M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-13-2012

Case Style: Toby L. Johnson v. Dolese Brothers Company

Case Number: CJ-2011-9483

Judge: Roger H. Stuart

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Taylor K. Hammett

Defendant's Attorney: Curtis J. Thomas, Tony G. Puckett, Joshua W. Solberg

Description: Toby L. Johnson sued Dolese Brothers Company on wrongful termination theory. The claims made are not available.

Defendant appeared and answered as follows:

1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph I of Plaintiff’s Petition, and therefore the same are denied.

2. Defendant admits that it is licensed to do business in the state of Oklahoma and that Plaintiff was employed at the time of his discharge as a cuber for Defendant at 7100 South Sunnylane Road, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2.

3. Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

4. Tn response to Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Petition, Defendant admits that it hired Plaintiff for employment in the state of Oklahoma. Defendant further admits, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff sustained an on-the-job injury while in the course of his employment with Defendant. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4.

5. Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Petition is denied.

6. Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Petition is denied.

7. Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition is denied.

Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in his Petition.

DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. Plaintiff was an employee at-will.

3. Defendant did not engage in, or knowingly permit conduct in violation of Plaintiffs rights, and denies that any such conduct occurred.

4. Defendant denies any violation of 85 O.S. § 5, 6, 7 or any other Oklahoma public policy, or any other statutory or common law.

5. Defendant acted in good faith and with a good faith belief that its actions relative to Plaintiff were lawful.

6. Defendant did not retaliate against Plaintiff.

7. Defendant had legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for any actions it took relative to Plaintiff.

8. Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between any on-the-job injury or workers’ compensation claim he may have had and any adverse employment action taken by Defendant.

9. Plaintiff was not terminated during a period of temporary total disability.

10. Plaintiff has not suffered any monetary damage or other loss as a result of any actions by Defendant or any of its employees, agents or representatives. Alternatively, without admitting that Plaintiff has suffered any damage or Loss for which it should be legally responsible, Plaintiff is not entitled to any monetary damages to the extent that he has failed to reasonably mitigate such damages. At a minimum, said damages must be offset and reduced by any and all amounts (including any insurance payments or other amounts received from individuals or companies) which Plaintiff earned or could have earned with due diligence.

11. Defendant’s actions are insufficient to warrant the imposition of exemplary/punitive damages. Alternatively, without admitting that Defendant’s actions are sufficient to warrant the imposition of exemplary/punitive damages, any claims for exemplary/punitive damages, if any, are unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and constitute an excessive penalty or fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or the applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court or other applicable provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution.

12. Plaintiff is not entitled to interest, costs or attorneys’ fees.

13. Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the relief he requests.

14. Defendant reserves the right to identify additional defenses as discovery may warrant.

WHEREFORE, Defendant denies that it is liable to Plaintiff for any sum of money or in any manner whatsoever, and prays that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition in its entirety with prejudice and award Defendant its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in defending this action.

Outcome: On the 16th day of November, 2012, this matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Roger H. Stuart, District Judge in and for the District Court of Oklahoma County of the State of Oklahoma, on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, Toby L. Johnson, appeared by and through counsel, Taylor K. Hammett, and the Defendant, Dolese Bros. Co., appeared by and through their counsel, Tony 0. Puckett.

After hearing the argument of the parties and consideration of the briefs flied by the parties, the Court finds as follows: Defendant Dolese Bros. Co.’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be and is granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby Granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.