THACKER v. WALTON
491 P.3d 756
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2021Background
- Kirt Thacker sued; defendants Scott Walton and John Singer filed motions to dismiss under the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA). The trial court denied those motions.
- This Court previously held the trial court should have dismissed Thacker’s state-law claims under the OCPA but correctly denied dismissal of his federal claims (federal claims are not subject to the OCPA).
- The appeal turned on entitlement to appeal-related attorney fees and appellate costs under 12 O.S. § 1438 after partial reversal.
- Key statutory questions: whether § 1438(A)(1) mandates fees when a legal action is dismissed; whether “legal action” includes individual claims within a multi-claim lawsuit; whether defendants’ attempt to dismiss federal claims was frivolous under § 1438(B); and how appellate costs should be apportioned.
- The Court (1) reaffirmed that § 1438(A)(1) requires mandatory fee awards when a legal action is dismissed under the OCPA, (2) held “legal action” includes individual claims, (3) denied Thacker’s request for fees because defendants’ attempt to dismiss federal claims was not frivolous, and (4) directed that appellate costs be equally divided under 12 O.S. § 978.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1438(A)(1) mandates attorney fees when a legal action is dismissed under the OCPA | Thacker: "as justice and equity may require" makes fee award discretionary | Walton/Singer: statute says "the court shall award" — fees are mandatory | Fees are mandatory; reaffirming Steidley — the qualifying phrase modifies only "other expenses" and does not negate mandatory award language |
| Whether "legal action" includes individual claims within a multi-claim lawsuit | Thacker: dismissal of some claims is not dismissal of a "legal action" under OCPA | Walton/Singer: "legal action" includes individual claims; otherwise OCPA could be evaded by adding non-OCPA claims | "Legal action" includes individual claims; moving parties entitled to reasonable appeal-related fees for dismissal of state-law claims |
| Whether defendants’ attempt to dismiss federal claims was frivolous (entitling Thacker to fees under § 1438(B)) | Thacker: motions to dismiss federal claims were frivolous and warrant fees | Walton/Singer: dismissal argument was not frivolous; it was a novel question of law | Not frivolous — fees to Thacker denied because appellants’ arguments were not made in bad faith and raised a first-impression issue |
| Allocation of appellate costs after partial reversal/affirmance | Thacker: appellants not entitled to appellate costs because they only partially prevailed | Walton/Singer: § 1438(A)(1) entitles them to all appellate costs following dismissal | Costs governed by 12 O.S. § 978.1 for partial reversal/affirmance — appellate costs to be equally divided |
Key Cases Cited
- Steidley v. Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc., 383 P.3d 780 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (held attorney fees are mandatory when an OCPA special motion to dismiss is granted)
- Steidley v. Singer, 389 P.3d 1117 (Okla. 2017) (discussed OCPA scope and purpose)
- Odom v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 415 P.3d 521 (Okla. 2018) (statutory interpretation principles; avoid absurd results and construe the act as a whole)
- Matter of Estate Tax Protest of Leake Estate, 891 P.2d 1299 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994) (last antecedent rule as an aid to statutory construction)