Date: 08-31-2015

Case Style: Tulsa Industrial Aurhtory and BOKF NA d/b/a Bank of Oklahoma v. Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust

Case Number: CJ-2013-1165

Judge: Dana Kuehn

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Fred Dorwart, Sarah W. Poston, Dustin J. Vanderhoof and Paul Demuro for Tulsa Industrial Authoryt and BOKF, NA

Defendant's Attorney: Mary Cooper, Thomas E. Steichen, Michael Franklin Smith and David Stephen Mackey

Description: Tulsa, OK - Tulsa Industrial Authority (Title 60 public trust) and BOKF, NA d/b/a Bank of Oklahoma sued Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust (a Title public trust) on breach of contract theories claiming:

Tulsa Industrial Authority, an Oklahoma public trust (hereafter the “Industrial Authority”), and BOKF, NA (d/b/a Bank of Oklahoma) for their Petition against Defendant, Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, an Oklahoma public trust (hereafter the “Airport Trust”), allege and state as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. 2004, § 134 and 139.
3 This is an action by the Industrial Authority and Bank of Oklahoma against the Airport Trust for breach of contract The Industrial Authority and Bank of Oklahoma seek damages of $15,689,850 23 plus interest and costs of collection accruing thereon after March 4, 2013 until paid.
PARTIES
4. The Tulsa Industrial Authority (previously identified as the “Industrial Authority”) is an Oklahoma public trust organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma whose address and principal place of business is 15 West 6th Street, Suite 1211, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119.
5. BOKF NA is a national association organized under the National Bank Act with its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOKF, NA is the successor in by change of name to Bank of Oklahoma, National Association (the “Bank”). BOKF NA does business in the State of Oklahoma as Bank of Oklahoma. BOKF NA is hereafter called “Bank of Oklahoma” and the “Bank.”
6. The Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust (previously identified as the “Airport Trust”) is an Oklahoma public trust organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma whose address and principal place of business is 2504 E. 21St Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114 and whose address for mailing purposes is P.O. Box 581838 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74158.
7. The Airport Trust is committed to promoting the general industrial development and economic growth of the City of Tulsa and its environs. The 2008-2018 Strategic Business Plan for the Tulsa Airport provides that an on-going and specific objective of the Airport Trust is to “enhance the Airport’s position as an economic development partner for the region.” The Tulsa Airport Assessment & Action Plan for 2012 reiterated the Airport Trust’s on-going and specific objective to “enhance the Airport’s position as an economic development partner for the region.” The Airport Trust is actively engaged in general economic development activities not related to the actual transportation of passengers or property by air.
BACKGROUND
8. On November 30, 2000, consistent with the mission of the Airport Trust to promote the industrial development and economic growth of the region and in recognition of the need to encourage the initiation of new direct nonstop airline service to the major business centers of the east and west coasts and in recognition of the many advantages such airline service would bring to the City, the Council of the City of Tulsa (Councilors Huston, Williams, Turner, Justis, Pringle, Miller, Watts and Roop all voting yea) voted to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Tulsa and the Tulsa Industrial Authority (the “City of Tulsa Memorandum”) pursuant to which the City of Tulsa would convey to the Tulsa Industrial Authority certain real property known as Air Force Plant No. 3 (the “Property”).
9. As reflected in the City Of Tulsa Memorandum, the purpose of the conveyance of the Property to the Industrial Authority was two fold:
(a) First, to enable the Industrial Authority to mortgage the Property to Bank of Oklahoma in support of a non-recourse loan to be made by the Bank to the Industrial Authority so that the Industrial Authority could, in turn, make a loan to Great Plains Airlines, Inc., (“Great Plains”); and,
(b) Second, to enable the Airport Trust to enter into a contingent support agreement pursuant to which the Airport Trust would have the right and the obligation to buy the Property and the Great Plains Loan in the event Great Plains defaulted on its loan to the Industrial Authority.
10. The transaction contemplated by the City of Tulsa Memorandum was consummated on December 21, 2000. As expressly contemplated by the City of Tulsa
Memorandum:
(a) Mayor Susan Savage, on behalf of the City and upon the written approval of the City Attorney of Tulsa, conveyed the Property to the Industrial Authority.
(b) The Bank loaned $30 million to the Industrial Authority, the Industrial Authority loaned $30 million to Great Plains, and the Industrial Authority assigned the loan (without recourse) to the Bank (the “Great Plains Loan”). The assignment of the Great Plains Loan included an assignment of all collateral securing the Great Plains Loan.
(c) The Industrial Authority, the Airport Trust, and the Bank entered into an agreement (herein called the “Support Agreement”) pursuant to which the Industrial Authority had the right to demand that the Airport Trust purchase the Property from the Industrial Authority for the amount of the indebtedness owed by Great Plains to the Industrial Authority in the event Great Plains failed to meet its performance obligations or failed to timely repay the loan (such events called “Trigger Events”). A copy of the Support Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to this Petition.
(d) The Bank is the real party in interest to the obligations of the Airport Trust arising under the Support Agreement. The Industrial Authority irrevocably appointed the Bank to act as its attorney-in-fact to enforce the terms of the Support Agreement against the Airport Trust.
11. After the December 21, 2000 transaction among the City of Tulsa, the Airport Trust, the Industrial Authority, and the Bank, Great Plains pursued the required federal licensing and commenced operations.
12. On September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., disrupting and forever changing the landscape of air travel.
13. Beginning in the Fall of 2003, Great Plains failed to achieve its performance goals
and the Trigger Events which would obligate (i) TIA to sell the Property to the Airport Trust and
(ii) the Airport Trust to buy the Property (including the Great Plains Loan) from the Industrial
Authority were about to occur. At the request of Great Plains, supported by representatives of the
