Opinion ID: 167840
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Oklahoma's Amended Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Text: 13 After the DRC's April meeting, Oklahoma amended its complaint. Oklahoma contested the DRC's November 2003 and April 2004 decisions relating to the Illinois and Joint Jurisdictions claims. Oklahoma alleged it was entitled to fundamentally fair hearings before the DRC, and claimed it failed to receive such hearings because the DRC members from Illinois and the Joint Jurisdictions were not impartial decision-makers. Oklahoma moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the IRP from enforcing the November and April decisions. Oklahoma did not seek substantive review of the DRC's November and April decisions. The only question before the district court was whether the procedures followed by the DRC in reaching its ... decisions were so flawed as to invalidate those decisions and warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction precluding their enforcement. State of Okla. ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n. v. Int'l Registration Plan, Inc., No. CIV-02-1798-HE, slip op. at 8 (W.D.Okla. Sept.3, 2004). 14 The district court found DRC voting members from the Joint Jurisdictions, particularly member Skluzacek, were not disinterested individuals. Id. at 11. It observed members from Joint Jurisdiction states could not properly have acted as judges or third party decision-makers in an administrative or judicial context. Id. Nonetheless, in the context of the Plan, the district court concluded participation of members from Joint Jurisdictions states, even though they were not disinterested, did not render the DRC proceedings and decisions fundamentally unfair. The district court refused Oklahoma's motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding Oklahoma was not likely to succeed on the merits of its claim and determining Oklahoma did not show an injunction would serve the public interest. Oklahoma appeals the district court's decision.