Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | April 20, 2022

April 18, 2022

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Division I

119,936 – In the Matter of M.C., Alleged Deprived Child, Melissa Cline, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Human Services, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. Honorable Lisa Shaw, Trial Judge. Melissa Cline, Mother/Appellant, seeks review of the October 14, 2021 order, upon the jury’s verdict, terminating her parental rights to M.C., born November 4, 2019. Mother alleges in her appeal that the Department of Human Services (DHS), Appellee, failed to appropriately contribute to correcting her parental circumstances by acting as an obstacle to Mother’s efforts to successfully complete her Individualized Service Plan (ISP). We affirm the appealed order. AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; BELL, P.J., and PRINCE, J., (sitting by designation) concur. – April 15, 2022

Division II

119,604 — Brad Baker Properties, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Trac-Work, Inc., a foreign for-profit business corporation, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Jack D. McCurdy, II, Trial Judge, granting Plaintiff Brad Baker Properties, LLC’s motion for summary judgment. Trac-Work argues the trial court erred in granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because (1) there are disputed questions of law and fact, (2) Plaintiff’s mortgage does not take priority over its lien, (3) Trac-Work’s “work was performed on a railroad for purposes of the lien statutes granting priority,” and (4) Trac-Work’s work met the statutory requirements for a superior lien. Although Trac-Work contends its work entitled it to a railroad lien under 42 O.S.2011 § 161, the statutory lien established in that section does not apply to this non-railroad property and work under the undisputed facts of this case. We conclude, as did the trial court, that summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff was proper as a matter of law, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in result. – December 22, 2021

119,227 – Billy Gene Marshall, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. G. Smith, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Pittsburg County, Hon. Tim Mills, Trial Judge. Billy Gene Marshall appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition alleging employees of the Department of Corrections violated several of Marshall’s constitutional rights “under color of law.” On review we find that Mr. Marshall’s petition does not name the state as a party, which is required here, and did not show whether he had properly filed a notice of claim consistent with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). We find that the proper procedure here would have been to grant the motion to dismiss Marshall’s claims with leave to amend to add the state as a party and show the dates of GTCA notice and the date of GTCA denial, if possible. As such, we reverse the dismissal and remand with instructions. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur. – April 14, 2022

119,805 — RNYC Corp. d/b/a Redneck Yacht Club, an Oklahoma Corporation; Statmax LLC, d/b/a The Friendly Tavern, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; Doug’s Waterin’ Hole, LLC d/b/a Doug’s Waterin’ Hole, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; Davis Management, LLC d/b/a Gold Spur Bar, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; PJ’s Pub & Grill LLC d/b/a PJ’s Pub & Grill, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; and Venom 64, Inc. d/b/a Western Nights, an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Kevin Stitt, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Oklahoma and Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Susan Stallings, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs appeal from a trial court order dismissing this case without prejudice on the basis of mootness. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Kevin Stitt issued several executive orders. In particular, the provision in question involves the prohibition against selling food or beverages for on-premises consumption after 11:00 p.m. At the conclusion of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court stated that “with the lifting of the state of emergency in the [S]tate of Oklahoma [] there’s no longer a live case of [sic] controversy. I find this case is moot and I’m dismissing it.” After review, we conclude that because the Executive Order expired by its own terms and the Governor took no further action to extend the 11 p.m. rule, there is no longer a live controversy. The trial court properly determined it no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed the action. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; RAPP, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., dissents. – April 6, 2022

19,828 — Seaboard Foods, LLC, and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, Petitioners, vs. Jose Guevara and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Proceeding to review an Order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Seaboard Farms, LLC, and its insurer, Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America seek review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission En Banc affirming an administrative law judge’s decision to award temporary total disability benefits and medical treatment to Claimant, Jose Guevara. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the WCC affirming the ALJ’s decision to award Claimant TTD benefits and medical treatment. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; RAPP, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. – March 24, 2022

119,403 – In the Matter of A.T., E.T., J.T., Alleged Deprived Children: Marcella Burk, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Susan Johnson, Trial Judge. Marcella Burk, the mother of the children at issue here, appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition to vacate an order terminating her parental rights. On review, we affirm the court’s decision, finding that the court’s refusal to vacate on the grounds of unavoidable casualty was within its discretion, clear and convincing evidence supported termination, and that the proceedings were conducted within constitutional parameters. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and RAPP, J. concur. – March 23, 2022