Tulsa Airport Authority and the Airport Trust, the Bank was requested not to declare the Trigger
Events.
14. In addition, Great Plains and representatives of the Airport Trust requested the Bank extend the maturity of the loan and, pursuant to that request, the Bank extended the loan to March 21, 2004, to which extension the Airport Trust expressly consented.
15. Recognizing the financial difficulties being experienced by Great Plains, the Bank repeatedly urged the Airport Trust to develop a long range plan and offered to provide extended financing to enable it to perform its obligation to purchase the Property from the Industrial Authority. While the Airport Trust continued to acknowledge its obligation, the Airport Trust failed to develop such a plan.
16. As a result, the Bank, recognizing the importance of the matter for the community, took the lead in urging the Airport Trust to work with the City of Tulsa to resolve the problem and renewed its offers to provide long term financing to accommodate the needs of the Tulsa Airport. These efforts were of no avail.
17. Great Plains defaulted on March 21, 2004, the Trigger Events were formally declared on June 22, 2004. As of March 4, 2013, there is due and owning on the Great Plains Loan $15,689,850.23 in principal amount, interest and costs remains unpaid with interest accruing at the per diem rate of $1,819.36.
18. From the Fall of 2003 to the commencement of the First Action, the Bank (i) attempted to work with the City and the Airport Trust and (ii) repeatedly requested their cooperation only to be met with inaction. No effort was ever taken to develop a plan to permit the Airport Trust to meet its full obligations to the Industrial Authority and the Bank. In January 2013, after multiple attempts by Bank of Oklahoma to resolve the matter over an extended period of time in which TAIT repeatedly represented it desired to resolve the matter, the City and the Airport Trust announced that it had no non-airport revenues and would pay nothing — despite its contract obligations. Despite the fact that the City prevailed upon Bank of Oklahoma as a good corporate citizen to facilitate the Great Plains Loan, the City and the Airport Trust simply determined to stiff the Bank.
19. On July 14, 2004, the Industrial Authority requested that the Airport Trust perform its obligations under the Support Agreement.
20. Pursuant to the Support Agreement, the Airport Trust was obligated to purchase the Property and the Great Plains Loan (attached hereto as Exhibit B and herein collectively also called the “Property”) at a closing on August 13, 2004. The Airport Trust breached its obligation to purchase the Property as required by the Support Agreement.
21. As a material inducement to the Industrial Authority and the Bank (upon which they relied) to make the Great Plains Loan, the Airport Trust caused its counsel to opine (the “Airport Trust Legal Opinion”) to the Industrial Authority and Bank that:
(a) the Airport Trust had full power and authority to both enter into and to perform its obligations under the Support Agreement;
(b) the Airport Trust had full power and authority to carry out and consummate the transactions contemplated by the Support Agreement;
(c) the Airport Trust had taken all necessary action to authorize, execute, and deliver the Support Agreement; and,
(d) the Support Agreement, and the consummation of the transaction contemplated thereby, did not conflict with any administrative rule, regulation, or other instrument.
22. As a material inducement to the Industrial Authority and the Bank (upon which they relied) to make the Great Plains Loan, the Airport Trust made the following express representation and warranty:
[The Airport Trust] “hereby represents and warrants that it has full power and authority and has been duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement [the Support Agreement] and to do and perform all of its obligations arising hereunder.”
23. While admitting its obligation to purchase the Property as above described and notwithstanding that the Airport Trust had expressly represented the Airport Trust could lawfully perform its obligations under the Contingent Support Agreement, the Airport Trust refused to purchase the Property as it was obligated to do. The Airport Trust refused to perform its obligation claiming that, because the use of some of the assets of the Airport Trust to perform its admitted obligation might violate guidelines issued the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), none of the Airport Trust assets could be used to perform its admitted obligation.
24. The Airport Trust, having instigated the transaction in pursuit of its mission of economic development, simply elected to renege on its promise.
25. On October 1, 2004, because the Airport Trust refused to purchase the Property as it had promised to do, the Industrial Authority filed a lawsuit in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma,
against the Airport Trust styled Tulsa Industrial Authority vs. Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, I Richard Studenny, and Studenny and Associates, case no. CJ-2004-6 124 (the “First Action”).1
26. In the First Action, the Industrial Authority sought, in part, a cause of action against the Airport Trust for the Airport Trust’s breach of its promises under the Support Agreement.
27. In the First Action, the Airport Trust argued that the Support Agreement was invalid because, according to the Airport Trust, all revenue earned by the Airport Trust is “Airport Revenue” and the Airport Trust could not use any revenue to satisfy the Airport Trust’s obligations under the Support Agreement. The Airport Trust argued that, if it used Airport Revenue to satisfy its obligations under the Support Agreement, the Airport Trust would violate the FAA’s Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (“Revenue Use Policy”). 64 Fed. Reg. 7696 (February 16, 1999).
28. In the First Action, the Tulsa County District Court rejected the Airport Trust’s specious argument. The Revenue Use Policy defines “Airport Revenue” and places certain limitations on the use of Airport Revenue. The Revenue Use Policy does place any restrictions or prohibitions on the use of Non-Airport Revenue. The Tulsa County District Court so found in the First Action.
29. On January 5, 2007, the Court in the First Action granted partial summary judgment in the Industrial Authority’s favor and found that some of the revenue generated by the Airport Trust was not “Airport Revenue” as defined by the FAA’s Revenue Use Policy. A copy of the Court’s order is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
30. In the Court’s order, the Court found the following:
(a) The Airport Trust sublet off-airport real property to Spirit Aerosystems;
