Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Tex. Cnty. v. State ex. rel. Office of Juvenile Affairs

Citation2021 OK CIV APP 40
Decision Date03 September 2021
Docket Number119391
PartiesBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TEXAS COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Petitioners/Appellants, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex. rel. OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS, and RACHEL HOLT, INTERIM DIRECTOR, Respondents/Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Mandate Issued: 10/21/2021

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. HONORABLE RYAN D. REDDICK, TRIAL JUDGE

Mary Gaye LeBeouf, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Jim W. Lee Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and James Boring, District Attorney Guymon, Oklahoma, for Petitioners/Appellants

Kevin L. McClure, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma Attorney General, Litigation Section, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondents/Appellees.

THOMAS E. PRINCE, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

¶1 This appeal stems from an Order by the trial court dismissing the claims of the Texas County Board of County Commissioners upon the basis of a lack of jurisdiction and venue. The Board initiated two cases against the Office of Juvenile Affairs following the elimination of funding for the juvenile detention center located in Texas County. The cases ultimately were consolidated by the trial court. The trial court dismissed the cases on the basis that the challenged action by OJA constitutes neither an individual proceeding nor rule-making. The Board sought reconsideration of the dismissal order and, in addition, alleged a violation of its right to due process. The trial court denied the Board's request for reconsideration. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Prior to the challenged action by OJA, a contract for funding to operate a six- bed juvenile detention facility in Texas County existed between the Board and OJA. The most recent contract executed in 2018 provided for a base year from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. The contract provided for two one-year option periods. The first option period was from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. The second option period was to commence on July 1, 2020.

¶3 On or about May 12, 2020, in an open meeting proceeding, OJA voted to amend the State Plan for Detention Services. As a result of the approval of the amendment to the State Plan funding for the Texas County Juvenile Detention Facility was eliminated. On June 2, 2020, the Board filed a Motion to Reconsider, requesting the OJA to reconsider the decision to amend the State Plan, which was considered at the next meeting. At that meeting, the Motion to Reconsider failed for lack of a second.

¶4 On July 8, 2020, the Board filed a Petition for Appeal to the District Court, along with a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. That action was filed in Texas County District Court, and assigned Case. No. CV-2020-52 ("Administrative Appeal"). OJA responded to that filing with a Motion to Dismiss (filed on July 30, 2020).

¶5 Next, on August 3, 2020, the Board filed a second lawsuit in which it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, also filed in Texas County District Court. The declaratory judgment action was assigned Case. No. CV-2020-58 ("Declaratory Judgment Action"). The OJA also responded to that filing with another Motion to Dismiss (filed on August 12, 2020).

¶6 In the Administrative Appeal, the Board alleged, in part, that it was seeking a review of an alleged final agency order by the OJA, pursuant to 75 O.S. §318. The Board further argued that OJA committed a breach of contract by failing to give the Board thirty days of notice that it did not intend to renew the contract. [1] In its Motion to Dismiss in the Administrative Appeal, OJA argued that the Administrative Procedures Act does not apply because § 318 only allows appeals to review a final agency order in an individual proceeding. OJA claimed that the vote to amend the State Plan for Detention Services did not constitute an individual proceeding and, as a result, the trial court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the lawsuit.

¶7 In the Declaratory Judgment Action, the Board alleged that it was seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 75 O.S. §306, upon the alleged basis that the challenged action was subject to the rule-making requirements of the APA. In the Petition for Declaratory Relief and Temporary Injunction, the Board reiterated its arguments from the first lawsuit that OJA violated its statutory mandates, violated the Open Meeting Act and violated the thirty-day notice provision contained in the contract between OJA and the Board. In response, OJA argued that when there is an action against state officials, venue lies in the county in which the cause or some part of it arose and also that the rule-making requirements within the APA did not apply. OJA argued that the Board was merely challenging a fiscal decision by OJA to cut its budget across the State and whether it had the statutory authority to do so. Consequently, according to OJA, venue is appropriate in Oklahoma County under the general venue statute, 12 O.S. §133, that governs actions against state officials and, also, regarding the merits of the case, OJA argued that declaratory relief was not appropriate because the APA rule-making requirements did not apply to the challenged action.

