Title: MILLER DOLLARHIDE, P.C. v. TAL
Citation: 174 P.3d 559, 2006 OK 27
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 2, 2006

MILLER DOLLARHIDE, P.C. v. TAL Annotate this Case MILLER DOLLARHIDE, P.C. v. TAL 2006 OK 27 174 P.3d 559 Case Number: 100179 Decided: 05/02/2006 As Corrected: May 9, 2006 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA MILLER DOLLARHIDE, P.C., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. MOSHE TAL, Defendant/Appellant. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III THE HONORABLE DAVID HARBOUR, TRIAL JUDGE ¶0 The appellant, Moshe Tal (client) filed a malpractice action against the appellee, Miller Dollarhide (law firm) in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. The law firm brought a counterclaim for unpaid legal fees. Tal, who had previously entered a pro se appearance, dismissed the malpractice action against the law firm, but failed to appear for a scheduling conference on the counterclaim. The trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the law firm on the counterclaim. Both before and after the default judgment was entered, Tal sought disqualification of the Honorable David Harbour, trial judge. The trial judge refused to disqualify several times, and on two separate occasions the Chief Judge of Oklahoma County refused to grant a motion to re-assign the case. Simultaneously, the client raised the disqualification issue in an original mandamus action in this Court and an appeal which was assigned to the Court of Civil Appeals. This Court assumed original jurisdiction in the mandamus action, but denied relief in a single sentence order. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals refused to consider the disqualification issue on the grounds that this Court's order denying relief was the binding law of the case. We granted certiorari to determine whether by assuming jurisdiction and denying relief, our action barred the Court of Civil Appeals from considering the issue on appeal. We hold that it does not. We remand the case to the Court of Civil Appeals to decide in the first instance whether there is any merit to Tal's claim of bias. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS. Jack S. Dawson, Mark Edmondson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Appellee Moshe Tal, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Appellant KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The question presented is one of first impression. Does an order of this Court assuming original jurisdiction, but denying mandamus relief as it relates to a pending controversy between the parties, bar review on direct appeal of the same claims made in the course of the mandamus proceedings? We hold that the summary denial of the writ should not be given preclusive effect in proceedings on direct appeal. FACTS ¶2 Only the following facts are relevant to the disposition of this appeal. ¶3 Tal first sought to remove the trial judge when he made a written in camera request under District Court Rule 15 ¶4 However, that was not the last time Tal sought the trial judge's recusal and/or disqualification. On October 30, 2003, the trial court entered a default judgment against Tal for failing to appear at a scheduling conference and set a date for a hearing on damages. Tal then sought vacation of the default judgment, and on November 24, 2003, the parties appeared for a hearing before the trial court on the motion to vacate. During that hearing, Tal again sought the trial judge's disqualification, which was denied. Tal filed a renewed motion to disqualify, and the motion was considered and denied by both the trial court and the Chief Judge. In denying the motion, the Chief Judge found no additional evidence of bias requiring disqualification occurring between the filing of the two disqualification motions. ¶5 Pursuant to Rule 15(b), Tal brought a mandamus action in this Court to review the denial of his motion. At the same time, Tal also brought a direct appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate the default judgement, in which he argued that the trial judge should have been disqualified because of bias. On February 17, 2004, this Court assumed original jurisdiction in the mandamus action but we declined "to disqualify the trial judge in both cases." THE SUMMARY DENIAL OF MANDAMUS RELIEF HAS NO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT A. The Record Was Properly Preserved for Appeal ¶6 First, we must address Miller Dollarhide's contention that the disqualification was not properly preserved for review on direct appeal. Tal engaged in two separate attempts under Rule 15 to disqualify the trial judge because of perceived bias. The first attempt began with Tal's February, 2003 in camera letter requesting recusal. When his request was denied, Tal filed a timely formal motion in the trial court. The record is silent on why that motion was not considered by, or ruled upon by the trial court, but under our decision in Clark v. Board of Education of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 89, ¶7 At this point, Tal was entitled, pursuant to Rule 15(b), to bring a mandamus action in this Court within five days of the Chief Judge's order denying relief. However, Tal