CITY OF BLACKWELL v. WOODERSON
397 P.3d 491
Okla. Civ. App.2017Background
- City of Blackwell (City) holds a senior surface-water permit on the Chikaskia River; Defendants (farmers) hold junior surface-water permits and irrigate from the same river.
- City sued alleging Defendants’ irrigation reduced flow at the City’s diversion point, causing pump cavitation and municipal water restrictions; City sought injunctive relief to limit Defendants’ irrigations when USGS gauges read certain low levels.
- After a temporary-injunction hearing, the trial court denied the City’s request for a temporary injunction; City did not appeal that ruling.
- Months later the City moved for leave to amend its petition to remove injunctive claims and instead seek a declaratory judgment under the Oklahoma Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA) defining when Defendants’ diversions would impair the City’s water right.
- Defendants opposed the amendment (arguing undue delay, futility, and that no justiciable controversy existed) and moved for summary judgment on the original petition; the trial court denied leave to amend and granted summary judgment for Defendants.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the denial of leave to amend, holding the proposed declaratory-judgment claim was not futile or unripe and remanded with instructions to permit the amendment and to notify the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend based on futility | Amendment seeks declaratory relief under DJA distinct from injunctive relief; failing to obtain a temporary injunction does not make declaratory claim noncognizable | Proposed amendment would relitigate matters already decided at the temporary-injunction hearing and therefore is futile | Reversed: denial based on futility was error; proposed DJA claim could state a cognizable claim |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was proper due to undue delay or prejudice | Delay was explained (attempt to obtain consent and city council vote); five-month lapse not undue; permitting amendment would not unfairly prejudice Defs | Amendment unfairly prolongs litigation after Defs’ success at temporary injunction; prejudiced by continued litigation | Reversed: no undue delay or prejudice shown; denial on those grounds was error |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment on original petition after denying amendment | If amendment permitted, injunctive claim would be removed and summary judgment on injunctive claim would be moot; summary judgment was premature without consolidation or further discovery | Facts from the temporary-injunction hearing allegedly showed no entitlement to permanent injunction or damage | Court did not reach merits of summary judgment because it reversed denial of leave to amend; directed remand to allow amendment (which would moot the summary-judgment issue) |
| Whether declaratory relief under DJA was justiciable/ripeness (actual controversy) | City asserted a present antagonistic claim of right and a real prospect of recurrence (past cavitation, ongoing permits issued to Defs); DJA permits determination of rights under statute 82 O.S. §105.5 | Defs argued controversy speculative because river currently had adequate flow and alleged future harm was conjectural | Reversed: court found the DJA claim met justiciability requirements (not merely speculative); amendment should be allowed; OWRB notice required |
Key Cases Cited
- Prough v. Edinger, 862 P.2d 71 (discretion to deny leave to amend limited by factors like undue delay, prejudice, futility)
- Gordon v. Followell, 391 P.2d 242 (elements for invoking declaratory-judgment jurisdiction; justiciable controversy requirements)
- Heldermon v. Wright, 152 P.3d 855 (notice to OWRB required in suits under 82 O.S. §105.5 so Attorney General may intervene)
- Tulsa Indus. Auth. v. City of Tulsa, 270 P.3d 113 (justiciability requires more than speculative or advisory claims)
- City of Broken Arrow v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, 250 P.3d 305 (justiciability principles applied)
- Lippitt v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 233 P.3d 799 (standard for injunctive relief — extraordinary remedy; clear and convincing evidence)
- Bittle v. Oklahoma City University, 6 P.3d 509 (futility standard for denial of leave to amend akin to failure-to-state-a-claim analysis)