119,021 – Amanda J. Robinson, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Steven C. Robinson, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Garfield County, Hon. Dennis W. Hladik, Trial Judge. Amanda Buckminster (formerly Robinson) and Steven Robinson are the divorced parents of two minor children. In the trial court, Mr. Robinson filed a motion to enforce visitation, clarify visitation orders, modify child support, and a request for other relief. In response, Ms. Buckminster filed an application for contempt for alleged violation of visitation orders and sought to dismiss Mr. Robinson’s motion. After a combined hearing on all motions, the trial court sided with Mr. Robinson on all issues. Ms. Buckminster appeals. Because the trial court’s findings are not contrary to the clear weight of the evidence or otherwise an abuse of discretion, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and RAPP, J., concur. – March 23, 2022

118,983 – Cushing Hospitality, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. CMP Construction, Inc., Defendant/Appellee, and MG Pools, a Texas limited liability company, Third-Party Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Payne County, Hon. Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. MG Pools appeals the denial of its motion to vacate an arbitration award against it. MGP relied here on its understanding that it had not been properly made a party to the underlying arbitration and hence needed to take no action until a motion to enforce was served on it. This belief was mistaken, and MGP’s arguments were barred by 12 O.S. § 1874 at the time it first raised them. As such, there was no error in the district court’s decision. AFFIRMED. WISEMAN, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. – March ___, 2022

Division III

Division IV

118,248 – Deary Vaughn and Esther Vaughn, Petitioners/Appellees/Counter-Appellants, vs. City of Muskogee, Respondent/Appellant/Counter-Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Muskogee County, Hon. Douglas W. Golden, Trial Judge. This is an appeal and counter-appeal of the district court’s judgment in this inverse condemnation proceeding in favor of Deary and Esther Vaughn. City of Muskogee appeals the judgment finding a taking and awarding the Vaughns $1,952,682.00 plus interest. The Vaughns counter-appeal the court’s award of prejudgment interest and that part of the judgment granting title to their real property to City. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the district court’s determination that a taking occurred and what property was taken, but reverse the court’s prejudgment interest award. We remand the matter to the court to recalculate the prejudgment interest at 6% from the date of taking to the date of judgment and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate from date of judgment until paid. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by FISCHER, C.J; BARNES, P.J, and WISEMAN, J., concur. -April 19, 2022

119,261 — Robin Williams-Sullen, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Roger Belaski, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Hon. Tracy L. McDaniel, Trial Judge. Defendant, Roger Belaski (Belaski), appeals an Order of Protection entered in favor of Plaintiff, Robin Sullen-Williams (Williams), on grounds of stalking. Belaski contends the trial court’s order is against the clear weight of evidence, and that the trial court abused its discretion by considering information from a prior protective order proceeding, which he contends was barred from consideration by res judicata. We conclude the trial court’s order is not against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the Order of Protection. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. – April 13, 2022

119,332 (Companion with Case No. 119,331) — Rochelle Brisco, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Christopher Jesse Curtis Cooper, Deceased, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Terry R. Gerard, II, D.O.; Durant H.M.A., LLC d/b/a AllianceHealth Durant, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; Mental Health Services of Southern Oklahoma, Inc. d/b/a Mental Health Services of Southern Oklahoma, an Oklahoma Not For Profit Corporation, Defendants/Appellees, The Oklahoma Mental Health Council d/b/a Red Rock Behavioral Health Services, an Oklahoma Not For Profit Corporation; and Rachel J. Dalthorp, M.D., Additional Defendants. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Rochelle Brisco (Brisco), as Special Administrator of the Estate of Christopher Jesse Curtis Cooper (Cooper), appeals the district court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Dr. Terry R. Gerard, II; Durant H.M.A., LLC, d/b/a AllianceHealth Durant; and Mental Health Services of Southern Oklahoma, Inc., d/b/a Mental Health Services of Southern Oklahoma (collectively, “Defendants”) in this medical malpractice action. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, P.J.; FISCHER, V.C.J., and RAPP, J., concur. – April 12, 2022

