Opinion ID: 2638093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: ¶ 2 This matter has a long and curious procedural history. Plaintiff, Glenda Washington, was employed by the Tulsa County Juvenile Detention Center from August of 1999 until her employment was terminated on April 6, 2001. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a right-to-sue letter on February 6, 2002. She filed a petition in the District Court of Tulsa County in CJ-2002-1733 ( Washington I ) (Appeal No. 101,474) on March 28, 2002, within the requisite 90 days following the issuance of the right-to-sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The action was brought against Washington's employer and supervisors. The petition alleged sexual discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a claim under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code. Plaintiff believed that one of her state law claims, under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, §§ 151-200 (2001 & Supp.2006), was not ripe for adjudication. She withheld issuance of summons anticipating that she would later amend her petition to add state law claims concerning her allegations of wrongful termination. ¶ 3 On August 12, 2002, Plaintiff's petition was dismissed without prejudice or notice pursuant to Rule 9a of the Rules for District Courts [1] for failure to issue summons within 90 days. An order memorializing the dismissal was filed on August 28, 2002. Inexplicably, the parties proceeded as if no dismissal had occurred. The day after the order of dismissal was filed, Plaintiff filed an amended petition in the same case number to include her state law claims and to properly identify a party defendant. Summonses were issued and Defendants were served. On October 8, 2002, Defendant Tulsa County removed the dismissed action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma asserting federal question jurisdiction. Attached to the petition for removal was a copy of the state court's dismissal. ¶ 4 On November 14, 2002, Plaintiff filed another petition in the District Court of Tulsa County in case number CJ-2002-6577 ( Washington II ) (Appeal No. 103,384). The petition was identical to the amended petition filed in Washington I. It is not clear whether Plaintiff intended to comply with the section 100 savings provision of title 12, but the matter was docketed as a refiling of Washington I and assigned case number CJ-2002-6577. ¶ 5 Tulsa County moved to dismiss Washington II on December 6, 2002, arguing that the state court had no jurisdiction to proceed in Washington II because Washington I was pending in federal court. Plaintiff failed to file a brief in response to the motion to dismiss and the motion was deemed confessed pursuant to Rule 4e of the Rules for District Courts. [2] Washington II was dismissed as to Tulsa County [3] on January 2, 2003. ¶ 6 Washington I remained on the federal court's docket for nearly two years until, on May 14, 2004, Defendants jointly moved the federal court for summary judgment or dismissal of the matter urging that Tulsa County's removal was void. On August 6, 2004, the federal court remanded Washington I to state court because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a case that had been dismissed in state court prior to its removal. [4] ¶ 7 At this point, Plaintiff asked the District Court of Tulsa County to vacate the Rule 9a dismissal of Washington I asserting irregularity in obtaining [the] judgment or order. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1031(3) (2001). The motion was overruled on October 21, 2004, and Plaintiff brought appeal number 101,474. [5] ¶ 8 On December 30, 2004, Plaintiff moved to vacate the Rule 4e dismissal of Washington II asserting title 12, section 1031(3), [6] irregularity in obtaining the judgment, and section 1031(4), constructive fraud in obtaining the judgment. The trial court vacated the dismissal based on irregularity in obtaining the judgment at a hearing on May 9, 2005. ¶ 9 Tulsa County moved for reconsideration on May 12, 2005, based in part on the fact that the hearing had not been transcribed and on the fact that Tulsa County had not been provided the opportunity to cross-examine Plaintiff's counsel. In response, the trial court held another hearing on July 18, 2005. Tulsa County was allowed to perform that cross-examination and present any other evidence it wished to present. The cross-examination of Plaintiff's counsel is the only evidence contained in the appellate record from either hearing. Following the hearing, the trial court refused to set aside its vacation of the dismissal and repeated the basis for its finding of irregularity in obtaining the judgment. An order memorializing that decision was filed on September 13, 2005, and the matter was stayed pending appeal of that decision on September 28, 2005. Plaintiff prepared the September 13, 2005, order but did not mail it to Tulsa County until May 2, 2006. The certificate of mailing was filed on May 4, 2006, and this timely appeal was commenced on May 23, 2006.