Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Jan. 15, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
121,677 – Derek Swift, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Holly Staten, Defendant/Appellee, and Derek White, Intervenor-Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Derek Swift, Intervenor-Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cherokee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jerry S. Moore, Trial Judge.
Intervenor/Appellant Derek White appeals from an order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law establishing that his petition to intervene in the paternity action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that Appellant did not show evidence of fraud pursuant to 10 O.S. § 7700-607. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur.
121,806 – Revere Tactical Opportunities Reit, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Sand Springs Capital Partners, LLC; Bo Fontana, Defendants/Cross-Defendants/Appellants, and DFL, Inc. And Carl A., Mondeel, as Trustee of The Carl A. Mondeel Trust and the Laura A. Mondeel Trust, Defendants, and John M Fothergill, Tulsa County Treasurer, Additional Defendant, and Construction Associates Unlimited, Inc., Intervenor/Cross-Claimant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. Defendants/Cross-Defendants/Appellants Sand Springs Capital Partners, LLC, (Borrower) and Bo Fontana (Guarantor) (collectively, Appellants) appeal from summary judgment granted in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Revere Tactical Opportunities REIT, LLC (Lender). The undisputed material facts show Lender was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and we affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur.
Division II
121,808 – Jesus Ramos Rodriquez, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc., Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Defendant appeals from an order of the district court denying its motion to compel arbitration. We conclude the district court’s determination that Plaintiff was fraudulently induced into signing an arbitration agreement is supported by competent evidence in the record. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration based on constructive fraud. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BARNES, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. January 9, 2025
Division III
121,813 – Enlow Law, PLLC, an Oklahoma LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Jaqueline Aldrete Bojorquez, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kelly Greenough, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellee, Enlow Law, PLLC, an Oklahoma LLC (Law Firm), brought this action against Defendant/Appellant, Jaqueline Aldrete Bojorquez, for libel per se. Law Firm claimed Defendant, who is not Law Firm’s client, used the alias “Pantera Blaine” to pose as Law Firm’s client and to post a factually inaccurate and defamatory Google review about Law Firm. In a prior lawsuit, Law Firm represented a client who sued and obtained default judgment against Defendant to collect unpaid rentals. Defendant’s one-star review claimed Law Firm “never served the proper party” and issued a garnishment. The review also stated, in part: “I still can’t find justification in how [Enlow’s employee] speaks to clients, real human beings, who are simply asking for help in who to contact to get things handled ….” Law Firm claimed Defendant’s factually inaccurate, one-star review falsely represented that Law Firm obtained a default judgment without proper service of process, it implied it was written by a client, and it caused damage to Law Firm’s business reputation. Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, 12 O.S. 2021 §1430, et. seq. (OCPA), alleging she did not write the review – she claimed the review was written by her girlfriend, Pantera Blaine. Defendant also alleged even if she did write the review, it is protected opinion and truthful; and thus, is not libel per se. Defendant also argued Law Firm failed to present clear and specific evidence of damages. After an expedited hearing held pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021 §1433, the trial court found Law Firm met its burden of establishing a libel pe se claim by clear and convincing evidence. The court also determined there were disputed facts regarding Defendant’s defenses which prevented dismissal under the OCPA. The court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021 §1437 of the OCPA. After de novo review, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. January 8, 2025
Division IV