Springs v. Braum's Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 March 2022
• Docket Number: Case No. 119,982
• Citation: 510 P.3d 864
• Parties: Doyle SPRINGS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BRAUM'S INC., a domestic corporation, and WHB Company, Inc., a domestic corporation d/b/a Braum's, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

510 P.3d 864

Doyle SPRINGS, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.BRAUM'S INC., a domestic corporation, and WHB Company, Inc., a domestic corporation d/b/a Braum's, Defendants/Appellees.

Case No. 119,982

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4.

FILED MARCH 23, 2022

Mandate Issued: April 20, 2022

Robert W. Haiges, HCA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, Edmond, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant

David B. Donchin, Katherine T. Loy, Lauren N. Lenahan, DURBIN, LARIMORE & BIALICK, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees

OPINION BY DEBORAH B. BARNES, PRESIDING JUDGE:

¶1Doyle Springs(Plaintiff) appeals from the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss of Braum's Inc. and WHB Company, Inc.(Defendants).The primary question presented on appeal is whether Plaintiff's electronically filed petition submitted after 5:00 p.m. should be deemed submitted the next business day.We conclude the district court properly answered this question in the affirmative.Although the district court's order states the case is dismissed with prejudice, the district court, in relying upon and incorporating into its order material derived from a document outside the four corners of the petition, effectively converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.Therefore, we modify the district court's order to reflect this conversion, but otherwise affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2Plaintiff alleges that on February 1, 2019, while a customer on premises owned and operated by Defendants, he fell and was injured as a result of the failure of Defendants to, among other things, maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition.Plaintiff set forth these allegations in a petition that the parties agree was "processed and date-stamped on February 2, 2021," more than two years after the incident.

¶3Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss"pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6)[.]"Defendants assert the petition is barred by a two-year statute of limitations.

¶4 In his response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff acknowledges that because the incident occurred on February 1, 2019, he"was required [under the applicable two-year statute of limitations] to file a Petition no later than February 1, 2021," and he similarly acknowledges that if his petition was filed "on February 2, 2021, [then this constitutes] a clear violation of the applicable statute of limitations[.]"¹However, Plaintiff asserts his petition was timely filed.Plaintiff asserts the Cleveland County Court Clerk began accepting the filing of "documents by electronic means" -- in particular, via email -- in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and he asserts submissions (including his own) were still being accepted via email in February 2021.Plaintiff asserts he emailed his petition "to the Court Clerk's office at 10:32 p.m. on February 1, 2021, a date and time that is within the statute of limitations."

¶5 Although Plaintiff acknowledges his "case filing" was not "processed" until the following day because "the Court Clerk's office was not staffed at 10:32 p.m.,"he asserts "[t]he date of filing is the date on which the Petition and Civil Cover Sheet is received in the Clerk's office."Plaintiff asserts the "[Court Clerk's] office has not published any rule to the contrary," and "[t]he guidelines for electronic filing published by the Oklahoma Supreme Court do not say otherwise."Plaintiff further asserts, "The Federal Electronic Filing system" should provide "guidance on this matter," and that system "permits the filing of all documents until 11:59 p.m. on the day [a document] is received in the court clerk's office" -- "[t]he day it is processed by an actual clerk is irrelevant to the date of filing."Plaintiff states, "This Court should emulate the rules of the Federal Courts and hold that all documents emailed prior to 11:59 p.m. on a particular date are deemed filed as of that date."Plaintiff asserts that to hold otherwise would be tantamount to "imposing a rule that neither the Cleveland County Court Clerk's office nor the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has imposed or even addressed."

¶6 In their reply, Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff emailed his petition at 10:32 p.m. on February 1, 2021; however, they emphasize that this electronic submission occurred more than five-and-a-half hours "after the regularly scheduled closing time of the Cleveland County Court Clerk on February 1, 2021.Accordingly, Plaintiff's Petition was not file received by the Cleveland County Court Clerk, file-stamped, or paid for until February 2, 2021."Defendants also take issue with Plaintiff's assertion that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has never addressed this issue.Defendants state that the "Oklahoma Supreme Court has addressed the issue of e-filing and the timing of the same in Oklahoma Rules for E-filing in Selected Pilot Courts," which Defendants also refer to as SCAD-2012-36.Defendants assert that "according to Oklahoma Rules for E-filing for Selected Pilot Courts, the Petition was not submitted on February 1, 2021, but February 2, 2021.Accordingly, the Pleading was not deemed filed until February 2, 2021[.]"