¶8 A hearing concerning the Motions to Dismiss was held on August 25, 2020. [2] Two things occurred at the hearing that are relevant to this appeal. In addition to determining that the action taken by OJA did not constitute rule-making, the trial court concluded that the question of jurisdiction was a mixed question of fact and law. The trial court denied the Motions to Dismiss at that time. After denying the Motions to Dismiss, the trial court set a hearing on the Board's Motion to Stay and claim for a Temporary Injunction. When discussing the matters to be presented at the hearing on the Motion to Stay, the following exchange occurred in open court:

MR. MCCLURE: My inclination without revealing too much of my tactics that I don't mind if you don't mind, is I will probably present witnesses at the motion -- at the hearing to establish the facts of -- that this was an individual action and therefore the Court still does not have to --
THE COURT: Yeah. Because one of the issues on that motion to stay is likelihood of success --
MR. MCCLURE: True.
THE COURT: -- right? And so I'll have to make a decision about that, and I don't know if that's -- if I'm supposed to base that on evidence on the pleadings or not, but I had thought that far ahead.
MR. MCCLURE: Right. Yeah. I laid out the issues for the temporary injunction and the permanent injunctions, and the Court can take whatever evidence it needs really.
THE COURT: To make those decisions.

¶9 On August 31, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the Board's Motion to Stay and claim for a Temporary Injunction. During that hearing, OJA presented a witness to establish the fact that the vote that took place, which amended the State Plan for Detention Services, was not an individual proceeding or rule making. At the conclusion of the hearing on the Motion to Stay, the trial court denied both of the Board's motions. OJA then renewed its Motions to Dismiss. The trial court advised that it would hear OJA's renewed Motions to Dismiss on September 4, 2020.

¶10 On September 4, 2020, a hearing was conducted via telephone. The trial court announced its ruling on the renewed Motions to Dismiss. Counsel for the Board argued that the Board was without prior notice that OJA would renew (on August 31, 2020) its Motions to Dismiss. [3] Notwithstanding counsel's due process argument, the trial court granted OJA's Motions to Dismiss at that time.

¶11 After the trial court granted OJA's Motions to Dismiss, the Board filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In the Motion for Reconsideration, the Board claimed that the trial court had jurisdiction, that Texas County was the appropriate venue and that its due process rights were violated. The trial court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and the Board initiated is appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶12 The determination of whether the trial court had jurisdiction and/or was a proper venue entirely depends on the resolution of the following issues: whether the challenged action by OJA constituted rule making and/or stemmed from an individual proceeding. As the trial court noted, these issues represent mixed questions of law and fact. [4] When a question of statutory interpretation is involved, this Court applies a de novo standard of review. Christian v Christian, 2018 OK 91, ¶5, 434 P.3d 941, 942. The "primary goal is to determine legislative intent through the 'plain and ordinary meaning' of the statutory language." Id. at 942. De novo review "involves an appellate court's exercise of a plenary, independent, and non-deferential reexamination of the trial court's rulings on issues of law." Johnson v. CSAA General Insurance Co., 2020 OK 110, ¶11, 478 P.3d 422, 427.

¶13 Orders granting motions to dismiss are reviewed de novo. Tyree v. Cornman, 2019 OK CIV APP 66, ¶4, 453 P.3d 497, 502. When reviewing the granting of a motion to dismiss, all allegations in the petition are taken as true. Id. at 502. The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the law of the claims, not the supporting facts. Choate v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 2016 OK CIV APP 60, ¶20, 385 P.3d 670, 676.

¶14 The Board argues that its right to due process was violated by the trial court. Typically, the question of whether due process rights were violated in the context of an appeal from an individual proceeding is reviewed de novo. Cole v. State Dept. of Public Safety, 2020 OK 67 ¶6, 473 P.3d 467, 470. In this case, however, the Board complains that the trial court erred when it permitted OJA to present a witness during the hearing on August 31, 2020, and also when the trial court entertained OJA's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT