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 the "advertised price" for certain mixed drinks in violation of 37 O.S. § 576 and related claims (declaratory relief, injunctive relief, class certification, OCPA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, etc.).
- Multiple defendants (Appellants) filed motions to dismiss asserting, among other grounds, that the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) was a necessary/indispensable party under 75 O.S. § 306 and that Appellees failed to join it.
- The trial court initially granted the motions to dismiss (characterized as default dismissals) after finding Appellees had not properly responded to the § 306 joinder argument.
- Appellees filed a timely motion to reconsider, arguing they had responded to the OTC-joinder issue and that they sought relief only from private defendants (not from OTC or refunds from OTC).
- On reconsideration the trial court concluded it previously had ruled OTC was not indispensable, determined it had erred in entering the dismissals by default, vacated the dismissals, and allowed the claims to proceed on the merits.
- Appellants appealed the order vacating dismissal; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in vacating prior dismissal orders | Truel: They timely moved to reconsider, had addressed OTC joinder, and seek relief only from private defendants | Appellants: Appellees failed to respond to § 306 joinder argument; under District Court Rule 4 the motions to dismiss could be deemed confessed, so dismissal was proper | Court: No abuse of discretion; Rule 4 is permissive and the court properly reviewed the merits and vacated what it treated as default dismissals |
| Whether OTC was a necessary/indispensable party under 75 O.S. § 306 | Truel: OTC is not indispensable; plaintiffs are not challenging rules or seeking refunds from OTC; statutes/regulations are relied upon, not attacked | Appellants: § 306 requires the agency be joined in any action to determine rule applicability; failure to join mandates dismissal | Court: Plaintiffs sufficiently addressed why OTC was not indispensable; trial court had previously ruled OTC not indispensable and reasonably declined dismissal on § 306 grounds |
| Whether District Court Rule 4(e) compelled dismissal for failure to respond | Truel: Even if response imperfect, Rule 4 uses "may" and court retains discretion; rule not self-executing | Appellants: Failure to specifically respond to § 306 meant the issue was confessed under Rule 4 | Court: Rule 4(e) is permissive; trial court had discretion and appropriately declined to treat motions as confessed |
| Whether vacation of dismissal (default) was improper | Truel: Vacation timely; default judgments disfavored; justice favors hearing merits | Appellants: Trial court erred in setting aside dismissals without adequate basis | Court: Default judgments not favored; vacatur to allow merits review was within discretion and not an abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 681 P.2d 757 (Okla. 1984) (substance controls over form; motions to reconsider may be treated as new-trial motions)
- Osprey L.L.C. v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co. Inc., 984 P.2d 194 (Okla. 1999) (distinguishing mandatory "shall" from permissive "may" in procedural rules)
- 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)
- Record v. Record, 816 P.2d 1139 (Okla. 1991) (Rule 4 does not apply to motions for new trial; merits consideration required)
- Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. H. Webb Enters., Inc., 13 P.3d 480 (Okla. 2000) (default judgments are disfavored; vacatur favors ends of justice)