Sooner Emergency Services, Inc. v. USV Trucking, Inc., 6:25-cv-00153

On Sept. 3, 2024 a USV Trucking employee’s tractor‑trailer suffered a blowout on I‑40, left the roadway, caught fire, and contaminated the scene with diesel/motor oil and burned cargo (pizza dough, French toast, icing).
Sooner Emergency Services, Inc. (SEMI) performed emergency remediation and seeks $94,073.03 for cleanup; SEMI sued in Oklahoma state court (Apr. 10, 2025) and the case was removed to federal court.
SEMI’s petition asserted liability under 47 Okla. Stat. § 11‑1110 (“injurious substances”) and alternative theories (contract, quasi‑contract, quantum meruit) and attached its response/cleanup report.
USV moved to dismiss, arguing § 11‑1110 does not cover hazardous/dangerous substances (so the Oklahoma Emergency Response Act governs) and that statutory and contract claims are inadequately pleaded.
The court relied on the Oklahoma Attorney General opinion and the OERA definition of “dangerous substance,” noted SEMI declined the court’s invitation to amend, and found pleading deficiencies as to the § 11‑1110 and contract claims.
Ruling: motion to dismiss GRANTED in part (statutory § 11‑1110 and contract claims dismissed) and DENIED in part (quantum meruit/quasi‑contract claim survives).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of 47 Okla. Stat. § 11‑1110	§ 11‑1110 covers “any other substances” deposited on a highway and therefore authorizes recovery for cleanup	The incident involved hazardous/dangerous materials (diesel/oil); § 11‑1110 does not apply to hazardous releases and the OERA controls	Court: § 11‑1110 claim insufficiently pleaded and inapplicable as pleaded; OERA governs hazardous releases per AG opinion and statute interpretations
Location/venue element for § 11‑1110	SEMI alleged spill on I‑40 and emergency cleanup was required	USV argued statute only applies to substances left on highway and the wreck was off the highway	Court: factual allegations showed the incident began on I‑40, but statutory scope issue resolved against SEMI for other reasons (hazardous materials/OERA)
Breach of contract claim	SEMI alternatively pleaded contract liability	USV: no contract alleged or attached	Court: contract claim fails (no contract pleaded)
Quantum meruit / quasi‑contract	SEMI provided remediation without a written contract and seeks reasonable value of services	USV: SEMI failed to allege USV knowingly accepted benefit or that USV had opportunity to remediate under OERA	Court: quantum meruit/quasi‑contract plausibly pleaded and survives Rule 12(b)(6); factual disputes (acceptance, opportunity to remediate) reserved for later stages

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim; legal conclusions unsupported by facts insufficient)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausibility required to survive dismissal)
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (court may ignore conclusory allegations in assessing complaint)
Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2009) (on Rule 12(b)(6), court may consider complaint exhibits and documents incorporated by reference)
Brown v. Wrightsman, 51 P.2d 761 (Okla. 1935) (quantum meruit: law implies agreement to pay reasonable value for services)
Berry v. Barbour, 279 P.2d 335 (Okla. 1954) (quasi‑contract obligations arise from equity, not consent)
Welling v. Am. Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 617 P.2d 206 (Okla. 1980) (measure of damages in quasi‑contract to compensate detriment caused)
Boulware v. Baldwin, 545 Fed. Appx. 725 (10th Cir. 2013) (federal pleading rules permit alternative and inconsistent claims)