Case Name: Judy A. DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and Tinker AFB 72 FSS/FSSCEM, Appellee/Respondents
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 2010-06-15
Citations: 238 P.3d 922
Docket Number: No. 107,100
Parties: Judy A. DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and Tinker AFB 72 FSS/FSSCEM, Appellee/Respondents.
Judges: CONCUR: EDMONDSON, C.J., TAYLOR, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, WATT, WINCHESTER, JJ.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 238
Pages: 922–926

Head Matter:
2010 OK 45
Judy A. DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and Tinker AFB 72 FSS/FSSCEM, Appellee/Respondents.
No. 107,100.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
June 15, 2010.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 2010.
Brian M. Dell, Brian M. Dell, P.C., Okla homa City, OK, for Petitioner/Appellant.
Teresa Thomas Keller, Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellees/Respondents.

Opinion:
WINCHESTER, J.
" 1 The primary issue on appeal is whether failure to name the Board of Review ("Board") of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission ("OESC"), as a party to an appeal brought under 40 0.8. Supp.2008, § 2-610, requires the dismissal of the action for failure to name a necessary party. We have previously addressed this issue in Edmondson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc., 1978 OK 45, 577 P.2d 72, and Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Carter, 1995 OK 74, 903 P.2d 868. In both cases, we regarded the failure to name the Board as a fatal, jurisdictional flaw. This case is no different.
BACKGROUND
12 Petitioner, Judy Davis ("Davis"), sought unemployment benefits after she was terminated by her employer, Tinker AFB 72 FFS/FFSCEM ("Tinker"). OESC authorized such benefits to be paid and Tinker appealed the decision to OESC's Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal reversed OESC's determination finding that Davis had been discharged for misconduct connected to her employment which disqualified her from receiving such benefits. Davis appealed the decision to the Board of Review which affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's denial of benefits.
13 Davis next filed a petition for judicial review in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The caption of the petition listed only Tinker and OESC. The Board was not named in the caption, although Davis did serve a copy of the petition on the Board and the petition specifically mentioned the action of the Board. OESC appeared specially to move for dismissal of the case on the ground that the Board was not named as required by 40 0.8. Supp.2008, § 2-610(1). The Honorable Vicki Robertson dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Davis' failure to name the Board as a necessary defendant as required by statute. Davis filed a petition in error and the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA), Division IV, reversed the trial court holding that although the Board of Review was not named in the style of the appeal, the Board nevertheless received notice as it was named in the body of the petition. We granted certiorari.
DISCUSSION
T 4 In appeals from decisions of the OESC}, 40 0.8. Supp.2008, § 2-610 provides for the filing of a petition for review in the district court "... against the Board of Review ." and further provides that all other parties to the proceeding before the Board be made co-defendants. This Court has previously ruled that the failure to name the Board in an action for judicial review is fatal. Edmondson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc., 1978 OK 45, 577 P.2d 72, and Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Carter, 1995 OK 74, 903 P.2d 868.
T5 In Oklahoma Employment Security Commussion v. Carter, 1995 OK 74, 908 P.2d 868, this Court assumed original jurisdiction and prohibited the continued prosecution of an administrative appeal before the district in Pottawatomie County. That opinion registered disapproval of the district court's allowance of an amendment to add the Board of Review as a party after the expiration of the ten-day appeal time. The Carter Court placed primary reliance on Edmondson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc., 1978 OK 45, 577 P.2d 72, which regarded the failure to name the Board as a fatal, jurisdictional flaw.
T6 According to Edmondson, the judicial review provided by statute "is a special proceeding and the procedural requirements are mandatory." Edmondson v. Stegfried Ins. Agency, Inc., 1978 OK 45, ¶ 4, 577 P.2d 72, 73. The terms of the statute must be complied with before the court can acquire jurisdiction. The statute clearly denominates the Board and the OESC as separate entities in proceedings for judicial review.
¶ 7 Davis urges that because she identified the Board in the body of the petition and served the Board with notice this was sufficient to satisfy § 2-610. COCA agreed dismissing the authority of the Edmondson and Carter cases by suggesting that those cases must have involved more than merely omitting the requisite party from the caption. We find nothing in those cases to support this finding. In fact, the Carter opinion specifically referenced Taylor v. Okla. Employment Security Commission, 1993 OK CIV APP 195, 867 P.2d 490, a COCA case with facts similar to the case at bar where the Board was not named as a party but had been served with summons and the petition. In Taylor, the administrative appeal was held fatally flawed.
¶ 8 The holdings in Edmondson and Carter are clear; the omission of any necessary party requires dismissal by the district court. Davis' failure to name the Board is fatal and the case is hereby dismissed.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
CONCUR: EDMONDSON, C.J., TAYLOR, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, WATT, WINCHESTER, JJ.
DISSENT: KAUGER (Joins REIF, J.), COLBERT (joins REIF, J.), REIF, JJ.
. Section 2-610(1), which was not altered by the 2008 amendment, provides:
Within the ten (10) days after the day a notice of decision of the Board of Review is mailed to the parties, the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, or any party to the proceedings before the Board of Review, may obtain judicial review thereof by filing in the district court of the county in which the claimant resides, or if the claimant is not a resident of the State of Oklahoma then in the district court of Oklahoma County, a petition for review of such decision, against the Board of Review. In such petition for review all other parties to the proceeding before the Board of Review and the Commission shall be made codefendants. Such petition for review need not be verified but shall state specifically the grounds upon which such review is sought. A copy of the petition for review shall be served upon a member of the Board of Review or upon such persons as the Board of Review may designate and the petitioner shall also deliver to the person so served as many copies of the petition as there are defendants. The Board of Review shall forthwith send by mail to each other party to the proceeding a copy of such petition, and such mailing shall be deemed to be service upon all such parties. In any proceeding under this section the findings of the Board of Review as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law. No additional evidence shall be received by the court, but the court may remand the case and order additional evidence to be taken before the Board of Review, and the Board may, after hearing the additional evidence, modify its findings of fact or conclusions, and file the additional or modified findings and conclusions, together with the transcript of the additional record, with the court.