STOCKBRIDGE ENERGY, LLC v. TAYLOR, 359 P.3d 181

Stockbridge Energy sued Taylor, Groninger, and Taylor Drilling Corp. in 2003 for partnership/lease-development breaches, secret transactions, and misappropriation of profits.
Taylor and Groninger specially appeared and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Stockbridge did not oppose and the trial court granted unopposed motions on August 17, 2004. The dismissal order did not set a time for amendment.
More than four years later (2009) Stockbridge moved for leave to amend and re-added Taylor and Groninger as individual defendants; the trial court permitted amendment and Stockbridge filed amended pleadings (and later a second amended petition).
Taylor and Groninger moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment in 2012, concluding the individual claims were barred by the prior unopposed dismissals and veil-piercing allegations were unsupported.
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, relying on 12 O.S. § 2012(G) and Kelly v. Abbott, concluding the dismissal was interlocutory and the court should have specified a time to amend; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the COCA, holding the time to amend cannot exceed applicable statutes of limitation or the one-year savings clause (12 O.S. §100); Stockbridge’s four-year delay exceeded those periods, so the trial court’s dismissal was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court's dismissal without specifying a time to amend under 12 O.S. §2012(G) preserves the plaintiff's right to amend beyond statutory limitation periods	Stockbridge: §2012(G) requires leave to amend when a defect is curable; absence of a specified deadline did not bar later amendment	Taylor & Groninger: Plaintiff’s right to amend cannot extend past applicable statutes of limitation or the one-year savings clause; four-year delay is untimely	Held: The right to amend after dismissal must be exercised within a "reasonable time," which cannot exceed the applicable statute(s) of limitation or the one-year savings clause; four-year delay was untimely and dismissal stands
Whether Kelly v. Abbott controls this case to allow amendment after a lengthy delay	Stockbridge: Kelly permits amendment after dismissal where defects are curable; COCA relied on Kelly to allow amendment	Defendants: Kelly is distinguishable — in Kelly amendment occurred within the savings clause and a short delay; it does not allow multi-year delays that defeat statutes of limitation	Held: Kelly allows amendment within a reasonable time (e.g., short delay); it does not permit amendment beyond the statutes of limitation or the one-year savings clause

Kelly v. Abbott, 781 P.2d 1188 (Okla. 1989) (held that a trial court must allow leave to amend when defects are curable, but recognized amendment must occur within a reasonable time and is constrained by limitation/savings rules)