Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Sept. 25, 2024
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,138 – Power & Control Engineering Solutions, LLC. Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Osage Management Group, Llc, and FSI Group, LLC, Defendants/Appellees, and Gary Harvey, Non-Party/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Doug Drummond, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Power & Control Engineering Solutions, LLC, (PCES) appeals from an order dismissing its motion to modify a judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to PCES and against Defendants/Appellees Osage Management Group, LLC (OMG) and FSI Group, LLC. More than thirty days later, PCES filed its motion to join Non-Party/Appellee Gary Harvey, as a judgment debtor. PCES contended it was entitled to pierce the corporate veil to hold Harvey accountable, but PCES conceded OMG was never formed as an LLC and Harvey was not a member of FSI. The trial court dismissed the motion. PCES filed its motion to modify the judgment out of time, and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing it. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., and PRINCE, J. concurs. September 19, 2024
121,686 – Ragan Michelle Morgan, Petitioner/Appellee, v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel, Oklahoma Board of Nursing, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca B. Nightingale, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Board of Nursing (Board) appeals from an order of the trial court setting aside the Board’s March 16, 2023 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. In the Order, the Board found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the allegations in the complaint against Petitioner/Appellee Ragan Morgan, and as a result, deactivated her multistate nursing license and suspended her single-state license. The district court found that the Board’s decision was clearly erroneous, which resulted in an arbitrary and capricious result for Appellee. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, V.C.J., concurs and PRINCE, J., concurs specially. September 19, 2024
Division II
121,024 (Companion with Case No. 121,096) – In the Matter of the Guardianship of K.E.C., G.C., A.C. & A.C.: Jeffrey Jones and Janice Jones, Appellants, vs. Department of Human Services, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Richard Kirby, Trial Judge. Jeffrey Jones and Janice Jones appeal the district court’s order dismissing their guardianship over the minor children KEC, GC, AC and AC, and dissolving all outstanding orders issued in guardianship Case No. PG-2020-147. The Joneses assert that the guardianship court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve the guardianship and the proceedings were unfair, arbitrary and violated their due process rights. We find no legal error or other abuse of discretion and, therefore, affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; BARNES, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. September 24, 2024
121,096 (Companion with Case No, 121,024) – In the Matter of K.E.C., G.C., A.C., & A.C., alleged deprived children: Jeffrey Jones and Janice Jones, Appellants, vs. The State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Lydia Green, Trial Judge. Janice Jones and Jeffrey Jones appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to intervene in this deprived-child proceeding involving the four children, KEC, GC, AC, and AC. The Joneses argue they were entitled to intervene in the proceeding as a matter of right based on the “in loco parentis” status they claimed as former guardians of the children. The Joneses maintain that the district court violated their due process rights by depriving them of the opportunity to participate and be heard in the juvenile court proceedings. By order of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, this appeal has been designated as a companion to the Joneses’ appeal in Case No. 121,024, wherein they appealed the order entered in the guardianship proceeding that dismissed their guardianship over the children. We have affirmed that dismissal and dismiss this appeal as moot. DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; BARNES, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J. concur. September 24, 2024
Division III
Division IV
121,466 – Marvin Avery and Brenda Avery, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Allcorn, Inc. Concrete Construction, a corporation entity, Defendant/Appellee, and Bill Allcorn, an individual, and Indaco Metals, a business entity, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee County, Hon. Joshua C. King, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/appellants, Marvin Avery and Brenda Avery (collectively, the Averys), appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant/appellee Allcorn, Inc. Concrete Construction (Allcorn, Inc.). This appeal has been assigned to the accelerated docket pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 1.36, 12 O.S.2021, ch. 15, app. 1, and stands without appellate briefing. The Averys have failed to demonstrate why their appeal from the district court’s June 22, 2023, Journal Entry of Judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Allcorn, Inc. should not be dismissed for lack of a final or otherwise appealable order. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we dismiss the appeal for lack of an appealable order. APPEAL DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, P.J.; HIXON, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. September 24, 2024
121,488 — Afefa Wilcots, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Tracy Calamaio, D.C., P.C., d/b/a TLC Chiropractic, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Afefa Wilcots appeals a trial court judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of Tracy Calamaio, D.C., P.C., d/b/a TLC Chiropractic (collectively, Defendant) in this racial discrimination and retaliation action. Plaintiff asserts the verdict must be set aside because the trial court erred in denying her motion to compel discovery and by redacting portions of text messages on grounds of hearsay. Plaintiff further appeals the trial court’s order granting Defendant summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s “retaliatory counterclaims” theory of recovery. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the orders under review. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. September 24, 2024
121,846 — In re the Marriage of: Faith Ann Kewfi, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Ali Levent Kewfi, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Barry L. Hafar, Trial Judge. Faith Ann Kewfi appeals the trial court’s journal entry modifying Ali Levent Kewfi’s child support obligation and vacating certain provisions contained in the parties’ Consent Decree. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the journal entry and remand with instructions. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; HUBER, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. September 24, 2024