(b) Spirit Aerosystems “fabricates Boeing 737, 747, 777, and 787 composite and metallic wing components, as well as control surfaces and floor beams for the 777.” In addition, Spirit Aerosystems works on military and government programs. Ex. C, Court Order, pp. 4-5.
(c) “[TJhe revenue generated by the [Spirit Aerosystems] Sublease is received for the right to use off-airport real property for the purpose of manufacturing airport parts.” Id. at p. 6.
(d) The revenue generated by the Airport Trust’s sublease to Spirit Aerosystems is not for an airport related purpose and thus is “non-airport revenue.” Id.
(e) The Airport Trust’s sublease to Spirit Aero systems generates revenue for the Airport Trust in the amount of $1,630,000.00 per year. Id. at p. 4.
31. The Airport Trust generates non-airport revenue and can satisfy its obligations
under the Support Agreement without violating the FAA’s Revenue Use Policy.
32. After the Court entered the Summary Judgment Order in the First Action, the Industrial Authority and the Airport Trust entered into an Interim Settlement Agreement on February 26, 2007, pursuant to which the Industrial Authority and the Airport Trust agreed to determine the extent to which the Airport Trust had additional non-airport assets which TAIT could use to satisfy its obligations under the Support Agreement without violating the Federal Revenue Use Policy even if it were applicable.
33. During the course of the investigation, Bank of Oklahoma identified a number of additional non-airport assets TAIT could clearly have used to satisfy its obligations under the Support Agreement without violating the Revenue Use Policy even if it were applicable.
34. The Industrial Authority also identified a claim for unjust enrichment against the City of Tulsa (the “City”) as Co-Sponsor of the Tulsa Airport by reason of the Great Plains Loan and the Support Agreement.
35. On June 25, 2008, the Industrial Authority filed a Second Amended Petition asserting an additional claim against the City of Tulsa as a Defendant.
36. The Industrial Authority, the Airport Trust, and the City recognized that, if the Airport Trust used non-airport assets to satisfy its obligations under the Support Agreement, it would have had a material negative impact on the Airport Trust and Tulsa International Airport in general.
37. As a result, on June 26, 2008, the Airport Trust, the City, the Industrial Authority and the Bank entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the Industrial Authority agreed to dismiss, without prejudice, the claims against the City and the Airport Trust in exchange for the City’s payment of $7,100,000.00 to the Bank (the “Final Settlement”).
38. The parties further agreed that (i) if the City received a Qui Tam demand challenging the validity of the Final Settlement, the City would seek a declaratory judgment in favor of validity of the Final Settlement and (ii) if the Final Settlement was held invalid, the Industrial Authority and Bank of Oklahoma would be free to pursue all its claims against the City and the Airport Trust without regard to the passage of time except those claims which were timebarred as of February 26, 2007. The City and the Airport Trust agreed not to assert any statute of limitations or laches defenses by reason of the passage of time.
39. On July 3, 2008, the City received a Qui Tam demand challenging the Final Settlement.
40. On July 14, 2008, the City filed a declaratory action against the taxpayers demanding Qui Tam in Tulsa County District Court and sought to uphold the validity of the Final Settlement. The action was styled City of Tulsa v. Bank of Oklahoma et al., case number CJ
2008-4882.
41. On April 11, 2011, the Court granted summary judgment in the City’s favor and upheld the validity of the Final Settlement.
42. On May 10, 2011, the taxpayers appealed the District Court’s decision.
43. On October 11, 2011, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that (i) Great Plains was a failed economic development project undertaken by the City and (ii) a claim of unjust enrichment could not lie against a city on the basis of a failed economic development project. The Supreme Court therefore ordered the Bank to pay the $7,100,000 back to the City.
44. The mandate in respect of the October 11, 2011 Supreme Court Opinion issued on July 9, 2012. The Bank paid the $7,100,000 to the City on July 10, 2012. As a consequence, the Industrial Authority and the Bank bring this action against the Airport Trust for (i) principal in the amount of $7,080,744.77, (ii) interest in the amount of $7,043,521.69 as of March 4,2013, (iii) interest accruing at the per diem rate of $1,819.36 from and after March 4, 2013, (iv) costs of collection in the amount of $1,565,583.77 as of March 4, 2013, and (v) costs of collection accruing after March 4, 2013, until the total amount, being $15,689,850.23 as of March 4, 2013, is paid.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE AIRPORT TRUST
(Breach of Representation and Warranty of Authority to Perform Its Contract Obligations)
45. The Industrial Authority and the Bank hereby restate the factual allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 44 as if set forth in their entirety.
46. The Airport Trust, in express repudiation of the promise and representation made by it in the Support Agreement, claims that the Airport Trust does not have the full power and authority to perform its obligations under the Contingent Support Agreement.
47. By reason of the breach of the representation and warranty of the Airport Trust expressly made in the Support Agreement heretofore described, the Industrial Authority and the Bank have been damaged in the amount of $15,689,850.23 plus interest and costs of collection accruing thereon after March 4, 2013, until paid.
Prayer for Relief — First Cause of Action
48. Wherefore, the Tulsa Industrial Authority and Bank of Oklahoma pray for judgment against the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust for $15,689,850.23 plus interest and costs of collection accruing thereon after March 4, 2013, until paid and such other and further relief at law and in equity as this Court may determine.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE AIRPORT TRUST
(Breach of Contract Obligation to Purchase the Property)
49. The Industrial Authority and the Bank hereby restate the factual allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 44 as if set forth in their entirety.
50. By reason of the breach of the Support Agreement heretofore described, the Industrial Authority has been damaged in the amount of $15,689,850.23 plus interest and costs accruing thereon after March 4, 2013.
Prayer for Relief— Second Cause of Action
51. Wherefore, the Tulsa Industrial Authority and Bank of Oklahoma pray for judgment against the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust for $15,689,850.23 plus interest and costs
of collection accruing thereon after March 4, 2013, until paid and such other and further relief at law and in equity as this Court may determine.

The Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust (TAIT) answered as follows:

1. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ Petition contain conclusions of law which do not require a response by TAIT. TAIT further states that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has federal question jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 116(a).
2. TAIT denies the first sentence of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. TAIT denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief from TAIT. Finally, TAIT state1s\ that it is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
PARTIES
3. TAIT admits Plaintiff Tulsa Industrial Authority (“TIA”) is an Oklahoma public trust, but TAIT is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Petition regarding TIA’s principal place of business.
4. TAIT states that it is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Petition regarding Plaintiff BOKF, NA dba Bank of Oklahoma (“BOK”).
5. TAIT admits that it is a public trust organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
6. TAIT admits that the words as quoted in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition appear in the “Tulsa Airport Authority Strategic Business Plan 2008-2018” and the “Assessment & Action Plan for 2012 for Tulsa Airports Improvements Trust (TAIT) and the Tulsa Airport Authority (TAA),” but the quotes are only phrases of otherwise complete sentences. TAIT denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
BACKGROUND
7. TAIT admits there is a document titled “Memorandum of Understanding,” dated November 30, 2000, which related to certain real property referred to as Air Force Plant No. 3, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs.
8. While reserving its defenses, TAIT admits that a series of documents were entered into and exchanged subsequent to the document titled “Memorandum of Understanding,” dated November 30, 2000, some of which are referenced in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs, to provide financing to Great Plains Airlines and that Great Plains Airlines defaulted on its loan, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’
Petition, including the subparagraphs. TAIT does not answer the conclusions of law contained in
Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs, as they do not require a
response by TAIT.
9. TAIT admits that Great Plains Airlines, Inc., began to operate commercial aircraft subsequent to December 21, 2012, but TAIT is otherwise without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
10. TAIT admits that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked on September 11, 2001, but is otherwise without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
11. TAIT is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs, and demands strict proof thereof.
12. TAIT admits that it consented to the extension of the loan to March 21, 2004, but is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
13. TAIT admits that, in discussions involving Great Plains Airlines’ financial difficulties, it made clear that Federal Aviation Administration approval was necessary prior to any payment or the purchase of the property. TAIT denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
14. TAIT is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
15. TAIT admits that Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., declared Great Plains in default as of March 21, 2004, and that trigger events were declared on June 22, 2004, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
16. Due to federal statutes and regulations governing the use of airport funds, of which Plaintiffs were aware when deciding to enter into the financial arrangement with Great Plains Airlines, TAIT admits it did not satisfy Plaintiffs’ demands, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
17. TAIT admits that TIA, acting at the direction of Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., made a demand upon TAIT, but TAIT otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
18. TAIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
19. TAIT admits that on December 21, 2000, J. Richard Studenny rendered a qualified opinion letter that includes language similar to that set forth in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs, but TAIl denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs.
20. TAIT admits that Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition quotes some of the language from the last sentence of Paragraph 6(i) of the Support (Contingent Purchase and Sale) Agreement, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
21. TAIT admits that it was advised by the Federal Aviation Administration that the use of TAIT’s assets to comply with TIA’s demand to “purchase” real property would violate federal law, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
22. TAIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
23. TAIT admits that pleadings and orders were filed of record in the lawsuit referenced in Paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs and footnote, but denies the remaining allegations, including Plaintiffs’ conclusions and inferences drawn from those pleadings and orders.
24. TAIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. TAIT does not respond to the conclusions of law which do not require a response by TAIT.
25. TAIT states that the document referenced in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Petition was not approved by TAIT’s Board as an agenda item and it is therefore void or voidable. TAIT admits that it attempted to cooperate with Plaintiffs by making its books and records available, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
26. TAIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
27. TAIT is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demanas strict proof thereof.
28. TAIT admits that the pleading referenced in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs’ Petition was filed of record in prior litigation in which a claim was asserted against the City of Tulsa.
29. TAIT is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
30. TAIT admits that it was dismissed from prior litigation as part of a Settlement Agreement with City of Tulsa, TIA, and Bank of Oklahoma, National Association as alleged in Paragraphs 37 and 38 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs, pursuant to which the City of Tulsa paid $7,100,000, and the City would seek declaratory judgment in favor of that settlement in the event the City of Tulsa received a qui tam demand. TAIT denies the remaining allegations in Paragraphs 37 and 38 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs.
31. TAIT is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs’ Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
32. TAIT admits that the pleadings and orders were filed of record in the lawsuit referenced in Paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including the subparagraphs. TAIT further states that the Oklahoma Supreme Court also held that Bank of Oklahoma, N.A.’s unjust enrichment claim against the City of Tulsa was time-barred. See City of Tulsa v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., 2011 OK 83, ¶J 20-22, 280 P.3d 314, 320-21. TAIT denies the remaining allegations in Paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, including Plaintiffs’ conclusions and inferences drawn from those prior pleadings and orders.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
33. In response to Paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, TAIT restates and incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Plaintiffs’ Petition above as if fully restated here.
34. The allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are the subject of a partial motion to dismiss. See Defendant Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, and Brief in Support (filed April 4, 2013 in Case No. 13-CV-179-CVE-TLW in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma). TAIT therefore does not answer the allegations contained in Paragraphs 46 of Plaintiffs’ Petition at this time.
35. The allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are the subject of a partial motion to dismiss. See Defendant Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, and Brief in Support (filed April 4, 2013 in Case No. 13-CV-179-CVE-TLW in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma). TAIT therefore does not answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs’ Petition at this time.
36. The allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ Petition are the subject of a partial motion to dismiss. See Defendant Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, and Brief in Support (filed April 4, 2013 in Case No. 13-CV-179-CVE-TLW in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma). TAIT therefore does not answer the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ Petition at this time.
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
37. In response to Paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, TAIT restates and incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Plaintiffs’ Petition above as if fully restated here.
38. TAIT denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ Petition. TAIT further denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief as requested in Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
39. In response to Paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs’ Petition, TAIT denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief as requested in Paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs’ Petition.
ADDITIONAL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
TAIT, for its additional claims and defenses, alleges and states as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 95(A)(1) through (3).
2. Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of representation and warranty are barred by the application of the provisions of Oklahoma’s Governmental Tort Claims Act, including, but not limited to, OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 157(B). See Defendant Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, and Brief in Support (filed contemporaneous herewith).
3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed by the Oklahoma District Court in Tulsa County, Case No. CJ-2004-06 124, more than one year prior to the filing of this suit.
4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Release and Satisfaction of Judgment filed November 17, 2008, in Oklahoma District Court in Tulsa County Case No. CJ-2004-06 124.
5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the documents on which Plaintiffs rely are void, or otherwise voidable, as contrary to public policy.
6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Support (Contingent Purchase and Sale) Agreement (“Support Agreement”) is an unlawful contract because it constitutes a direct subsidy of an airline in violation of federal law.
7. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Support Agreement is an unlawful contract because it constitutes a credit enhancement for which no corresponding value was received in violation of federal law.
8. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Support Agreement is an unlawful contract because it constitutes a credit enhancement and use of airport revenue for general economic development in violation of federal law.
9. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Support Agreement is an unlawful contract because its performance would require diversion of airport revenue in violation of federal law.
10. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Support Agreement is an unlawful contract because the “obligation” to purchase real property was without regard to a demonstrated need in accordance with federal law.
11. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Support Agreement is an unlawful contract because the “obligation” to purchase real property was unrelated to the property’s fair market value in violation of federal law and the public policy of the State of Oklahoma.
12. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Support Agreement is an unlawful contract because an Oklahoma public trust may not guarantee repayment of a loan made to a private enterprise under Oklahoma law.
13. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Support Agreement is an unlawful contract because it represents an obligation of indebtedness that was not approved by the City of Tulsa in accordance with public trust law.
14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because TIA’s inability to perform its obligations to convey Air Force Plant No. 3 to TAIT excuses any obligation TAIT is alleged to have under the Support Agreement.
15. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the Support Agreement fails for lack of consideration.
16. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because TIA’s appointment of BOK as an attorney- in-fact to prosecute any claims against TAIT constitutes an unlawful delegation of authority by TIA as a public trust.
17. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred based on the doctrine of mutual mistake of fact and/or law.
18. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of supervening impossibility of performance.
19. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
20. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
21. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the documents on which Plaintiffs rely purport to create an indebtedness which was not approved by the Tulsa City Council in accordance with Oklahoma public trust law.
22. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because of illegality under Oklahoma and/or federal statutory and/or regulatory law.
23. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the clean hands doctrine.
24. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
25. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by release.
26. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine ofresjudicata.
27. Plaintiffs’ Petition fails to state a claim.
28. Plaintiffs’ claims fail because Plaintiffs are not the proper parties.
29. Plaintiffs’ claims fail because Plaintiffs failed to join necessary and indispensable parties.
30. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of inpari delicto.
31. TAIT reserves the right to amend this Answer to include additional defenses upon the completion of discovery.
Having fully answered, TAIT prays the Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Petition and that TAIT be granted judgment along with its costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as this Court deems proper.

