STATE ex rel. PRUITT v. NATIVE WHOLESALE SUPPLY
338 P.3d 613
| Okla. | 2014Background
- AG moved for summary judgment seeking disgorgement of $47,767,795.20 under the Complementary Act for NWS's sale of contraband Seneca cigarettes.
- Remand followed Native Wholesale Supply I, which held Oklahoma had jurisdiction and the MSACA could apply; the question remained whether settled-law-of-the-case bound the district court.
- Seneca cigarettes were removed from the AG directory in 2006 for escrow deficiencies; they were contraband in Oklahoma after August 1, 2006.
- NWS argued the settled-law-of-the-case bound the district court and that issues required a jury; the district court granted summary judgment for the AG post-remand.
- Exhibits 5 and 6 (and related invoices) showed gross receipts totaling at least $47,767,795.20 from August 2006 to August 2010, supporting disgorgement.
- Court held that the AG was entitled to summary judgment for disgorgement and that NWS was not entitled to a jury trial on unsettled factual issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand bound the court to Native Wholesale Supply I’s facts | NWS argued settled-law bound district court on merits | NWS claimed settled law precluded merits findings and necessitated a jury | Yes; settled-law bound district court on remand except where palpable error shown |
| Whether NWS is entitled to a jury trial on MSACA merits | AG contends settled law and statute deny jury trial | NWS asserts right to jury trial on unresolved facts | No; MSACA claim is statutory, not common-law, and no jury trial guaranteed |
| Whether summary judgment on disgorgement amount was proper | AG presented undisputed records showing at least $47,767,795.20 | NWS did not contest the material facts but argued about allocation of costs/taxes | Yes; evidence supports disgorgement amount as matter of law |
| Whether NWS knew or should have known the Seneca sales violated the Complementary Act | AG evidence showed knowledge/distribution into OK; NWS knew or should have known | NWS argued lack of explicit knowledge of violation | Disputed facts remained; however, settled-law supported summary judgment, and record supported knowledge in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Native Wholesale Supply I, 237 P.3d 199 (Okla. 2010) (jurisdiction and MSACA enforcement; settled-law-of-the-case binds remand)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (due process stream-of-commerce framework)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (stream-of-commerce plus theory guidance)
- State ex rel. Edmondson v. Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., 308 P.3d 1057 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018) (preemption/escrow findings (cert. denied))
- Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2012) (tribal immunity and MSACA application context)