TRUEL v. ANDOLINI'S, LLC
2017 OK CIV APP 12
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Appellees (customers) sued over 700 Oklahoma bars/restaurants alleging they were charged more than an "advertised price" for certain mixed drinks in violation of 37 O.S. § 576 and related claims (declaratory relief, injunctive relief, class certification, OCPA and contract/tort theories).
- Multiple defendants (Appellants) moved to dismiss, arguing among other grounds that the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) was a necessary/indispensable party under 75 O.S. § 306 and that Appellees had not joined it, so dismissal was required.
- Appellees filed a written objection contending the OTC had no interest to be impaired, they sought relief only from private defendants, and they were not seeking refunds from the OTC; they denied challenging the validity of OTC rules.
- The trial court initially granted the motions to dismiss (characterized as defaults), then Appellees timely moved to reconsider, asserting the court had already ruled the OTC was not indispensable and that the dismissals resulted from misunderstanding.
- On rehearing the trial court vacated its prior dismissal orders, finding it had previously determined the OTC was not indispensable, that defaults should not have been entered, and that Appellees had addressed the joinder issue sufficiently.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in vacating dismissals and that Rule 4 confessions and § 306 required dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OTC was a necessary/indispensable party under 75 O.S. § 306 | Appellees: OTC has no interest to be impaired; claims are against private parties only and seek no relief from OTC | Appellants: § 306 requires OTC be joined; Appellees failed to address § 306 so dismissal was appropriate | Court: OTC was not indispensable here; Appellees sufficiently opposed joinder and court did not abuse discretion in refusing dismissal |
| Whether the trial court could deem motions confessed under District Court Rule 4 and dismiss | Appellees: they filed an objection and addressed joinder; Rule 4 is permissive and court retained discretion | Appellants: Appellees failed to specifically respond to § 306; Rule 4 allowed deeming the motion confessed | Court: Rule 4 uses "may"; trial court not required to deem motions confessed and retained discretion to review merits |
| Whether vacating prior dismissal/default judgments was an abuse of discretion | Appellees: dismissals were entered by mistake/default; default judgments disfavored and should be vacated to promote justice | Appellants: vacatur lacked legal/evidentiary support; defendants entitled to dismissal | Court: vacatur was within discretion; defaults are not favored and vacation promotes ends of justice |
| Standard of review for vacatur of dismissal | Appellees: motion to reconsider treated as new-trial motion; reviewed for abuse of discretion | Appellants: same standard but argue misapplication here | Court: reviewed for abuse of discretion and found no clear erroneous conclusion against reason/evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 681 P.2d 757 (Okla. 1984) (motion to reconsider may be treated as functional equivalent of a new-trial motion)
- Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. H. Webb Enters., Inc., 13 P.3d 480 (Okla. 2000) (default judgments are not favored; vacation should promote the ends of justice)
- Westlake Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. Cornforth, 940 P.2d 1208 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996) (District Court Rule 4 is not self-executing; court retains discretion to review motions)
- Osprey L.L.C. v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co. Inc., 984 P.2d 194 (Okla. 1999) (distinguishing mandatory vs. permissive language; "may" is permissive)
- Record v. Record, 816 P.2d 1139 (Okla. 1991) (Rule 4 does not apply to certain post-judgment/new-trial motions and trial court should consider merits)