Title: STEIDLEY v. SINGER

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

STEIDLEY v. SINGER  STEIDLEY v. SINGER 2017 OK 8 Case Number: 114534 Decided: 01/24/2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. JANICE STEIDLEY, an individual; DAVID ISKI, an individual; and M. BRYCE LAIR, an individual, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. JOHN SINGER, an individual; STEVE COX, an individual; and MYRON GRUBOWSKI, an individual, Defendants/Appellants, and SCOTT WALTON, an individual; RUSSELL GUILFOYLE, an individual; BILLY D. JONES, an individual; and JOHN DOE, NOS. 1-25, individuals, Defendants. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION II Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge ¶0 The plaintiffs/appellees, Janice Steidley, David Iski, and Bryce Lair, a District Attorney, and two Assistant District Attorneys, respectively, (collectively District Attorneys), filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Rogers County on October 16, 2013, and amended their petition on November of 2013, against several individual citizens, the defendants/appellants. The District Attorneys demanded a jury trial, alleging that the individual citizens signed and filed in the district court, a grand jury petition containing false and reckless allegations against them. In December of 2014, after filing their answers, the individuals sought to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to the newly enacted/re-written Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, (the OCPA), 12 O.S. Supp, 2014 §§1430 et seq. which became effective November 1, 2014. The individual citizens sought dismissal of the lawsuit pursuant to the new dismissal provisions of the OCPA. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari to address the dispositive issue of whether the OCPA may be applied retroactively. We hold that pursuant to our decision in Anagnost v. Tomeck, 2017 OK 7, ___ P.3d ___, the OCPA does not apply retroactively. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION AFFIRMED; TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Gary L. Richardson, Charles L. Richardson, Mbilike Mwafulirwa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellees. Mark D. Antinoro, Pryor, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee, David Iski. Josh Lee, Vinita, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee, M. Bryce Lair. Scott B. Wood, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellants John Singer and Steve Cox. Michael J. Masterson, David R. Fleury, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellant Myron Grubowski. Kari Y. Hawkins, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Non-Party Intervenor State of Oklahoma. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The dispositive issue is whether the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (the OCPA), 12 O.S. Supp. 2014 §§1430 et. seq.,1 which became effective November 1, 2014, retroactively applies to this cause. We hold that it does not. FACTS ¶2 On October 16, 2013, the plaintiff/appellants, Janice Steidley, the District Attorney for Rogers County, Oklahoma, David Iski, the Assistant District Attorney for Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and M. Bryce Lair, the Assistant District Attorney for Craig County, Oklahoma (District Attorneys) filed a lawsuit against several individual citizens in the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. The District Attorneys alleged that the individuals filed a Petition for a Grand Jury Investigation with the Court Clerk on August 26, 2013, which contained false and reckless allegations of criminal misconduct, violation of civil statutes, witness tampering, wiretapping, threats, destruction of government records, among other allegations of corruptions against them. ¶3 On August 29, 2013, the Rogers County District Court approved the Grand Jury petition and permitted it to be circulated to obtain signatures. The District Attorneys amended their petition in November of 2013, and nearly one year later, while the case was still pending, the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA), was amended/re-written in 2014 to become effective on November 1, 2014, 12 O.S. Supp. 2014 §§1430-440. ¶4 The stated purpose of the OCPA is to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to "petition, speak freely, associate freely and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of a person to file a meritorious lawsuit for a demonstrable injury."2 It accomplishes this goal by allowing parties to file motions to dismiss legal actions if the legal action relates or is in response to free speech.3 ¶5 Legal action is very broadly defined under the terms of the OCPA.4 Once such a motion for dismissal is filed, the lawsuit is suspended until the plaintiff can establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case of each essential element of the claim in question.5 To decide the motion to dismiss, the Court: may allow discovery;6 issue findings as to the purpose the action was brought;7 and may award costs, sanctions and attorney fees to the moving party.8 Consistent with its stated purpose, the entire Act is devoted to deterring, preventing and dismissing certain free speech/association/participation type lawsuits as soon as possible after filing. ¶6 After filing their answers, the individual citizens filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the OCPA. The trial court, in an order filed November 16, 2015, denied the motions to dismiss, implicitly holding that the OCPA does not apply retroactively to this cause. The individual citizens appealed, and on August 16, 2016, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the OCPA did not retroactively apply to this cause. The individual citizens filed a petition for certiorari on August 31, 2016, and we granted certiorari on December 13, 2016, to address the retroactive application of the OCPA. THE OCPA DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY. ¶7 The plaintiffs/appellees amended petition was filed in November of 2013 and nearly one year later, the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA), 12 O.S. Supp. 2014 §§1430-440, became effective on November 1, 2014. The defendants/appellants argue that the OCPA applies to this cause and the lawsuit should be dismissed pursuant to the OCPA. The plaintiffs/appellees counter that the OCPA does not retroactively apply to this cause. ¶8 Our recent decision in Anagnost v. Tomeck, 2017 OK 7, ___ P.3d ___, also decided today, holds that the terms of the Okla. Const., Art. 5, §54 protect matured rights from the effects of after-enacted legislative change,9 and that because the OCPA affects substantive rights, it must be prospectively applied to legal actions filed after the November 1, 2014, effective date. Accordingly, pursuant to our holding in Anagnost v. Tomeck , 2017 OK 7, ___ P.3d ___, and the cases cited therein,10 the OCPA does not apply to this cause. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION AFFIRMED; TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. COMBS, C.J., GURICH, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, COLBERT, REIF, JJ., concur. FOOT