasoning was that the FDCA was intended to protect the public at large rather than any specific class of individuals, so the plaintiffs could not use it as the basis for a negligence per se action under Oklahoma law, and there is no private right of action under the statute.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

In Brown v. Eppler, a pro se plaintiff sued the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority and several employees, along with their attorneys, alleging violations of his equal protection and due process rights under the U.S. Constitution, as well as related federal civil rights statutes and state law, stemming from his permanent ban from using MTTA buses following an incident. The district court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed most claims. Plaintiff then filed multiple post-judgment motions seeking a new trial or reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), sanctions for alleged perjury, and recognition of additional claims such as retaliation. The court denied all motions, holding that they failed to identify an intervening change in law, newly available evidence, or clear error in the prior ruling, and instead largely reargued issues already decided or raised untimely new arguments.

civil rightsprocedure

In Brown v. Eppler, a pro se plaintiff sued the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority and its employees, alleging that his temporary and permanent bans from riding municipal buses violated his equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims after dismissing others earlier. It reasoned that the plaintiff lacked a protected property interest in unrestricted bus access, that any claimed right to process alone did not create such an interest, and that he presented insufficient evidence of racial discrimination or disparate treatment to support an equal protection claim.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved Dr. Henry T. Wittenberg, a Medicaid provider in Oklahoma, who sued Innovative Resource Group, LLC (APS) and its employees after they conducted a peer review of his patient records under a contract with the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA), identified deficiencies, and recommended a corrective action plan. Dr. Wittenberg alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and tortious interference with his OHCA contract. The court granted the APS Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that they were not state actors subject to suit under § 1983 because peer review organizations performing Medicaid quality control functions, even under state contract, do not act under color of state law. The court relied on precedents establishing that such entities are private actors and rejected arguments that statutory provisions or the nature of the Medicaid program transformed their conduct into state action.

civil rightshealthcare

The case involved Jeffrey Stillwell, a licensed wrecker operator in Skiatook, Oklahoma, who was removed from the local police department's rotation log for providing towing services after an incident in which he confronted officers about his son's arrest for underage drinking and subsequently followed and harassed an officer. Stillwell sued the police chief and town under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the removal violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because the notice did not strictly comply with the 10-day written notice and other requirements of Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 952(C), and he also raised related state-law claims under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Stillwell received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard sufficient to satisfy constitutional due process and that state-law claims were barred by statutory exemptions. The court analyzed the federal constitutional claim separately from any state statutory requirements and addressed immunity defenses and jurisdictional issues for the state claims.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma who held interests in chat piles on restricted tribal land and sought intervention by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of the Interior to stop non-Indian claimants from removing chat without approval, along with an accounting and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs alleged that federal defendants had taken no action on their requests since at least 2005 and brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and related statutes. The court granted the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against them, ruling that plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies by appealing agency inaction to higher BIA or DOI officials as required by the APA before filing suit for judicial review. The court also directed further briefing on whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims against the non-federal defendants.

propertyprocedurefederal power

David Ciempa, an Oklahoma inmate identifying as a strict adherent of the Nation of Gods and Earths (NGE), brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) against prison officials. He alleged violations of his constitutional rights by the denial of certain religious reading materials, chapel time and space, a Halal diet, and pork-free hygiene products, based on Oklahoma Department of Corrections policies regarding publications, correspondence, and grievances. The court considered defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment along with plaintiff's related motions. It determined that no § 1983 claims remained viable against state officials in their official capacities, and that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the RLUIPA claims because the relevant rights were not clearly established in this context.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal law

In United States v. Avezov, defendants Saadeldin and Avezov, charged with possessing Oxycodone with intent to distribute, moved to suppress evidence including drugs, cash, and electronic devices seized from their rental car during a traffic stop on Interstate 44. The court granted the motion after finding that the Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper completed the initial traffic citation but then detained the defendants for an additional 54 minutes without consent or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity while awaiting a canine unit. The trooper's questions about travel plans and requests for consent exceeded the stop's purpose, and inconsistencies in the defendants' statements did not provide the required suspicion to prolong the detention. All evidence obtained was therefore suppressed as fruit of an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a widow's claim against her deceased husband's employer, Cintas, following his workplace death; she had received workers' compensation benefits and also pursued an intentional tort claim under Parret v. UNICCO. The court addressed whether the doctrine of election of remedies barred the tort claim and whether Cintas was entitled to credit for the workers' compensation payments already made. It held that the Parret claim was not barred because intentional torts fall outside the exclusivity of the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act and thus are not inconsistent remedies under Pryse Monument. However, to prevent double recovery from the same defendant for the same injury, the court granted Cintas a setoff for the workers' compensation amounts, to be determined by the jury, while allowing the plaintiff to proceed with her claim.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In McCully v. American Airlines, Inc., plaintiff Megan McCully, who had been diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and taken FMLA leave, sued her former employer alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and OADA, FMLA interference and retaliation, breach of contract, and violation of Oklahoma public policy. The claims arose after McCully was reassigned to a different analyst role upon returning from leave and later terminated for accessing confidential time records of other employees without authorization. The court granted summary judgment to American Airlines on all claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It reasoned that the reassignment did not constitute an adverse action as compensation and benefits remained the same, that McCully failed to show any causal link between her protected activity and termination, that AA had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, and that no contract or public policy violation occurred.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned a dispute over stop-loss insurance coverage for medical expenses under AG Equipment's self-funded employee benefits plan, where AIG initially paid claims for employee Suzanne Ash-Kurtz but later halted payment and alleged fraud after discovering evidence that she was not a legitimate employee. AG sued AIG for breach of the policy, AIG counterclaimed for breach of contract and fraud, and a jury found in AIG's favor, awarding it over $279,000 and relieving it of further payment obligations. AIG then sought attorney fees under Oklahoma statutes §§ 1219 and 3629, but the magistrate judge recommended denial on grounds that AIG failed to reject or settle the claim within 90 days and that stop-loss insurance does not qualify as accident and health insurance under the fee provisions. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate's report and recommendation regarding AIG's entitlement to fees.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case Torres v. Cintas Corp. concerns personal injury claims arising from incidents in which Cintas employees were injured while attempting to clear jams in an automated wash alley system designed and installed by defendant Lavatec at a Cintas plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The court reviewed defendants' motions for summary judgment and a magistrate judge's report recommending denial of the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, while addressing objections to that report. It examined facts regarding the equipment's design and integration into the plant, post-installation safety bulletins issued by Cintas, and the extent of Lavatec's ongoing responsibilities for training or modifications. The core reasoning focused on whether the wash alley constituted a unique product or an improvement to real property, along with procedural standards for amending pleadings and the sufficiency of evidence on safety warnings and employee conduct.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

