Date: 06-17-2015

Case Style: Michael Lockhard and Donald Lockhart v. Corporate Technologies, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2014-4210

Judge: Dan Kuehn

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Randall Vaughan, Kevin Doyle and Lauren Pierce

Defendant's Attorney: Stephen Layman

Description: Tulsa, OK - Michael Lockhard and Donald Lockhart sued Corporate Technologies, Inc. seeking a declaratory judgment claiming:

1. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
3. On July 26, 2014, Defendant filed a claim with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) against Plaintiffs alleging breaches of an agreement and claiming damages in excess of $300,000.
4. Defendant further alleged that the agreement contains an arbitration provision, which obligates Defendants to submit to arbitration in Tulsa County.
5. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Answer with the AAA denying Defendant’s
cJJ
allegations and further denying that they have an obligation to arbitrate disputes with Defenctai
6. Following receipt of Plaintiffs’ Answer, the AAA advised Plaintiffs that
had not paid the required arbitration fee and that the case would be closed if the fee was by
October 29, 2014. Defendant ultimately paid the fee on that date.
7. There is an actual, existing justiciable controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendant regarding the obligation to arbitrate any disputes between the parties.
8. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment determining that they are not parties to or bound by an agreement containing an arbitration provision.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW Defendant, Corporate Technologies Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby moves the Court to dismiss this cause of action pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(1) and (B)(6). In support thereof, Defendant presents the following:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff’s Petition seeks a single declaratory judgment as to whether Vlaintiffs were parties to, or bound by, an arbitration agreement with defendants (See Exhibit A)
2 On November 17, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Tei@porary Injunction & Temporary Restraining Order, which prevented Defendant from pursuing ctJms it had filed against Plaintiffs in American Arbitration Association case number 01-14-0000’9807. (See Exhibit B)
3. On December 8, 2014, the Court entered an Agreed Order Staying Arbitration pending final determination of Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim. (See Exhibit C)
4. On March 3, 2015, Defendant abandoned and withdrew its pending (but stayed) arbitration claims. (See Exhibit D)
5. Defendant urges the Court to dismiss the instant cause of action on grounds that a justiciable controversy no longer exists between the parties, and the Court therefore lacks subject jurisdiction. Alternatively, Defendant urges the Court to dismiss this case on grounds that Plaintiffs have not, and cannot, plead facts sufficient to establish a claim on which relief may be granted.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Title 12, Section 2012(B)(1) of the Oklahoma Statutes authorizes a Motion to Dismiss where the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of a lawsuit. Here, Plaintiffs seek relief under Oklahoma’s Declaratory Judgments Act, 12 0.S. § 651, et seq., which allows district courts to determine parties contractual rights in cases of actual controversy.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that “{i]n order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under the declaratory judgments act there must be an actual, existing justiciable controversy between parties having opposing interests, which interests must be direct and substantial, and involve an actual, as distinguished from a possible, potential or contingent dispute.” Gordon v. Followell, 1964 OK 74, ¶0, 391 P.2d 242, 242-43. “The word ‘justiciable’ refers to a lively case or controversy between antagonistic demands. When a party presents for adjudication antagonistic demands that are merely speculative, a prohibited advisory opinion is being requested.” Dean v. State ex rel. Doak, 2012 OK CIV APP 105, ¶ 13, 292 P.3d 58, 62 (quotation omitted). The concept ofjusticiability in the context of declaratory relief is explicitly linked to the jurisdiction of the trial court to grant such relief, and, accordingly, “the absence of justiciability requires dismissal of the proceeding.” Tulsa Indus. Auth. v. City of Tulsa, 2011 OK 57,J 13,270 P.3d 113, 121.
In the case at bar, Plaintiffs assert subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of Defendant’s claims with the American Arbitration Association, filed July 26, 2014, and styled AAA No. 01-
14-0000-9807. See Petition ¶ 3, Motion for Temporary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, p. 1. Those claims have now been abandoned by Defendant and withdrawn. See Exhibit
D. Defendant therefore urges that a justiciable controversy no longer exists between the parties, and that this case must accordingly be dismissed.
Defendant alternatively urges that Plaintiff’s Petition should be dismissed on grounds that it fails to state a claim for relief, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6). In light of Defendant’s abandonment of its arbitration claims, any judgment sought by Plaintiffs would be improper as speculative and advisory. See Dean at ¶ 13, 292 P.3d 58, 62. Consequently, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which this Court may grant relief, and the Petition should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays for the relief requested herein, and for such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: