CITY OF BLACKWELL v. WOODERSON
2017 OK CIV APP 33
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Defendants are farmers holding junior surface-water permits to divert water from the Chikaskia River; the City of Blackwell holds a senior surface-water permit and relies on the river for municipal supply.
- City sued (March 2014) claiming Defendants’ irrigation reduced flow at the City's diversion point, causing pump cavitation and municipal water restrictions, and sought injunctive relief tied to USGS gauge readings.
- Trial court held a temporary injunction hearing (June–July 2014) and denied the City’s request; City did not appeal that temporary injunction denial.
- After the hearing, City moved (Dec. 2014) for leave to amend its petition to drop injunctive relief and instead seek a declaratory judgment under the Oklahoma DJA to define when Defendants’ diversions would unlawfully impair the City’s 82 O.S. §105.5 rights; Defendants opposed (arguing futility, delay, and prejudice) and moved for summary judgment on the original petition.
- Trial court denied leave to amend and granted summary judgment for Defendants; City appealed both rulings.
- Court of Civil Appeals reversed the denial of leave to amend, holding the proposed declaratory claim was not futile or unripe and that denial based on undue delay or prejudice was not justified; remanded with instruction to allow the amended petition and to notify the OWRB.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be allowed to add a declaratory-judgment claim under the DJA | City: amendment seeks a justiciable declaration of rights under 82 O.S. §105.5; declaratory relief is distinct from injunctive relief and may be proper even if injunctive standard not met | Defs: amendment is futile (relitigates matters decided at injunction hearing), unduly delayed, prejudicial | Reversed: amendment not futile; declaratory claim cognizable; trial court abused discretion in denying leave |
| Whether the proposed declaratory claim is justiciable/ripe | City: presents an antagonistic, non-speculative dispute over when Defendants’ diversions impair City's senior right — ripe for adjudication | Defs: alleged harms are speculative because river then had ample water; seeking advisory opinion | Held: dispute sufficiently concrete and not merely speculative; justiciability (ripeness) satisfied for DJA relief |
| Whether undue delay or prejudice justified denial of leave to amend | City: explained delay (attempted to obtain consent; municipal procedures); continued litigation is not prejudicial | Defs: delay and relitigation after prevailing at injunction hearing is prejudicial | Held: delay was not undue under circumstances; mere continuation of litigation is not prejudice; denial on these grounds improper |
| Whether summary judgment for Defendants on original petition should be addressed | City: grant was premature without consolidation for trial on merits and further discovery | Defs: argued evidence at injunction hearing established no entitlement to relief | Held: appellate court did not rule on the summary-judgment merits because permitting the amended petition would moot the injunctive claim; remanded to allow amendment first |
Key Cases Cited
- Prough v. Edinger, Inc., 862 P.2d 71 (Okla. 1993) (standards for trial court discretion in denying leave to amend pleadings)
- Gordon v. Followell, 391 P.2d 242 (Okla. 1964) (elements for invoking declaratory-judgment jurisdiction)
- Heldermon v. Wright, 152 P.3d 855 (Okla. 2006) (requirement to notify OWRB under 82 O.S. §105.5)
- Tulsa Indus. Auth. v. City of Tulsa, 270 P.3d 113 (Okla. 2011) (justiciability and prohibition on advisory opinions)
- City of Broken Arrow v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C., 250 P.3d 305 (Okla. 2011) (justiciability requires more than conclusory allegations)
- Lippitt v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 233 P.3d 799 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010) (temporary injunction requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Bittle v. Oklahoma City University, 6 P.3d 509 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (futility analysis when denying leave to amend)
- Ladra v. New Dominion, LLC, 353 P.3d 529 (Okla. 2015) (appellate review scope under accelerated procedure)