This case involves a former employee suing her employer for wrongful termination based on age in violation of Oklahoma public policy under a Burk tort theory. After bifurcating liability and damages and holding a bench trial on liability, the court reviewed evidence of a 2002 reduction in force, including selection criteria, supervisor statements, and comparisons to younger employees. The court found that the plaintiff did not prove age was a significant factor in her termination and therefore ruled for the defendant on the claim.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitycivil rights

The case involved homeowners David and Sue Boggs seeking coverage from insurers Great Northern Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company after buyers of their former Tulsa residence sued them for misrepresenting the condition of six fireplaces, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and violations of disclosure statutes, with claimed damages exceeding $419,000 due to non-compliant flues. The Boggses had requested a defense and indemnification under their homeowners and excess liability policies, but the insurers refused, leading to claims of breach of contract and bad faith. The court granted summary judgment to the insurers on both motions, finding no duty to defend or indemnify. The core reasoning was that the underlying claims involved property damage that occurred while the Boggses owned the residence, triggering the policies' owned property exclusions, and any negligence duty to repair could only have existed during ownership when the exclusion applied.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued by Nautilus to Orthopedic Resources, Inc. (ORI). ORI sought a declaratory judgment that Nautilus was obligated to defend and indemnify it in a Texas products liability lawsuit brought by a patient injured while using a VascuTherm medical device that ORI had distributed. Nautilus countered that coverage was barred by the policy's products-completed operations hazard exclusion. The court examined the undisputed facts, policy definitions of 'your product' and 'your work,' and the rental arrangement for the device, concluding that the exclusion did not apply because the device had not been sold and remained outside ORI's completed operations hazard.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a challenge by the Oklahoma Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Education Fund (ORC) to Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 1104.6, which directs proceeds from 'Choose Life' specialty license plates to nonprofit organizations providing adoption-related counseling and services to pregnant women while barring funding to groups involved in abortion activities. ORC, which engages in abortion-related counseling and advocacy, moved for summary judgment on claims that the statute violated its First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by restricting use of its private funds. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute did not violate the First Amendment because ORC could form a structurally separate affiliate to apply for the funds while continuing its abortion-related work with private money. On the equal protection claim, the court applied rational basis review and found the statute rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in promoting adoption over abortion.

abortionfree speechreligious libertycivil rights

This case involved AG Equipment Company's claim against AIG Life Insurance Company for reimbursement under a stop-loss policy for medical expenses incurred by employee Suzanne Kurtz under AG's self-funded health plan. AG argued that Kurtz qualified as a full-time employee eligible for coverage, and that AIG had previously paid claims based on that representation before denying further reimbursement after an investigation revealed emails suggesting her employment was nominal. AIG contended that Kurtz did not meet the plan's requirement of working at least 30 hours per week and thus her expenses were not covered. Following a jury trial that found in AIG's favor, the court denied AG's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, concluding there was sufficient evidence supporting the verdict on Kurtz's employment status and that no procedural errors warranted retrial.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenthealthcare

Carol Napier sued Cinemark USA for negligence after sustaining personal injuries at one of its theaters and added a claim for tortious spoliation of evidence, alleging the company remodeled the walkways and lighting before she could photograph the site as ordered by a state court. Cinemark moved to dismiss the spoliation claim. The court granted the motion, holding that Oklahoma does not recognize an independent tort for spoliation of evidence. It relied on dicta from the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Patel v. OMH Medical Center stating that neither spoliation nor a related prima facie tort has been recognized as actionable, along with Tenth Circuit precedent in Estate of Trentadue confirming the same. Because this is a diversity case, the federal court applied Oklahoma law and concluded no such claim exists.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Vauda Virgle Shipp, Jr.'s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after a jury conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Shipp claimed his counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing and on appeal by failing to object to the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), by not raising additional arguments against classifying his walkaway escape conviction as a violent felony for armed career criminal purposes, and by providing misleading information that led him not to pursue a certiorari petition. The court applied the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington, requiring a showing of deficient performance falling below an objective standard of reasonableness and resulting prejudice, while reviewing the background of the indictment, trial, sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions, and prior appeals. The opinion addressed whether counsel's handling of the sentencing classification and appeal decisions met constitutional standards.

criminal lawprocedure