¶7Defendants further point out in their reply that although, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cleveland County Court Clerk's office closed in March 2020 for in-person filing for non-emergency matters, an amended order was issued in April 2020 lifting these restrictions.As stated by Defendants, at least by June 12, 2020 -- more than seven months before the filing at issue in this case -- "normal operations ensued."Moreover, Defendants assert that "[n]o further orders make any mention of specific restrictions or even mention the ability to file electronically."Defendants assert:

Plaintiff had ample opportunity to file his Petition in person.There were no restrictions made on the Court Clerk's office on the day in which the Petition was emailed for filing.As there was no reason for delay, Plaintiff's Petition was untimely, and therefore should be dismissed as a matter of law.

¶8 Finally, Defendants cite to 12 O.S. 2011 § 2006(A)(1), asserting that the statutory provision's reference to "the regularly scheduled closing time"²"suggests filings must be made within the hours of operation of the court clerk to be considered timely."

¶9 In its order filed in October 2021, the district court granted the motion to dismiss.The court stated that the "Cleveland County Court Clerk was fully open and operational on the days in question during its regularly scheduled hours with few to no COVID-19 restrictions."The court also cited to the Oklahoma Supreme Court's order pertaining to E-filing cited by Defendants, and noted that pursuant to the language in that order, Plaintiff's petition could not be deemed filed until February 2, 2021.The court also cited to § 2006(A)(1) in support of its order of dismissal.

¶10 From the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶11 Title 12 O.S. 2011 § 2012(B) provides, in part, as follows:

If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered 6 of this subsection to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to the motion by the rules for summary judgment.

Although the district court's order states "the Motion to Dismiss is granted" and "[t]his case is dismissed with prejudice to refiling,"the court relied upon and incorporated into its order material derived from an exhibit outside the four corners of the petition.In particular, the court took into account the timing of the electronic submission of the petition reflected in a purported copy of Plaintiff's email to the court clerk attached to Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss.Although Defendants, in their reply, do not dispute that Plaintiff emailed the petition to the court clerk at the time reflected in the email, the email, nevertheless, does not fall within an exception to the rule that "a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as provided by [ § 2012(B)(6) ], is to be treated as a motion for summary judgment when matters outside of the pleadings are presented in support of the motion and those extra-pled matters are not excluded by the trial court when the motion is considered."

State ex rel. Wright v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n , 2007 OK 73, ¶ 48, 170 P.3d 1024(citations omitted).See alsoWagoner Cnty. Rural Water Dist. No. 2 v. Grand River Dam Auth. , 2010 OK CIV APP 95, ¶ 3, 241 P.3d 1132, cert. denied("Where, as here, evidentiary materials are attached to a section 2012(B)(6) motionor response , a court must convert the motion into one for summary judgment."(emphasis added)(citation omitted)).³

¶12 The exceptions are: (1) incorporation by reference, codified in 12 O.S. 2011 § 2010(C),⁴ and (2) judicial notice of adjudicative facts, codified in 12 O.S. 2011 § 2202.⁵Because the email is not "an integral part of the pleading[ ]," and was neither "attached to [the petition] as an exhibit" nor incorporated in it by reference, Gaylord Ent. Co. , 1998 OK 30, ¶ 4 n.10, 958 P.2d 128, the § 2010(C) exception does not apply.Cf.Tucker v. Cochran Firm-Crim. Def. Birmingham L.L.C. , 2014 OK 112, ¶ 30, 341 P.3d 673("When a defendant files a § 2012(B)(6) motion with an incorporated exhibit which is relied on by plaintiff in the petition, or is integral to plaintiff's petition, the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment."(footnote omitted)(emphasis in original)).⁶

¶13 Moreover, we are unable to conclude the time of submission set forth in the copy of the email -- submitted via "Gmail" -- is a fact " [c]apable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably...