Groom v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA
| Citation | 344 F. Supp. 1000 |
| Decision Date | 15 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 71-246. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | Raymond A. GROOM and Harold E. Hall, Jr., d/b/a Midwest City Cycle Sales & Service, a partnership, Plaintiffs, v. KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., USA, Defendant. |
Murray Cohen, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs.
Lynn J. Bullis, Jr., Glenn H. Grubb, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.
The Court has under consideration the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to which the Plaintiffs have responded. The Motion has been fully briefed and oral arguments have been received by the Court.
Plaintiffs filed an application with the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Commission (Commission) to revoke or suspend the license of the Defendant to do business in Oklahoma as a manufacturer of motor vehicles pursuant to 47 O.S.A. § 565(j) (4).1 After a hearing the Commission denied the application. Plaintiffs did not pursue the appeal therefrom provided by Statute and the determination of the Commission is final.
Thereafter pursuant to the above-mentioned Statute and 47 O.S.A. § 572 (a venue Statute) Plaintiffs brought an action to recover damages against said Defendant in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. This action was properly removed to this Court by the Defendant on diversity grounds.
Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment requests the Court to apply the principles of res judicata or estoppel by judgment to bar the Plaintiffs' action pending herein. It is the Defendant's contention that the disputed fact issues which would warrant the Commission to revoke or suspend the Defendant's license under 47 O.S.A. § 565(j) (4) are the identical fact issues which would permit Plaintiffs to recover damages herein. Such issues, which arise out of a statutorily created cause or causes of action have to do with whether the Defendant failed to renew the expired franchise agreement2 it had with the Plaintiffs unfairly and without just provocation or without due regard to the equities of the dealer (Plaintiffs) or without good faith. Defendant further contends that the proceeding before the Commission regarding Plaintiffs' application to revoke or suspend Defendant's license was conducted by the Commission in a judicial capacity with the parties having had an adequate opportunity to litigate the disputed issues of fact.
Plaintiffs argue that such proceeding before the Commission was not conducted in a judicial capacity but rather was an administrative determination. Plaintiffs urge that the doctrines of res judicata or estoppel by judgment should not be applied in the circumstances of this case.
The Court finds and concludes that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. The right of Plaintiffs under 47 O.S.A. § 565(j) (4) to seek revocation or suspension of Defendant's license before the Commission and their right to seek damages against the Defendant are statutorily created rights provided by the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Commission Act. 47 O.S.A. § 561 et seq. The right to obtain the revocation or suspension of Defendant's license before the Commission under 47 O.S.A. § 565(j) (4) and the right to recover damages herein against the Defendant under the same Statute are based on identical statutory grounds, namely, Defendant's failure to renew the expired franchise agreement with the Plaintiffs unfairly and without just provocation or without due regard of the equities of the Plaintiffs or without good faith. And the Court is convinced that the proceeding before the Commission was conducted by the Commission in a judicial capacity. 47 O.S.A. § 566 prescribes the procedure for such hearing. It is required under such Statute that written notice specifying the reasons for revocation or suspension should be served on the person against whom the application is lodged. The Commission has the power to compel the production of records and papers bearing upon the Complaint. The Commission has the power to subpoena and bring before it any person in this State. It also has the authority to take the testimony of any such person by deposition. Fees and mileage are allowed in the same manner as prescribed by law for judicial proceedings before Courts of the State of Oklahoma in civil cases. Any party to such application and hearing thereon has the right to the attendance of witnesses and an attorney. An appeal is provided from the decision of the Commission to the District Court of Oklahoma County with a de novo hearing provided. It is admitted that at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sims
...485; see also Painters Dist. Coun. No. 38, Etc. v. Edgewood Contracting Co. (5th Cir. 1969) 416 F.2d 1081; Groom v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA (W.D.Okla.1972) 344 F.Supp. 1000.) Here, the fair hearing conducted by the DSS pursuant to section 10950 was a judicial-like adversary proceeding. 8......
-
Gear v. City of Des Moines
...was to be served upon all parties, either by personal service, as in civil actions, or by certified mail. See Groom v. Kawaski Motors Corp., 344 F.Supp. 1000, 1002 (W.D.Okl. 1972). All subpoena powers conferred by its enabling act or other statutes, in conjunction with those set forth in se......
- Hodgson v. United Mine Workers of America, Civ. A. No. 3071-64.
-
Whiteis v. Yamaha Intern. Corp.
...Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Commission. However, we think this is clearly what the Oklahoma legislature has done. In Groom v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., 344 F.Supp. 1000 (W.D.Okl.1972), section 565(j)(4) apparently was interpreted as creating both a proceeding for license revocation and a civil acti......