LADRA v. NEW DOMINION, LLC, 2015 OK 53

Plaintiff Sandra Ladra was injured in her Prague, Oklahoma home during a November 5, 2011, magnitude 5.0 earthquake; she alleges falling chimney/rock caused >$75,000 in injuries.
Ladra sued New Dominion, LLC, Spess Oil Company, and others in Lincoln County district court, alleging their wastewater injection wells caused the seismic event and her injuries (private torts including ultrahazardous activity/negligence/strict liability theories).
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) has exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving injection wells.
The district court granted the motions and dismissed the case; Ladra appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court struck portions of Ladra’s Petition in Error that contained new arguments not raised below (accelerated appeal rule), then reviewed de novo whether the district court had jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCC has exclusive jurisdiction over private tort claims arising from injection-well-induced earthquakes	Ladra: private tort claims for injury from wells fall within district court jurisdiction; OCC does not adjudicate private damages	Defendants: OCC’s statutory jurisdiction over injection wells precludes district court jurisdiction; OCC has exclusive control	Held: District courts have jurisdiction over private torts; OCC’s jurisdiction is limited to public rights and regulation, not private damage claims
Whether allowing district-court suits would impermissibly collaterally attack OCC orders or improperly encroach on OCC authority	Ladra: suit seeks damages only, not reversal/ modification of OCC orders	Defendants: permitting suit would amount to oversight of OCC actions and conflict with statutory exclusivity	Held: Lawsuit seeking damages does not reverse/modify OCC orders; district courts may hear private torts without collateral attack on OCC orders
Whether Ladra raised new arguments on appeal outside the trial record	Ladra included an explanatory exhibit with new arguments in the Petition in Error	Defendants moved to strike as violating accelerated-appeal rules	Held: Court struck the extraneous portions; appellate review confined to issues presented to the trial court

Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp., 230 P.3d 853 (Okla. 2010) (OCC cannot determine disputes where public interest is not involved; Commission lacks authority to award damages)
Kingwood Oil Co. v. Hall-Jones Oil Corp., 396 P.2d 510 (Okla. 1964) (private tort suits against operators are for district courts despite OCC regulation)
Grayhorse Energy, LLC v. Crawley Petroleum Corp., 245 P.3d 1249 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010) (OCC orders do not immunize operators from district-court lawsuits; district courts cannot reverse OCC orders)
NBI Servs., Inc. v. Ward, 132 P.3d 619 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (questions of negligence or absolute liability for regulated operations are for district courts)
Marathon Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 910 P.2d 966 (Okla. 1994) (discusses limits of OCC jurisdiction)
Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Wishbone Oil & Gas, Inc., 746 P.2d 209 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987) (district court limited to inquiring whether OCC had jurisdiction; cannot collateral attack orders)
Nilsen v. Ports of Call Oil Co., 711 P.2d 98 (Okla. 1985) (defines collateral attack on OCC orders and limitations on district courts)