OTA’s Motion to Dismiss Denied
A judge denied the OTA’s Motion to Dismiss in the pending lawsuit regarding alleged violations of the Open Meeting Act on August 10, according to the decision filed in the Cleveland County Courthouse. The judge granted the Motion to Dismiss individually named members of OTA’s board, however, “for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted,” because the requested relief was only able to be made against them in their official capacities. The judge allowed Counsel for the Plaintiffs to submit an amended Petition against the Executive Director Tim Gatz and the board members by August 19. Plaintiffs’ Counsel has done so, and the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition is available here.
Proper Venue and Exclusive Jurisdiction
The OTA’s argument in their Motion to Dismiss was that Cleveland County is not the proper venue and does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. The OTA has repeated that the Oklahoma Supreme Court is the only proper venue, stating that all issues in both lawsuits filed against them will be resolved with their application to validate bonds, filed in the Supreme Court on August 10. The Supreme Court hearing is set for September 13.
Judge Timothy Olsen, presiding over the Open Meeting Act violation suit, denied the Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that the alleged violations have nothing to do with the validation of bonds. Additionally, Judge Olsen ruled that Cleveland County is the proper venue, under 69 O.S. § 1705, which states “that any and all actions at law or in equity against the Authority shall be brought in the county in which the principal office of the Authority shall be located, or in the county of the residence of the plaintiff, or the county where the cause of action arose.” The Plaintiffs, as residents of Cleveland County, have a right to bring the suit in Norman. The Supreme Court does have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear an application validating any bonds issued to the OTA, provided by 69 O.S. § 1718. However, the decision asserts that if the Supreme Court were the proper venue and had exclusive jurisdiction over private actions for Open Meeting violations, a private citizen would be required to bring any action against the OTA to the Supreme Court, even if it wasn’t related to an Application for Approval of Bonds, which seems to stretch the legislation’s intent.
Even though the Cleveland County District Court believes that the statute does not give the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over this case, the decision does note that there has been a case in the past where the Supreme Court did decide an issue regarding a violation of the Open Meeting Act (In re Okla. Tpk. Auth., 1989 OK 21, ¶ 22, 770 P.2d 16). In that particular Supreme Court case, the violation was alleged in an objection to the legality of the bonds issued, filed with the Supreme Court, and was thus addressed by the Supreme Court who received the brief. The difference in this case is that no pleadings in this matter were filed with the Supreme Court after the OTA’s application was received; it is a separate civil suit that was filed in Cleveland County before the OTA had filed an application with the Supreme Court, and before their board even voted on sending an application.
The Plaintiffs in the case hope that if Judge Olsen decides in their favor, that the OTA’s turnpike plans would be considered invalid and the Authority would have to start over. Motions in this case will be heard by November 21, and the trial is set for December 12 through the 13.
Pike Off OTA v. OTA Update
The other lawsuit against OTA has also had a recent development. Judge Lori Walkey has recused herself from the case and it will be reassigned. This comes a week after the OTA submitted their Notice of Initiation of Validation Proceeding in Oklahoma Supreme Court in both court cases. The case could potentially be assigned to a judge outside of District 21, the District Cleveland County is in, like the Open Meeting Act case, which was assigned to Judge Olsen from District 22. However, this lawsuit is not as likely to be resolved in Cleveland County as the Open Meeting Act case, because it concerns the legality of the proposed turnpike routes. If the bonds are approved in the Supreme Court, the Court would also be ruling on the legality of the routes that the funds would be distributed for. The likelihood that the bonds are validated by the Supreme Court is high. The Supreme Court has been validating bonds for the OTA since 1950, and it was noted in the hearing on the OTA’s 2016 Application for bond validation that “This Court has previously approved bonds requested by the Authority on ten separate occasions, having never disallowed a bond issuance in each of those cases” In re Okla. Tpk. Auth. for Approval of not to Exceed $480,000,000 Okla. Tpk. Sys. Second Senior Lien Revenue Bonds, 2016 OK 124, 389 P.3d 318.
Challenges to the Supreme Court Application
The hearing for the OTA’s Application is set for September 13 at 10:30 a.m. in the Oklahoma Judicial Center, which means the Application will be heard prior to the hearings set in the District Court case. The Supreme Court is required to expedite OTA matters under 69 O.S. § 1718: “It shall be the duty of the Court to give such applications precedence over the other business of the Court and to consider and pass upon the applications and any protests which may be filed thereto as speedily as possible.” The City of Norman is expected to file a legal challenge to the Application filed in the Supreme Court, according to the Norman Transcript. The Norman City Council already passed a resolution in opposition to the turnpike, but the city hasn’t taken any actionable legal steps as of yet. The city hired legal counsel in June, and has the support of Cleveland County, according to the article.
In addition, Stanley Ward, an attorney for and a plaintiff of the Open Meeting Act lawsuit, and his co-counsel Richard Labarthe, filed a challenge in the Supreme Court to deny the OTA of a hearing until their lawsuit is resolved in Cleveland County on August 18. By late August 19, The Supreme Court had struck down the request for not meeting “the requirements for an amicus curiae filing per Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.12(a)(2) or as a protest under 69 O.S. 2021, § 1718.”
With a hearing date set, now is the best time to prepare for condemnation takings. The OTA’s bonds will likely be approved on September 13. If you’re looking for an experienced property attorney to help you negotiate for the highest amount of just compensation for your property, call us at (405) 310-0183 or submit a consultation request through our website.
