Title: DAVIS v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION
Citation: 2010 OK 45
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: June 15, 2010

DAVIS v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION Annotate this Case DAVIS v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION 2010 OK 45 Case Number: 107100 Decided: 06/15/2010 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JUDY A. DAVIS Appellant/Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and TINKER AFB 72 FSS/FSSCEM, Appellee/Respondents. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION IV ¶0 Respondent, Tinker AFB 72 FSS/FSSCEM, appealed the decision of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission to award Petitioner, Judy Davis, unemployment benefits. The Appeal Tribunal of the OESC reversed the prior finding and Davis appealed to the Board of Review, which upheld the Appeal Tribunal's finding. Davis next appealed to the District Court of Oklahoma County. The Honorable Vicki Robertson dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Davis' failure to name the Board of Review as a defendant as required by CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED. Brian M. Dell, BRIAN M. DELL, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioner/Appellant. Teresa Thomas Keller, OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellees/Respondents. 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 BACKGROUND ¶2 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. ¶3 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 DISCUSSION ¶4 In appeals from decisions of the OESC, ¶5 In Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Carter, ¶6 According to Edmondson, the judicial review provided by statute "is a special proceeding and the procedural requirements are mandatory." Edmondson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc., ¶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, ¶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. FOOT