Date: 03-13-2001

Case Style: Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 2001 OK 25

Judge: Boudreau

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Plaintiff's Attorney: Barry W. Johnson of Barry W. Johnson, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Frederick W. Southern, Jr., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Michael W. Brewer of Hiltgen and Brewer, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: Plaintiff/Meadows filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., two of its personnel, Wal-Mart’s security company and a security guard for assault and battery, defamation and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff prevailed upon the assault and battery and defamation claims, while Wal-Mart prevailed upon the malicious prosecution claim. In a post-trial motion, Plaintiff sought attorney fees, contending Wal-Mart improperly denied discovery requests under (1) 12 O.S. Supp. 1996, §3237(D) and for (2) asserting defenses not well grounded in fact, contrary to 12 O.S. 1991, § 103 . The motion was denied. This Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Retain to consider the third exception to the mandatory sanction requirement of § 3237(D) that the party failing to admit had reasonable grounds to believe he might prevail on the matter. Ultimately, the test under § 3237(D) is not whether the party prevailed at trial but whether he acted reasonably in believing he might prevail. Under this evaluation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees.

The controversy arose out of an incident in which Meadows attempted to return some merchandise to a Wal-Mart store with a friend. When store officials refused to allow Meadows to return the merchandise, he became angry. The situation soon escalated with store managers and security using force against Meadows, who was then ultimately arrested for trespass by the Midwest City Police Department. Meadows was released several hours later and the charges were eventually dropped.

Meadows subsequently filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., two Wal-Mart employees, Wal-Mart’s security company and a security guard (collectively Wal-mart or Wal-Mart Defendants) for defamation, assault and battery and malicious prosecution. During the course of the pretrial discovery, Meadows requested that the Wal-Mart Defendants admit the truth of several matters. Wal-Mart denied each of the requests tendered by Meadows. Meadows presented his claims to a jury in September 1999. Meadows prevailed on the defamation and assault and battery claims, while Wal-Mart prevailed on the malicious prosecution claim.

Click here for the full text of the Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion.

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None