119,127 – Sabrina Ripp and C. Rash Construction, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Oklahoma Communications Systems, Inc., a/k/a TDS, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from Order of Mayes County, Hon. Shawn S. Taylor, Trial Judge. The Defendant [TDS], appeals an Order Regarding Class Action Certification, which certified two classes in an action brought by the Plaintiffs. TDS focuses its appellate argument on the weight of the evidence introduced at the class certification evidentiary hearing and argues that the Plaintiffs failed to prove the allegations necessary to obtain certification. That focus is improper under the applicable standard of review. The issue to be resolved in this appeal is a legal one: does the Plaintiffs’ petition, not the evidence produced at the class certification hearing, “contain[] factual allegations sufficient to demonstrate a plausible claim for relief. . . .” 12 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 2023(B). We hold that it does, and affirm the order appealed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals Division IV, by FISCHER, C.J.; RAPP, J., and BLACKWELL, J. (sitting by designation), concur. – April 11, 2022

118,884 – Tinker Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Gerald Liticker, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. In this action for replevin of a vehicle and for a money judgment, Gerald Liticker appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Tinker Federal Credit Union (TFCU) on his counterclaims. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to TFCU on Mr. Liticker’s counterclaims and in finding the contracts at issue were cross-collateralized pursuant to the Oklahoma Uniform Consumer Credit Code, that Mr. Liticker was in default under both contracts, that TFCU could, thus, enforce its lien against the collateral at issue, and that there are no controverted material facts present in the summary judgment record that TFCU engaged in deceptive or unfair trade practices under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; FISCHER, C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. – April 11, 2022

119,549 (Consolidated with Case No. 119,597) — In the Matter of R.J., Jr., and A.J., Deprived Children, Roman Jones, Sr., and Ashley Robertson, Appellants, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Sheila Stinson, Trial Judge. In this consolidated appeal, Roman Jones, Sr. (Father) and Ashley Robertson (Mother) each appeal separate Orders entering the jury’s verdicts terminating their parental rights to the minor children, R.J., Jr. and A.J. upon findings that they each failed to correct the conditions that led to the children’s deprived adjudications after having been given at least three months to do so pursuant to 10A O.S. Supp.2015, § 1-4-904(B)(5). Based on our review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm the Orders. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. – March 30, 2022

119,762 — Hudson Insurance Company, Petitioner, Hudson Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, vs. Tracy L. Parks and The Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, Respondents. Appeal from an Order of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, Hon. Margaret Bomhoff, Trial Judge. Petitioner Hudson Insurance Company (Hudson) seeks review of an order authorizing injections for a low back injury sustained by Tracy Parks (Claimant) on the job in August 2009. The Court of Existing Claims authorized injections as continuing medical maintenance (CMM). Hudson argues the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA), 85 O.S. Supp. 2020, § 2(12) applies retroactively to define CMM to exclude injections. The Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), 85 O.S. Supp. 2001, § 1 et seq., in effect at the time of Claimant’s injury, did not define CMM or contain language disallowing injections to be awarded as CMM. Hudson’s argument is without merit. We sustain the order of the Court of Existing Claims. SUSTAINED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. – March 29, 2022

119,410 — Alan Benefiel, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Christa Benefiel and The Estate of Jewel Boulton, Deceased, Defendants, and American Eagle Title Insurance Company, Real Party in Interest/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Seminole County, Hon. Timothy L. Olsen, Trial Judge. This is an appeal and counter-appeal of the trial court’s order granting Alan Benefiel’s (Benefiel) application for an attorney’s fee and costs. Benefiel also appeals the trial court’s order denying his second supplemental application for fees and costs. Based on our 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.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. – March 29, 2022

119,287 – Crystal Bay Estates Homeowners’ Association, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Sarah Cox and James Cox, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Osage County, Hon. Stuart Tate, Trial Judge. Defendants appeal from a temporary injunction issued by the district court restraining them from continuing construction on their tract of land. We conclude the district court has not abused its discretion in determining Plaintiff has shown that the four factors applicable to obtaining a temporary injunction weigh in its favor. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s order granting a temporary injunction. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; FISCHER, C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. – March 25, 2022

