TOCH, LLC v. CITY OF TULSA, 474 P.3d 859

Background:

Tulsa City Council adopted ordinance creating Tulsa Tourism Improvement District No. 1 (TID) limited to properties with hotels of 110 or more rooms; assessment roll listed 33 hotels.
Toch, LLC (owner/operator of the 180-room Aloft Downtown Tulsa) filed suit seeking declaratory relief, arguing the enabling statute required inclusion of all hotels with 50 or more rooms and that the 110-room cutoff was improper.
The district court granted summary judgment for Toch, holding 11 O.S. § 39-103.1 mandated that any TID for marketing must include all hotels with at least 50 rooms.
City of Tulsa and intervenor Tulsa Hotel Partners appealed, arguing § 39-103.1 sets a minimum floor (50 rooms) but grants municipalities discretion to tailor districts (e.g., set higher thresholds), and also challenged whether the statutory protest requirement for bringing suit was met.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court (majority) held Toch had standing via an agency/protest relationship and reversed the trial court, ruling § 39-103.1 is permissive: municipalities may limit districts to properties having a minimum of 50 rooms but may set higher minimums (so the 110-room cutoff was permitted); the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issues:

Issue	Toch's Argument	City/Tulsa Hotel Partners' Argument	Held
1) Standing / § 39-108(D) protest prerequisite	Toch argued it could represent objecting hotels and timely litigate; district court found standing	City argued only persons who filed written protest in their own name at the hearing may sue; Toch did not file in its name	Court: Toch timely litigated via agency/representation of an owner who filed protest; standing satisfied
2) Meaning of "hotel or motel having 50 or more rooms" in § 39-103.1	Toch: phrase creates a mandatory class—municipalities must include all hotels with ≥50 rooms (a level)	City: phrase sets a floor (minimum size) but is permissive; municipalities may choose a higher cutoff to tailor districts	Court: "50 or more" is a permissive floor; municipalities may limit districts to hotels of at least 50 rooms and may set higher thresholds
3) Whether City exceeded statutory authority by using 110-room cutoff	Toch: City exceeded statutory authority by creating a subclass (110+) and omitting 50–109 room hotels	City: statute grants discretion to define geographical area and scope; 110 cutoff fits within permitted description	Court: City did not exceed authority; 110-room limitation falls within § 39-103.1(A) permissive scope
4) Validity of district court's summary-judgment basis	Toch relied on district court's statutory-level reading to invalidate TID	City argued the court erred by deciding a dispositive statutory-interpretation issue sua sponte and misreading the statute	Court: district court erred in ruling municipalities lacked discretion; summary judgment reversed and remanded

Key Cases Cited

American Biomedical Group, Inc. v. Techtrol, Inc., 374 P.3d 820 (Okla. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Surety Bail Bondsmen of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Insurance Commissioner, 243 P.3d 1177 (Okla. 2010) (agency relationship principles)
Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (canon: disjunctive "or" normally gives separate meanings)
United States v. Woods, 571 U.S. 31 (2013) (usage of "or" is ordinarily disjunctive, giving separate meanings)
Ex parte Holmes, 18 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1933) (municipalities possess only expressly or impliedly granted powers)
City of Lawton v. Akers, 333 P.2d 520 (Okla. 1958) (need to tailor assessments to municipalities' differing needs)