Court docket entries:

Date Code Description Count Party Amount
03-05-2013 TEXT

CIVIL RELIEF MORE THAN $10,000 INITIAL FILING.
1
03-05-2013 CONTRACT

BREACH OF AGREEMENT - CONTRACT

03-05-2013 DMFE

DISPUTE MEDIATION FEE
$ 2.00
03-05-2013 PFE1

PETITION

Document Available (#1020630094) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
$ 163.00
03-05-2013 PFE7

LAW LIBRARY FEE
$ 6.00
03-05-2013 OCISR

OKLAHOMA COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM REVOLVING FUND
$ 25.00
03-05-2013 CCADMIN02

COURT CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ON $2 COLLECTIONS
$ 0.20
03-05-2013 OCJC

OKLAHOMA COUNCIL ON JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS REVOLVING FUND
$ 2.00
03-05-2013 OCASA

OKLAHOMA COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES
$ 5.00
03-05-2013 CCADMIN04

COURT CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ON COLLECTIONS
$ 0.50
03-05-2013 LTF

LENGTHY TRIAL FUND
$ 10.00
03-05-2013 TEXT

OCIS HAS AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED JUDGE BARCUS, MARK TO THIS CASE.

03-05-2013 ACCOUNT

RECEIPT # 2013-2550843 ON 03/05/2013.
PAYOR:FREDERIC DORWART TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $213.70.
LINE ITEMS:
CJ-2013-1165: $163.00 ON AC01 CLERK FEES.
CJ-2013-1165: $6.00 ON AC23 LAW LIBRARY FEE.
CJ-2013-1165: $0.70 ON AC31 COURT CLERK REVOLVING FUND.
CJ-2013-1165: $5.00 ON AC58 OKLAHOMA COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES.
CJ-2013-1165: $2.00 ON AC59 OKLAHOMA COUNCIL ON JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS REVOLVING FUND.
CJ-2013-1165: $2.00 ON AC64 DISPUTE MEDIATION FEES.
CJ-2013-1165: $25.00 ON AC79 OCIS REVOLVING FUND.
CJ-2013-1165: $10.00 ON AC81 LENGTHY TRIAL FUND.

03-07-2013 SMF

SUMMONS FEE (CLERKS FEE)
$ 5.00
03-07-2013 SMIMA

SUMMONS ISSUED - MAILED BY ATTORNEY

03-07-2013 ACCOUNT

RECEIPT # 2013-2552834 ON 03/07/2013.
PAYOR:FREDERIC DORWART TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $5.00.
LINE ITEMS:
CJ-2013-1165: $5.00 ON AC01 CLERK FEES.

03-08-2013 S

PARTY HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY SERVED. SUMMONS SERVED ON TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST, CORPORATION SERVICE BY SERVING R. NANCY MCNAIRS, ON 3-07-13 BY PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1020911618) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
03-27-2013 NORM

NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL CASE #4:13-CV-00179-CVE-TLW (NOTICE OF REMOVAL ATTACHED)

Document Available (#1021098167) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

03-27-2013 DISPFC

NOTICE OF REMOVAL
1 TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
11-12-2013 O

MINUTE ORDER FROM CASE #13-CV-179CVE-TLW AN ORDER HAVING BEEN MADE REMANDING THE ABOVE-NUMBERED CASE TO THE TULSA COUNTY COURT,WE ARE TRANSMITTING HEREWITH CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ORDER AND DISTRICT COURT DOCKET SHEET IN THE ACTION SIGNED BY PHIL LOMBARDI CLERK OF COURT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT BY S TURNER , DEPUTY CLERK, PLFS' COMBINED MOTION TO REMAND AND SUPPORTING BRIEF (DKT #8) IS GRANTED DATED NOV 7 2013

Document Available (#1023448573) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

11-12-2013 MOD

TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023556850) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
11-12-2013 TEXT

APPENDIX OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO DISMISS / C TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023556842) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
11-12-2013 AM

AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023556846) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
11-12-2013 EAA

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE / MICHAEL F SMITH ENTERS AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT / A2J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / COVER SHEET

Document Available (#1023556854) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
11-12-2013 EAA

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE / THOMAS E STEICHEN ENTERS AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT / A2J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / COVER SHEET

Document Available (#1023556858) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
11-12-2013 EAA

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (MARY QUINN COOPER ENTERS AS COUNSEL) / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023554266) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
11-22-2013 MO

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING THIS COURT'S DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023605345) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
12-02-2013 RESP

PLAITIFFS' RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO DISMISS / A TOJ / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023673374) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
12-09-2013 APLI

UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF / A2J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023672484) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
12-09-2013 CTFREE

BARCUS, MARK: ORDER ENTERED.
DEFENDANT MAY FILE A REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE DATE THIS ORDER IS FILED.

12-09-2013 RESP

PLTFS' RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (C/J)

Document Available (#1023669491) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
12-09-2013 O

ORDER (TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED)

Document Available (#1023669562) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

12-16-2013 R

TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOITON TO DISMISS / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023769397) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
01-03-2014 APLI

DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023873736) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
01-08-2014 CTFREE

BARCUS, MARK: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SETTING HEARING ENTERED.
ORAL ARGUMENT IS SET FOR 1-21-14 AT 2:45 P.M., ROOM 506.

01-08-2014 O

ORDER GRANTING DEFT'S APPLICATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT & SETTING HEARING (1-21-14 AT 2:45 PM)

Document Available (#1023924341) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

01-09-2014 CM

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SETTING HEARING / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1023925460) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
01-15-2014 MO

MOTION TO ASSOCIATE COUNSEL (DAVID STEPHEN MACKEY) A/J

Document Available (#1023928548) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
01-21-2014 CRF

COURT REPORTER FEE-TRIAL ON MERITS
$ 20.00
01-21-2014 CRF

COURT REPORTER FEE-TRIAL ON MERITS
$ 20.00
01-21-2014 CTFREE

BARCUS, MARK: ORDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE GRANTED. DAVID MACKEY IS ALLOWED TO PRACTICE ON THIS CASE.