chose not to seek mandamus relief from the order as it applied to this case. Rather, Tal stood on the record, and under our holding in Pierce v. Pierce, B. The Exercise of Original Jurisdiction Alone is Insufficient to Create a Preclusionary Effect ¶8 The Okla. Const. art. 7 §4 sets forth our authority to assume original jurisdiction for the consideration of writs of mandamus. ¶9 We cannot agree that our decision to assume jurisdiction creates such a broad preclusive effect. When this Court acts to assumes original jurisdiction, we are exercising our constitutional authority to consider and decide a pending matter involving our general superintending control over all inferior courts, commissions and boards. C. The Denial of a Writ of Mandamus Generally Has No Preclusionary Effect as to Underlying Legal Claims ¶10 In order to be entitled to mandamus relief, a petitioner must generally meet a five factor test: 1) the party seeking the writ has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law; 2) the party seeking the writ possesses a clear legal right to the relief sought; 3) the respondent has a plain legal duty regarding the relief sought; 4) the respondent has refused to perform that duty; and 5) the respondent's duty does not involve the exercise of discretion. ¶11 Our sister jurisdictions considering this issue have generally adopted the rule that a denial of a writ of mandamus by a supervisory court, without opinion, is not entitled to preclusive effect. ". . .if the denial followed a less rigorous procedure, [than that of full argument and opinion], it should not establish law of the case. To be sure, the court on a later appeal might often reach the same result as before. But it is not required to do so by the law of the case doctrine . . . A summary denial of a writ petition does not establish law of the case whether or not that denial is intended to be on the merits or is based on some other reason. . ." ". . . To be sure, given the lack of explanation in the order concerning the reasons for denial of relief, it cannot be said that the entry of the order precludes further consideration under the doctrines of res judicata or law of the case. [Citation omitted.] It can be said, however, that the Court of Appeals saw no reason at that time to intervene for the purpose of "enlarging the record"; and, precisely because the mandamus proceeding had no preclusive effect, the Court of Appeals will yet have another opportunity on final appeal, if it chooses, to revisit the disqualification issue . . . ." ¶13 We find this rationale persuasive, and hold that our summary denial of a writ of mandamus, even after we have assumed jurisdiction, has no preclusive effect. Our opinion in McMinn v. City of Oklahoma City, ¶14 In deciding whether the law of the case doctrine applied we looked to: 1) the issues actually presented to the Court of Civil Appeals in the prior appeal; 2) the issues specifically addressed by the Court of Civil Appeals in its prior opinion; and 3) those issues necessarily decided by the Court of Civil Appeals in order to reach its prior holding. In concluding that the doctrine did apply, we held that both of the issues presented in the second appeal were previously presented in the prior appeal, that both issues were specifically addressed in that prior opinion, and that both issues were necessary to the COCA's resolution of the prior appeal. ¶15 McMinn is distinguishable from the instant case, because McMinn involved the preclusive effect of a prior appellate opinion. Here, there was no opinion; rather, we issued a single sentence order denying relief. Where there is a prior opinion, we will apply those factors discussed in McMinn to determine the preclusive effect of that opinion, and the party asserting the bar will bear the burden to show that the prior opinion did in fact adjudicate the issue on the merits. ¶16 Our disposition of the question presented requires us to vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. Rule 1.180(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S.2001 Ch. 15, App. 1, CONCLUSION ¶17 The merits of granting or denying mandamus are often different than those of the underlying claims, and we will not presume that we have adjudicated the underlying merit issues, even if we have exercised our discretionary power to review the petition itself by assuming jurisdiction. Where a party seeks to establish that the issue in contention was raised and adjudicated before this Court in an original proceeding for an extraordinary writ, the fact that this court assumed jurisdiction, standing alone, is not dispositive. Rather, we look to the order itself to determine its preclusive effect. We will not assume, from an order silent on rationale, that our denial of relief was on the merits of the underlying claim. Our summary denial of mandamus relief, without an opinion, should not be given preclusive effect. We therefore remand the case to the Court of Civil Appeals to decide the merits of Tal's claim of trial court bias. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS. WATT, C.J., WINCHESTER, V.C.J., LAVENDER, KAUGER, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR, COLBERT, JJ. concur. HARGRAVE, OPALA, JJ. dissent. FOOT