119,693 — In the Matter of: K.G., K.G., K.G., Alleged Deprived Children, Tiffany Welch, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Tulsa County, Hon. Martha Rupp Carter, Trial Judge. Tiffany Welch (Mother) appeals an Order entering the jury’s verdict terminating her parental rights to the children: K.G.1, K.G.2, and K.G.3. The Oklahoma and federal Indian Child Welfare Acts (ICWA) apply to this proceeding because the children are Indian. Mother alleges State did not sufficiently prove the grounds for termination, did not sufficiently prove that active efforts were made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and did not sufficiently prove that her continued custody was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. Mother also alleges various violations of her right to due process. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the Order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. March 25, 2022

119,210 — In re the Marriage of: Rebecca Jordan, Petitioner/Appellant, vs.
Jon M. Jordan, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Lori A. Puckett, Trial Judge. Rebecca Jordan (Wife) appeals the trial court’s Order vacating the previously filed decree of dissolution of marriage pertaining to the division of Wife’s 408(b) retirement account with the Modern Woodmen of America (MWA). Husband moved to vacate and modify the provision in the decree pursuant to 12 O.S.2011, §§ 1031(4) and (7). We find Husband did not meet his burden of showing the decree was subject to vacation and modification under section 1031(4), and the decree was also not subject to vacation/modification under section 1031(7). Therefore, we find the trial court abused its discretion by vacating and modifying the decree, and we reverse the Order. In addition, we remand for further proceedings because it is undisputed that the decree provision, as written, is incapable of being carried out by MWA. On remand, the trial court shall issue an order nunc pro tunc so that the provision reflects what the trial court actually adjudged at the time of trial based on the evidence then before the court. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, P.J., concurs, and FISCHER, C.J., concurs in result. – March 22, 2022

119,313 — Midcoast Pipelines (Texas Gathering) L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership and Midcoast G&P (Oklahoma) L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Sarah Batterton, in her official capacity as the Roger Mils County Assessor, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Roger Mills County, Hon. Jill C. Weedon, Trial Judge. Midcoast Pipelines (Texas Gathering), L.P. and Midcoast G&P (Oklahoma), L.P. (collectively, Midcoast) appeal the trial court’s order granting Sarah Batterton’s, in her official capacity as the Roger Hills County Assessor (Assessor), motion for summary judgment. Midcoast contends the trial court erred in granting Assessor summary adjudication because Assessor failed to provide adequate notice under Oklahoma law and the requirements for due process. Viewing all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to Midcoast, we find Midcoast has demonstrated an issue of fact exists regarding whether Assessor properly mailed notice of the 2020 assessments. Accordingly, the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that Midcoast failed to rebut the statutory presumption of notice in 68 O.S. Supp. 2019, § 2876(D). The trial court’s order granting Assessor’s motion for summary judgment was in error and is reversed. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. March 22, 2022

120,031 – Champak Patel, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Sueños Oklahoma City, LLC, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Champak Patel (Patel) appeals summary judgment entered in favor of Defendant Sueños Oklahoma City, LLC (Sueños), on Sueños’ claim for breach of contract. Patel and Sueños entered into a contract to purchase real estate, which failed to close. Patel sued for return of his earnest money, claiming that Sueños had failed to satisfy a condition precedent of the parties’ agreement(s) to provide financial statements updated through the date of closing. Sueños asserted a counterclaim for breach of contract, asserting that the Agreement did not require production of updated financial statements and that Sueños was entitled to retain earnest money following Patel’s refusal to close and breach of the Agreement. For the foregoing reasons, the Court rejects Patel’s assignment of error and finds that the trial court did not err in awarding summary judgment to Sueños based on the terms of the contract and the undisputed material facts entitling it to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm the trial court’s Journal Entry of Judgment of October 29, 2021. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. – March 21, 2022