01-21-2014 CTFREE

BARCUS, MARK: HEARING COMES ON FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS.
FREDERIC DORWART AND PAUL DEMURO PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF.
MARY QUINN COOPER, MICHAEL SMITH, THOMAS STEICHEN AND DAVID MACKEY PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT.
DEE DEE TANNER COURT REPORTER.
COURT WILL RULE BY MINUTE.

01-21-2014 ACCOUNT

RECEIPT # 2014-2764713 ON 01/21/2014.
PAYOR:FREDERIC DORWART TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $20.00.
LINE ITEMS:
CJ-2013-1165: $20.00 ON AC01 CLERK FEES.

01-21-2014 ACCOUNT

RECEIPT # 2014-2765260 ON 01/21/2014.
PAYOR:MCAFEE & TAFT TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $20.00.
LINE ITEMS:
CJ-2013-1165: $20.00 ON AC01 CLERK FEES.

01-22-2014 O

ORDER ADMITTING TO PRACTICE / DAVID STEPHEN MACKEY /

Document Available (#1024085820) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

01-30-2014 EAA

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE / DAVID S MACKEY ENTERING AS COUNSEL / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1024173134) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
02-10-2014 T

ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON JANUARY 21, 2014 BEFORE JUDGE BARCUS

Document Available (#1024177761) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

02-20-2014 CTFREE

BARCUS, MARK: ORDER OVERRULING MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED/ENTERED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTIION TO DISMISS IS OVERRULED.
COPY OF ORDER MAILED TO:
MCAFEE & TAFT, ANDERSON & KREIGER AND FREDERIC DORWART LAWYERS.

02-20-2014 O

ORDER OVERRULING MOTION TO DISMISS

Document Available (#1024319574) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

04-07-2014 APLI

APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION & PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION (C/DF)

Document Available (#1024842220) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
04-07-2014 B

TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S BRIEF IN SUPOPRT OF APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, & PETITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION (C/DF)

Document Available (#1024842224) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
04-30-2014 MO

DEFT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (A/J)

Document Available (#1025112964) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
05-14-2014 CTFREE

BARCUS, MARK: ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS GRANTED/ENTERED.

05-14-2014 O

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS

Document Available (#1024731710) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

05-15-2014 RESP

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS / A2J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1024731765) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
07-02-2014 MO

PLTFS' MOTION TO LIFT STAY OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS (A/J)

Document Available (#1026308074) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
07-07-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA FOR JUDGE BARCUS:
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO LIFE STAY OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS GRANTED/ENTERED.

07-07-2014 O

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO LIFT STAY OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

Document Available (#1026060207) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

07-17-2014 APLI

APPLICATION FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE / A2J

Document Available (#1026476662) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
07-17-2014 EAA

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE / PAUL DEMURO ENTERS FOR PLAINTIFFS / CERT OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1026476666) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
07-17-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA FOR JUDGE BARCUS: ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ENTERED; HEARING SET FOR 8-27-14 AT 10:30 A.M., ROOM 506.

07-22-2014 O

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE /

Document Available (#1026632087) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

08-04-2014 RESP

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER / A2J / CERT OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1026638884) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
08-08-2014 CTFREE

COURT MINUTE:
BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN FRED DORWART AND MICHAEL SMITH THE 8-27-14 SCH IS MOVED FROM 10:30 A.M. TO 9:30 A.M.

08-20-2014 MO

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / A TO J

Document Available (#1026814433) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

08-25-2014 LT

LETTER / SUBMITTED JUDGE DANA L KUEHN / WHO WILL BE HANDLING PART OF JUDGE CHAPPELLE'S CASES. / SEE DOCUMENT

Document Available (#1026988004) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

08-27-2014 CRF

COURT REPORTER FEE-TRIAL ON MERITS
$ 20.00
08-27-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE HELD.
PAUL DEMURO AND FRED DORWART PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF.
NANCY MCNAIR AND MARY QUINN COOPER PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT.
DIANA CAVENAUGH COURT REPORTER.
DATES AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES AND THE DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER FOR JUDGE'S SIGNATURE.
PARTIES UNDERSTAND THAT ANY MOTIONS REGARDING EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES ARE TO BE FILED OR THE MUTUAL DEADLINE OF NOVEMBER 17, 2014 WILL BE ENFORCED AS A MUTUAL DISCLOSURE DATE.
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 4-13-15 AT 10:00 A.M
JURY TRIAL SET FOR 6-8-15 AT 9:00 A.M.

08-27-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED, ALL AS PER ORDER.
(5)
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR APRIL 13, 2015 AT 10:00 A.M., ROOM 506.

08-27-2014 ACCOUNT

RECEIPT # 2014-2918645 ON 08/27/2014.
PAYOR:FREDERIC DORWART LAWYERS TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $20.00.
LINE ITEMS:
CJ-2013-1165: $20.00 ON AC01 CLERK FEES.

08-28-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED/GRANTED, ALL AS PER ORDER.
THE JUNE 8, 2015 JURY TRIAL IS STRICKEN BY JUDGE CHAPPELLE AND RESET FOR JUNE 15, 2015, 9:00 A.M., FIRST UP.

09-03-2014 SCHO

SCHEDULING ORDER / 8-27-14

Document Available (#1026990284) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

09-05-2014 MO

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REVISE SCHEDULING ORDER RESPECTING EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES / A2J

Document Available (#1027188295) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
09-08-2014 APLI

UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / A TO J

Document Available (#1027190150) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

09-09-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR EXTENSIION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GRANTED/ENTERED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT IS GRANTED AN ADDITIONAL TEN (10) DAYS, OR UNTIL SEPTEMBER 19, 2014, TO FILE ITS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER.

09-10-2014 O

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER /

Document Available (#1027188875) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

09-18-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED.
DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL IS GRANTED.

09-18-2014 APLI

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED APPLIECATION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL / A TO J /

Document Available (#1027195357) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
09-18-2014 O

ORDER / DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION GRANTED

Document Available (#1027196646) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

09-19-2014 RESP

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / A TO J /CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1027196335) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
09-19-2014 EXHI

EXHIBITS 3,4,7,11, & 12 TO DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION OR PROTECTIVE ORDER

******************FILED UNDER SEAL DF**************************

09-19-2014 TEXT

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PARTIES FILING CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS IN DISTRICT COURT CASE SIGNED BY ERIC JEFFERS FOR MCAFEE & TAFT

Document Available (#1027186674) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

09-23-2014 RESP

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REVISE SCHEDULING ORDER RESPECTING EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES / A2J / CERT OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1027195853) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
10-01-2014 WL

PLAINTIFFS' PRELIMINARY WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST

Document Available (#1027417027) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

10-08-2014 MO

MOTION FOR HEARING ON PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REVISION OF SCHEDULING ORDER EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES / A2J

Document Available (#1027420875) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
10-20-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER SETTING HEARING ENTERED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS SET FOR HEARING ON OCTOBER 27, 2014 AT 1:30 P.M. THE COURT WILL HEAR THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUE ONLY AT THIS SETTING. THE COURT WILL FOCUS ON THE ISSUE OF "CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION" REGARDING THE LOANS.

