McBee v. Shanahan Home Design, LLC
| Decision Date | 16 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | (COMP. W/ 119,190, 119,337),119,181 |
| Citation | 499 P.3d 1 |
| Parties | Vickie MCBEE, an Individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SHANAHAN HOME DESIGN, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company and Biggs Backhoe, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation and John Does 1-5, True Names Unknown, Defendants/Appellees. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
C. Craig Cole, John E. Gatliff II, C. Craig Cole & Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Vickie McBee.
Jeremy K. Ward, James C. Asbill, Franden Farris Quillin Goodnight + Roberts, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee, Biggs Backhoe, Inc.
Jacquelyn L. Dill, The Dill Law Firm, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee, Shanahan Home Design, LLC.
¶1 The news of the spread of Covid-19 infections in the United States created a time of extreme uncertainty and confusion. On the evening of March 11, 2020, the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Utah Jazz were about to "tip-off" an NBA basketball game in Chesapeake Arena, when the first active case of Covid-19 was discovered in Oklahoma.1 Panic, fear, and anger were the immediate responses after the public learned Covid-19 was in Oklahoma. These were unprecedented times.
¶2 The day following the cancellation of the Thunder-Jazz game, Governor Stitt issued two Executive Orders which, inter alia: (1) directed state agencies to take necessary steps to protect against Covid-19, including placing limits on public access to state facilities; and (2) declared an emergency in all seventy-seven counties because of the impending threat of Covid-19.2 On April 2, 2020, Governor Stitt issued Executive Order 2020-123 in which the Governor invoked his constitutional and statutory power pursuant to the Catastrophic Health Emergency Powers Act, 63 O.S.2011, §§ 6101 - 6900, to declare a catastrophic health emergency as defined in § 6104.4 Members of the public were directed to shelter in place; social gatherings of more than ten persons were prohibited; elective and non-emergency medical/dental procedures were directed to be postponed; and non-essential businesses were ordered to be closed to the public.5 Oklahoma state offices were closed, federal courts and offices were closed, and schools operated in a remote fashion. On the heels of the Governor's actions, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, joined by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, issued three successive, emergency orders, which concerned district-court procedure during the Covid-19 outbreak and suspended certain deadlines in legal matters.6 These orders represented a sensible response to the unprecedented crisis. Through the orders, the Court carried out its constitutional duty to safeguard judicial employees, the general public, and principles of justice. The issue presented in this appeal is whether these joint emergency orders suspended the time limit for effecting service of process set forth in 12 O.S.Supp.2017, § 2004(I).
¶3 The first joint emergency order (SCAD Order No. 2020-24), which was issued on March 16, 2020, states in relevant part:
Subject to constitutional limitations, all deadlines and procedures whether prescribed by statute, rule or order in any civil, juvenile or criminal case shall be suspended by 30 days from the date of this order. This suspension also applies to appellate rules and procedures for the Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Court of Civil Appeals.7
The Supreme Court issued a second joint emergency order (SCAD Order No. 2020-29) on March 27, 2020. SCAD Order No. 2020-29 continued the suspension of deadlines through May 15, 2020, recommended that all seventy-seven district courthouses be closed to the public as per local order, directed that jury trials be cancelled and directed judges and clerks to use email, fax and/or drop-boxes for filing written materials.8 On April 29, 2020, the Supreme Court entered a third joint emergency order (SCAD Order No. 2020-36), continuing the suspension of all civil and criminal deadlines and clarifying the prior SCAD orders:
As set forth in the second and third SCAD orders, all civil time limits resumed on May 16, 2020.
¶4 On November 19, 2019, Appellant Vickie McBee ("McBee") filed separate lawsuits against multiple parties involved in the design and construction of her personal residence.10 McBee filed her suit against Shanahan Home Design, LLC ("Shanahan Home") and Biggs Backhoe, Inc. ("Biggs Backhoe") in Canadian County Case No. CJ-2019-711. McBee's counsel did not immediately have summonses issued for service on the defendants.
¶5 On May 18, 2020, the Canadian County court clerk's office issued summonses for both Biggs Backhoe and Shanahan Home.11 McBee served Biggs Backhoe on July 8, 2020, and Shanahan Home on July 16, 2020. Service was accomplished by certified mail, return receipt requested, delivery restricted to the addressee. Shanahan Home and Biggs Backhoe each filed special appearances, reserving additional time to answer McBee's petition.12
¶6 Each defendant filed motions to dismiss McBee's lawsuit. Biggs Backhoe's motion raised several arguments, including that McBee failed to serve her petition and summons within 180 days, and therefore should be deemed dismissed as of May 19, 2020. Shanahan Home also raised several arguments, but noted that it would defer to the trial court's judgment on whether the Covid-19 related administrative orders affected the time limit in § 2004(I). In response, McBee maintained that the joint SCAD orders suspended the period for service of process, and therefore dismissal was improper.
¶7 On October 7, 2020, the trial court issued and filed an order sustaining the motion to dismiss. The trial judge concluded, "because the Summons had not been issued prior to the Covid-19 issues that were addressed by the Supreme Court Directives (SCAD 2020-24; SCAD 2020-29; SCAD 2020-36), the directives do not apply."13 The trial judge further held that the 180-day period for service of summons was not stayed by the joint emergency orders.14
¶8 McBee filed her appeal from the trial-court ruling on November 5, 2020, and we retained the matter. Having reviewed the briefs and record on appeal, we now reverse and find the trial court erred in sustaining the defendants' motions to dismiss based on plaintiff's alleged failure to serve her petition and summons within 180 days.
¶9 This matter presents a unique legal issue for appellate review—whether the trial court properly interpreted this Court's administrative orders suspending deadlines due to the Covid-19 outbreak in Oklahoma. Such an enquiry involves a question of law. Issues of construction pose a legal query, which we review using a de novo standard. Christian v. Christian, 2018 OK 91, ¶ 6, 434 P.3d 941, 942. In exercising de novo review, "this court possesses plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented." Benedetti v. Cimarex Energy Co., 2018 OK 21, ¶ 5, 415 P.3d 43, 45.
¶10 Appellant McBee raises five assignments of error in her brief-in-chief; however, because we conclude the trial court erred by failing to suspend the time limitation to complete service of process, there is no need to address the remaining issues.
¶11 Although problems began to arise in 2019, it was not until the beginning of 2020, that the United States faced an extraordinary national emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, federal, state, and local governments took unprecedented action to combat the viral outbreak. Courts across the country issued administrative orders in an effort to prevent the spread of Covid-19.15 Many of these orders included directives suspending deadlines and time limitations. The dispositive questions in this case are (1) whether the Supreme Court possesses express powers to suspend statutory deadlines during an unprecedented world-wide pandemic; and (2) whether the joint emergency SCAD orders entered in March and April 2020 postponed the 180-day period in § 2004(I) for accomplishing service of process on Shanahan and Biggs Backhoe.
¶12 We begin our analysis with the Oklahoma Constitution to ascertain what powers are bestowed upon this Court. Article 7 "provides for a unified system of judicial management under the authority of the Supreme Court." Petuskey v. Cannon, 1987 OK 74, ¶ 10, 742 P.2d 1117, 1120. Indeed, Section 4 of Article 7 establishes that "[t]he original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to a general superintending control over all inferior courts and all Agencies, Commissions and Boards created by law." Okla. Const. art. VII, § 4. In addition, the Oklahoma Constitution vests the Supreme Court with primary administrative authority over all lower courts in the state. Further, the Oklahoma Constitution provides:
Except with reference to the Senate sitting as a Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McBee v. Fraire
...Okla. Sup. Ct. Rule 1.201.¶2 After reviewing the record in this case, THE COURT FINDS that our decision in McBee v. Shanahan Home Design, et al., 2021 OK 60, 499 P.3d 1, involves the same primary legal questions as those in the above-styled appeal; and therefore, our holding in Shanahan dis......
-
McBee v. Rhino Roofing, LLC
...Okla. Sup. Ct. Rule 1.201.¶2 After reviewing the record in this case, THE COURT FINDS that our decision in McBee v. Shanahan Home Design, et al., 2021 OK 60, 499 P.3d 1, involves the same primary legal questions as those in the above-styled appeal; and therefore, our holding in Shanahan dis......