119,400 — SouthStar Exploration, LLC, Protestant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, vs. The Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma and 7C Land & Minerals Company, Applicants/Appellees/Counter-Appellant. Appeal from The Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Appellant/Counter-Appellee SouthStar Exploration, LLC (SouthStar) appeals the determination of participation costs established by an Oklahoma Corporation Commission pooling order appointing SouthStar as operator over a well within a previously-established drilling and spacing unit. SouthStar recompleted the Graves 2-32 into the McLish formation, and sought to pool interests therein within the unit. SouthStar contends the Commission erred by using, in part, the pre-existing Graves 2-32 well’s salvage value (in addition to the costs to recomplete the well and lease operating expenses) to determine electing participants’ share of costs to produce and develop the McLish. SouthStar also contends that the Commission’s determination of participation costs for the well and related saltwater disposal costs is not supported by substantial evidence. We find that the Commission’s determination of participation costs set forth in the pooling order is not contrary to law and is supported by substantial evidence, both on the costs related to the Graves 2-32 well and saltwater disposal costs, and we affirm the pooling order on those grounds. However, we reverse the Commission’s determination that 7C prepay its participation costs, because it appears the funds held in suspense by SouthStar were not considered in that determination, and remand for further determination on that issue consistent with our Opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. – March 21, 2022

119,809 — Vivek Vijay, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly situation, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, et rel., Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma; and other affiliated entities and individuals, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Michael D. Tupper, Trial Judge. Vivek Vijay (Student) appeals trial court’s orders dismissing his amended petition for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (University). Student asserted he paid tuition and fees as part of a contract with University to receive in-person, on-campus educational services. However, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, University canceled in-person, on-campus education and transitioned to only on-line education while retaining the full amount of tuition and fees. Student contends University breached its contract with students and was unjustly enriched. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, the trial court properly dismissed Student’s petition, and we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. – March 4, 2022

119,159 — Lawrence Dupler, Amanda Dupler, Andrew Dupler, Scott Dupler, Jerry Monday, and Shantelle Gaynor, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Bender Investments, Ltd., an Oregon Corporation, Defendant/Appellant, and Medstation Processing, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Medstation, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Medstation-I, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Charles L. Stidham and Phillip W. Offill, Jr., Additional Defendants. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Cotton County, Hon. Michael Flanagan, Trial Judge. Bendor Investments, LTD (Bendor) appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to stay and compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in Bendor’s operating agreement. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Bendor’s motion to stay and compel arbitration. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. – March 3, 2022

119,382 — John Powell, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Rick Whitten, Warden C. Mayfield, Warden Assistant, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Major County, Hon. Timothy Haworth, Trial Judge. John Powell appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his small claims replevin action pursuant to 12 O.S.2011, § 1751(E), which prohibits a plaintiff who is currently incarcerated in a jail or prison in the state from bringing an action against any person or entity under small claims procedure. Upon review of the record, the briefing, and the applicable law, we find the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear Powell’s claim and affirm the trial court’s Order dismissing the underlying action. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, J.; FISCHER, C.J., and BARNES, P.J., concur. – March 3, 2022

119,397 – The Board of County Commissioners of Harmon County, a political subdivision of the State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma Self-Insured Group (ACCO-SIG), an association of political subdivisions of the State of Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Richard Ogden, Trial Judge. In 2014, an individual filed a civil lawsuit in federal court against the Sheriff of Harmon County, among others. A jury ultimately returned a verdict in the individual’s favor in the amount of $6,500,000, and the court awarded the individual attorney fees and costs totaling approximately $530,000. At all times relevant to the 2014 case, Harmon County was insured through ACCO-SIG under a policy with a coverage limit of $2,000,000 per occurrence for law enforcement liability. The Board initiated the present action against ACCO-SIG on the basis that ACCO-SIG, in failing, among other things, to make any reasonable offers of settlement to the individual in the 2014 case, breached certain defense and negotiation provisions of the policy, as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Board appeals from an order of the district court sustaining the motion for summary judgment of ACCO-SIG. Because, as set forth in Board of County Commissioners of Delaware County v. Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma Self-Insurance Group, 2014 OK 87, 339 P.3d 866, ACCO-SIG is protected from a bad faith tort claim and, indeed, because the Board states it is not even attempting to assert such a claim against ACCO-SIG, we conclude the Board’s recovery is limited to the contractual limits set forth in the policy. Because it is undisputed ACCO-SIG has paid the $2,000,000 contractual limit of liability, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in ACCO-SIG’s favor. The district court’s order is, therefore, affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, J., concurs, and FISCHER, C.J., concurs in result. – February 16, 2022

Posted in Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion and tagged Dispositions, Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinions, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals