Speight v. Presley

• Decision Date: 10 November 2008
• Docket Number: No. 105,590.,105,590.
• Citation: 2008 OK 99,203 P.3d 173
• Parties: Jaquita SPEIGHT and Ricky Speight, Appellants, v. Patricia PRESLEY, Oklahoma County Court Clerk, and Oklahoma County Commissioners, Appellees.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

203 P.3d 173

2008 OK 99

Jaquita SPEIGHT and Ricky Speight, Appellants, v. Patricia PRESLEY, Oklahoma County Court Clerk, and Oklahoma County Commissioners, Appellees.

No. 105,590.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

November 10, 2008.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY; HONORABLE DAN OWENS, DISTRICT JUDGE

¶ 0 Plaintiffs brought an action pursuant to the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. § 151 et. seq., against the Oklahoma County Court Clerk and Oklahoma County, by and through its Board of County Commissioners. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, and plaintiffs appealed. We granted the motion to retain the case for disposition.

AFFIRMED.

Curtis W. Bussett, Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellants.

John M. Jacobsen, Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office, and Timothy E. Rhodes, Chief Deputy Court Clerk, Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellees.

HARGRAVE, J.

¶ 1 Plaintiffs brought an action pursuant to the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, against the Oklahoma County Court Clerk (Clerk), alleging negligent maintenance of court files that led to the issuance of a warrant for his arrest, and against Oklahoma County, by and through the Board of County Commissioners, for Oklahoma County (Board), as Clerk's employer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants and plaintiffs appealed. We granted the motion to retain the case. A previous opinion of this Court, North Side State Bank v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, 1994 OK 34, 894 P.2d 1046, is dispositive of this case. North Side State Bank holds that when the court clerk is performing ministerial duties as an arm of the court, the Board does not stand in an agency relationship with the court clerk and, thus, is not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

¶ 2 The following background is taken from the petition and the evidentiary materials submitted. Ricky Speight was issued traffic Citation No. 38869 on March 21, 2003, for speeding. Speight pled nolo contendere and paid the citation at Clerk's office on April 18, 2003. Clerk's office entered the traffic citation number into the computerized Oklahoma Court Information System (OCIS) and Case No. TR-2003-8355 was generated. The docket in that case shows payment of the fine and that the case was closed on April 18.

¶ 3 On April 29, 2003, Citation No. 38869, endorsed by the District Attorney's office with probable cause for filing, was filed in Clerk's office and Case No. TR-2003-9177 was generated. Payment of the fine was not shown in that case and a bench warrant was issued April 7, 2004, for Speight's failure to appear. On September 6, 2005, Speight was arrested and detained by the Edmond police.

¶ 4 Speight and his spouse sued Clerk for negligent maintenance of court files, alleging that the Clerk's office negligently duplicated the traffic citation in the court system, resulting in the issuance of an unlawful warrant for Speight's arrest and detention. Plaintiffs sued Oklahoma County, by and though the Board of County Commissioners, as a political subdivision of the State of Oklahoma and as the employer of Clerk, alleging that Board is responsible for supervising and instituting policies and procedures that govern the management of the court clerk's office.

¶ 5 Ricky Speight sought damages for mental and physical distress and embarrassment and for expenses incurred due to impounding of his car. His spouse pled emotional and physical distress and embarrassment over her husband's wrongful arrest and detention and suffered time away from work and unnecessary expenses in relation to the impounding of the car. Plaintiffs also pled a cause of action sounding in 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a pattern of negligent maintenance of files in the clerk's office which led to the wrongful arrest of individuals in Oklahoma City.¹ They alleged that clerk's office was grossly negligent by being aware of the wrongful duplications and failing to take proper action to correct the problem. They alleged that Board either knew or should have known of the negligent mismanagement of court files by Clerk's office and that Board failed to take action to correct the improper activity and institute policies to protect the citizens of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs sought damages and punitive damages against both defendants. Plaintiffs recited compliance with Oklahoma's Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), 51 O.S.2001 § 156.

¶ 6 Clerk filed a Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6) for failure to state a claim, based on exemption from liability under the GTCA and sought dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Board filed a partial motion to dismiss and answer to the petition. Board sought dismissal of plaintiffs' punitive damages claim because punitive damages cannot be awarded against a political subdivision, citing City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981).

¶ 7 By order dated November 3, 2006, the trial court granted Clerk's motion to dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, and gave plaintiffs twenty days to amend the petition.² The court granted Clerk's motion to dismiss her in her individual capacity. The court denied Clerk's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' negligence claims under the GTCA. No appeal was taken from the rulings on the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs withdrew their punitive damages claim against Board.

¶ 8 Clerk filed a motion for summary judgment on October 18, 2007, and Board filed a motion for summary judgment on November 1, 2007, both motions alleging that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on Clerk's exemption from liability under the GTCA: 51 O.S. § 155(2), because the loss or claim resulted from the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions; § 155(3) because the loss or claim resulted from the execution or enforcement of the lawful orders of a court; and § 155(29) because the loss or claim resulted from acts or omissions done in conformance with then-current recognized standards, specifically Clerk's utilization of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Information System as required by statute.³ Board states that it is not authorized to or responsible for inputting data into the Oklahoma Court Information System and that it has no control over the Clerk's input of data into the system. Defendants argue that court clerks are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for performing tasks intimately related to the judicial process, citing Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C.Cir.1993) for the proposition that all acts of auxiliary court personnel that are basic and integral parts of the judicial function unless those acts are done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Plaintiffs responded that their damages stemmed from Clerk's negligence in performing ministerial and executive duties involving maintenance of court files for which there is no judicial immunity. Clerk's reply sets out the statutory procedures for Clerk's handing of traffic cases and in sur-reply, plaintiffs allege Clerk's prior knowledge of the duplication and her failure to correct it.

¶ 9 On January 25, 2008, the trial court granted summary judgment for Clerk in her official capacity. The order granting summary judgment states only that the court is "of the opinion the state of the law in Oklahoma is unclear as to plaintiff's position and that the court therefore finds plaintiff has failed to adequately defeat Clerk's Motion for Summary Judgment." On that same date the trial court granted Board's motion for summary judgment.

¶ 10 The burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. When the moving party has made a prima facie showing, the opposing party must contest this by showing facts that are in dispute. See, First National Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City v. Nesbitt, 598 P.2d 1197 (Okla.1979).

¶ 11 The Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act is the exclusive remedy by which an injured plaintiff may recover against a governmental entity for its negligence. Fuller v. Odom, 1987 OK 64, 741 P.2d 449. The liability of the state or political subdivision is exclusive, and in place of all other liability of the state, a political subdivision or employee at common law or otherwise. 51 O.S. § 153(B). A political subdivision is liable for loss resulting from its torts or the torts of its employees committed within the scope of employment only where private persons or entities would be liable for money damages under the laws of the state.⁴ 51 O.S.2001 § 153. If an employee is acting outside the scope of employment, the GTCA does not apply. Pellegrino v. State ex rel. Cameron University, 2003 OK 2, 63 P.3d 535, 538.

¶ 12 The Oklahoma county district court clerk is an elected county official.⁵ The GTCA defines "employee" as any person who is authorized to act on behalf of a political subdivision or the state, including all elected or appointed officers. 51 O.S. § 152(5)(a)(1). Those who are defined as employees under the GTCA are within the protection of respondeat superior liability for those duties within the scope of employment. See, Nelson v. Pollay, 1996 OK 142, 916 P.2d 1369, 1374. Individual employees are immunized from tort liability when they act within the scope of employment. Nail v. City of Henryetta, 1996 OK 12, 911 P.2d 914, 916. Scope of employment means performance by an employee acting in good faith within the duties of his office or employment or of tasks lawfully assigned by a competent authority. 51 O.S. § 152(9).

¶ 13 Oklahoma law recognizes the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior to the Governmental Tort Claims Act. DeCorte v. Robinson, 1998 OK 87 ¶ 12, 969 P.2d 358. The respondeat superior rule rests on the premise that when exercising delegated authority, the employee stands under the complete control of the employer. Pollay, at 1374, fn. 23. Board cannot be called...