10-21-2014 OSH

ORDER SETTING HEARING / SEE ABOVE ENTRY /

Document Available (#1027504733) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

10-22-2014 APLI

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1027505809) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
10-22-2014 OSH

ORDER SETTING HEARING / CASE WILL BE REASSIGNED ON 11-1-14 / NO DATE OR TIME SET ON DOCUMENT

Document Available (#1027505889) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

10-29-2014 EXHI

EXHIBITS 4,5,6, & 7 TO: DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

***********************FILED UNDER SEAL DF*************************

10-29-2014 O

ORDER / DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION IS GRANTED

Document Available (#1027770520) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

10-29-2014 MO

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / A2J

Document Available (#1027770516) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
10-29-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER GRANTED/ENTERED.
DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL IS GRANTED.

10-30-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ON REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GRANTED/ENTERED, ALL AS PER ORDER.
COPY OF ORDER MAILED TO:
FREDERICK DORWART, MCAFEE & TAFT, SCOTT LEWIS AND DAVID MACKEY.

10-31-2014 O

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1027771770) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

11-02-2014 TEXT

ADMINISTRATIVELY REASSIGNED BY AOC MIS PER HELP DESK CONTACT HD36523

11-10-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED.

11-12-2014 RESP

BOKF NA D/B/A OF OKLHOMA'S RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION PROTECTIVE ORDER / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1027828874) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
11-12-2014 MO

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FRO REVISION OF SCHEDULING ORDER EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1027828870) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
11-17-2014 TEXT

DEFENDANT'S EXPERT DISCLOSURES / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1027829593) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
11-21-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REVISION OF SCHEDULING ORDER EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES.

NOTICE MAILED TO DORWART FREDERIC AND MARY QUINN COOPER.

11-21-2014 O

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REVISION OF SCHEDULING ORDER EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINES

Document Available (#1027834253) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

12-01-2014 WL

PLAINTIFFS' FINAL WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST

Document Available (#1027976972) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
12-01-2014 TEXT

PLAINTIFFS' EXPERT DISCLOSURES

Document Available (#1027976968) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
12-09-2014 MO

PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMDEND SCHEDULING ORDER / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1028045197) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
12-11-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER.

12-12-2014 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED ON REQUEST FOR MOTION TO QUASH AND PROTECTIVE ORDER.

NOTICE MAILED BY CLERK TO PARTIES.

12-12-2014 O

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR MOTION TO QUASH AND PROTECTIVE ORDER / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1028048685) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

12-12-2014 O

ORDER/ SCHEDULING ORDER TO BE AMENDED / FACT DISCOVERY MUST BE COMPLETED BY 3-10-15 / EXPERT DISCOVERY MUST BE COMPLETED BY 4-24-15

Document Available (#1028048764) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

02-04-2015 MOC

MOTION TO COMPEL AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1028543209) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
02-09-2015 MO

JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1028672596) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
02-10-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER.

02-13-2015 O

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER /

Document Available (#1028668692) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

02-23-2015 RESP

BOKF AN D/B/A BANK OF OKLAHOMA'S RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TURST'S MOTION TO COMPEL / C TO J /

Document Available (#1028753908) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
02-25-2015 APLI

APPLICATION TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPROT OF TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO COMPEL / A TOJ / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1028750427) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
02-26-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY, 5 DAYS.

03-02-2015 R

TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1028748909) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
03-02-2015 RESP

BOKF NA D/B/A BANK OF OKLAHOMA'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S APPLICATION TO FILE REPLY / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1028748839) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
03-11-2015 O

ORDER / APLICATION TO FILE A REPLY BRIED IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED /

Document Available (#1028984742) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

03-19-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: MINUTE ORDER ENTERED.

NOW, ON THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015, THE COURT HAS FOR CONSIDERATION THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL, FILED ON FEBRUARY 4, 2015.


IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED. THE COURT FINDS THE PLAINTIFF HAS PRODUCED ALL DOCUMENTS IN THEIR POSSESSION OR CONTROL IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1. THE PLAINTIFF RESPONDED TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION WITH A PLEADING AND A LETTER DATED JANUARY 23, 2015.

ACCORDING TO OKLA. STAT. 12 § 3226 (G)(1), THE RESPONSES SENT WERE TO BE VERIFIED AS TO “THE BEST OF THE PARTY'S KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF FORMED AFTER A REASONABLE INQUIRY CONSISTENT…” WITH THE DISCOVERY CODE. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE RESPONSES SENT, THE LETTER SENT, AND THE RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL INDICATE THAT ALL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND ARE VERIFIED UNDER THE CODE.

THEREFORE, THE COURT FINDS THAT IF ANY FURTHER DOCUMENTS APPEAR AFTER JANUARY 23, 2015, THE CERTIFICATION MADE UNDER 12 § 3226 (G)(1) WAS DONE IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

IF ANY FURTHER DOCUMENTS ARE FOUND, THE DEFENDANT SHALL FILE AN OBJECTION WITH THE COURT. THE COURT WILL THEN CONCLUDE IF THE DEFENDANTS KNEW OF OR COULD HAVE KNOWN THE DOCUMENTS EXISTED TO DISCLOSE TO PLAINTIFFS. THE COURT WILL DETERMINE IF THE LACK OF DISCLOSURE WAS A VIOLATION OF 12 § 3226 (G)(1) AND CONSIDER SANCTIONS UNDER THAT SECTION.

NOTICE MAILED BY CLERK TO PARTIES.

03-19-2015 O

MINUTE ORDER / SEE ABOVE ENTRY / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1029065850) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

04-17-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ON 5-11-15 IS STRICKEN AND RESET ON 8-25-15 AT 10:15 AM, COURTROOM 701. JURY TRIAL ON 6-15-15 IS STRICKEN AND RESET ON 10-19-15 AT 10:00 AM, COURTROOM 701.

