Ladra v. New Dominion, LLC

• Decision Date: 30 June 2015
• Docket Number: 113,396.
• Citation: 2015 OK 53,353 P.3d 529
• Parties: Sandra LADRA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NEW DOMINION, LLC, and Spess Oil Company, John Does 1–25, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

353 P.3d 529
2015 OK 53

Sandra LADRA, Plaintiff/Appellant
v.
NEW DOMINION, LLC, and Spess Oil Company, John Does 1–25, Defendants/Appellees.

113,396.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 30, 2015.

Larry K. Lenora, Gregory A. Upton, Lenora & Upton, Chandler, Oklahoma; Scott E. Poynter, Emerson Poynter LLP, Little Rock, Arkansas, for the Plaintiff/Appellant.

Michael L. Darrah, E. Edd Pritchett, Jr., Katherine T. Loy, Timothy L. Martin, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Defendant/Appellee Spess Oil Company.

Robert G. Gum, Bret A. Glenn, Gum, Puckett & Mackenchnie, L.L.P., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Defendant/Appellee New Dominion, LLC.

Opinion

WINCHESTER, J.

¶ 1 This is a private tort action wherein Plaintiff/Appellant Sandra Ladra (“Appellant”) seeks to recover from Defendants/Appellees New Dominion LLC, Spess Oil Company, and John Does 1–25 (collectively, “Appellees”) compensatory and punitive damages for injuries proximately caused by Appellees' wastewater disposal practices. The Appellees moved to dismiss, arguing that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims. The District Court of Lincoln County granted the motions and dismissed the action. This Court retained the matter. We hold that jurisdiction lies with the district court.

I. Facts

¶ 2 Appellees operate wastewater injection wells in and around Lincoln County, Oklahoma, as well as other wells in central Oklahoma. Since approximately 2009, Oklahoma has experienced a dramatic increase in the frequency and severity of earthquakes.

¶ 3 On November 5, 2011, Appellant was at home in Prague, Oklahoma¹ watching television in her living room with her family when a 5.0 magnitude earthquake struck nearby. Suddenly, Appellant's home began to shake, causing rock facing on the two-story fireplace and chimney to fall into the living room area. Some of the falling rocks struck Appellant and caused significant injury to her knees and legs, and she was rushed immediately to an emergency room for treatment. She claims personal injury damages in excess of $75,000.

¶ 4 Appellant filed this action in the District Court of Lincoln County to recover damages from Appellees, alleging that their injection wells—by causing, inter alia, the Prague earthquake—were the proximate cause of Appellant's injuries. Appellees objected to the court's jurisdiction and moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed the case on October 16, 2014, explaining that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”) has exclusive jurisdiction over cases concerning oil and gas operations. Appellant filed with this Court a Petition in Error seeking review of the district court's order.

II. Post–Appeal Issues

¶ 5 In her Petition in Error, Appellant attached a five-page explanation of the issues raised on appeal as Exhibit C. She included in that exhibit several arguments and authorities that she had not previously presented to

353 P.3d 531

the district court. As a result, Appellees have moved to strike most of the exhibit, arguing that it violates the rules for accelerated appeal.

¶ 6 Under the rules for accelerated appeal, no briefing shall be allowed unless ordered by the appellate court. Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.36(g). Instead, “[a]n appellate court shall confine its review to the record actually presented to the trial court.” Id. It is evident, therefore, that a party shall not include new arguments or authorities—which would have the effect of briefing the issues—in her Petition in Error. When a party attempts to circumvent this rule, appellate courts should strike those parts of the petition that exceed the scope allowed by Rule 1.36(g).See, e.g., Simington v. Parker, 2011 OK CIV APP 28, ¶ 6, 250 P.3d 351, 353–54 ; O'Feery v. Smith, 2001 OK CIV APP 142, ¶ 3, 38 P.3d 242, 244.

¶ 7 This Court has not ordered the parties to brief the issues. Because that exhibit contains arguments extrinsic to “the record actually presented to the trial court,” we grant Appellees' motions to strike everything below the one-sentence heading at the top of Appellant's Exhibit C.

III. Standard of Review

¶ 8 A motion to dismiss is generally viewed with disfavor, and the standard of review before this Court is de novo. Simonson v. Schaefer, 2013 OK 25, ¶ 3, 301 P.3d 413, 414. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, this Court examines only the controlling law,...