04-20-2015 AM

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER / 4-17-15

Document Available (#1029262766) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

04-21-2015 MOSJ

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT // A-J

Document Available (#1029070453) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
$ 50.00
04-21-2015 EXHI

EXHIBIT NOS. 6 & 7 TO: DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT

***************FILED UNDER SEAL DF**************************

04-21-2015 ACCOUNT

RECEIPT # 2015-3076117 ON 04/21/2015.
PAYOR:MCAFEE AND TAFT TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $50.00.
LINE ITEMS:
CJ-2013-1165: $50.00 ON AC01 CLERK FEES.

05-07-2015 MO

PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE TIME AND LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029458402) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
05-07-2015 O

ORDER/ PLAINTIFFS' MOTION GRANTED / PLI'S RESP TO TAIT'S MOITONF OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED NO LATER THAN 5-11-15 AND NOT EXCEED 35 PAGES

Document Available (#1029458384) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

05-07-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO TAIT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, NO LATER THAN 5-11-15 AND NOT TO EXCEED 35 PAGES.

05-08-2015 EXHI

EXHIBIT #21 TO: BANK OF OKLAHOMA'S RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

*****************FILED UNDER SEAL DF************************

05-08-2015 RESP

BANK OF OKLAHOMA'S RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTIN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029616623) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
05-18-2015 MO

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF AND TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029609994) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
05-18-2015 WL

PLAINTIFFS' FINAL WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029609906) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
05-21-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A TEN-PAGE REPLY BRIEF.

05-22-2015 O

ORDER/ SEE ABOVE ENTRY

Document Available (#1029607554) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

06-08-2015 MO

PLAINTIFFS' MOITON TO VACATE ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE REPLY / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029881667) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
06-08-2015 B

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS INPROVEMENT TRUST'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPLORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029878577) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
06-09-2015 MO

PLAINTIFFS' WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029878789) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
06-17-2015 MO

BANK OF OKLAHOMA'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF\ A-J

Document Available (#1029996111) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

06-19-2015 MOC

MOTION TO COMPEL AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029994622) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
06-26-2015 RESP

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S RESPONSE AND OBJCECTION TO PLAINTIFF BOKF N/A D/B/A BANK OF OKLAHOMA'S MOTION TO STRIKE REPLY BRIEF / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030129849) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
07-07-2015 RESP

BANK OF OKLAHOMA'S RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO COMPEL / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030123568) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
07-09-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

NOTICE MAILED BY CLERK TO PARTIES.

07-09-2015 O

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1030265877) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

07-10-2015 MO

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030266087) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
07-10-2015 APLI

APPLICATION TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO COMPEL / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030266075) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
07-16-2015 MOSJ

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF (THRU PLNT ATTY)

Document Available (#1030125972) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
$ 50.00
07-16-2015 ADJUST

ADJUSTING ENTRY: MONIES DUE TO AC09-CARD ALLOCATION
$ 1.25
07-16-2015 ACCOUNT

ADJUSTING ENTRY: MONIES DUE TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES REDUCED BY THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
CJ-2013-1165: AC01 CLERK FEES -$1.25

07-16-2015 ACCOUNT

RECEIPT # 2015-3132917 ON 07/16/2015.
PAYOR:AMBER R SIMMS TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $50.00.
LINE ITEMS:
CJ-2013-1165: $48.75 ON AC01 CLERK FEES.
CJ-2013-1165: $1.25 ON AC09 CARD ALLOCATIONS.

07-17-2015 R

BANK OF OKLAHOMA'S SUR-REPLY TO TAIT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030265528) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
07-20-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO FILED A REPLY, WITHIN 5 DAYS.

07-21-2015 O

ORDER/ SEE ABOVE ENTRY /

Document Available (#1030260017) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

07-22-2015 APLI

AGREED APPLICATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030388387) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
07-24-2015 MO

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030386053) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
07-27-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING IS SET ON 8-21-15 AT 9:00 AM AT TU LAW SCHOOL.

07-27-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER.

07-27-2015 EXHI

EXHIBIT #6 TO: MOTION TO STRIKE COSTS OF COLLECTION DAMAGES AND OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT

*****************FILED UNDER SEAL DF**************************

07-27-2015 MO

MOTION TO STRIKE "COSTS OF COLLECTION" DAMAGES AND OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
07-27-2015 RESP

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030384185) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
07-27-2015 MO

MOTION TO STRIKE "COSTS OF COLLECTION" DAMAGES AND OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT / A2J

Document Available (#1030384189) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
07-28-2015 RESP

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO STRIKE / CERT OF SERVICE / A-J

Document Available (#1030385330) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY
07-28-2015 O

ORDER

Document Available (#1030385318) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
07-28-2015 R

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL / CERT OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030385323) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
07-31-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ON 8-25-15 IS STRICKEN AND RESET ON 9-9-15 AT 1:30 PM, COURTROOM 701. PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED.

07-31-2015 RESP

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTIN TO STRIKE COSTS OF COLLECTION / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030382061) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
08-03-2015 EXHI

EXHIBIT #5 TO: DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

**********************FILED UNDER SEAL DF************************

08-03-2015 RESP

DEFENDANT TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (BY ATTY MICHAEL F SMITH) A2J

Document Available (#1030387601) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

08-07-2015 APLI

PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030453488) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
08-10-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: ORDER ENTERED GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO FILE A REPLY, BY 8-19-15.

08-10-2015 O

ORDER/ APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY GRANTED

Document Available (#1030451559) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF

08-10-2015 R

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1030451594) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
BOKF NA
08-18-2015 MO

TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL FLEMING AND OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1030709939) Download document in TIFF format.TIFF Download document in PDF format.PDF
TULSA AIRPORTS IMPROVEMENT TRUST
08-21-2015 CTFREE

KUEHN, DANA: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING HELD. DECISION IS HELD IN ABEYANCE. DIANA PAULEY REPORTING.

Outcome: Settled for $1.56 million.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Editor's Comment: This and other problems associated with Title 60 public trusts and the issuance of revenue bonds by these quasi public institutions that have the right under certain circumstances to issue revenue bonds to build, manage and operate public facilities for the benefit to their parent municipalities without voter approval repeatedly arise, e.g. the assessment of private properties inside the IDL in Tulsa to provide the funds needed to pay for revenue bonds issued by the Tulsa Baseball Stadium Trust of build ONEOK Stadium for a minor league baseball team that pays rent equal to 1/10th of the amount needed to service the bonded indebtedness on the stadium.