Court Opinion

ID: 9782528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:55:18.209796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:04.921240
License: Public Domain

OPINION CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
WATT, Justice,
T1 I coneur in the majority's conclusion that Tal and TA.R.'s action giving rise to this appeal is barred as a result of our finding in Tol I that Tal and TAR. lacked standing to prosecute any further action concerning the Bricktown project. 1 dissent, however, because of the majority's failure to address what is to me quite clear: that Tal and T.A.R.'s conduct in filing and prosecuting this action is likely sanctionable. Tal and TAR. filed and continue to prosecute this appeal, despite the fact that the suit giving rise to this appeal is based on the same Qui Tam notice that this Court held more than a year ago failed to show Tal and T.A.R. had standing to prosecute a Qui Tam action. Further, this is but the latest episode in serial lawsuits and appeals by Tal and TAR. that have hindered the Bricktown project, including, according to appellees, the loss of investors who have refused to participate only because of this constant litigation. The potential losses to the Bricktown project participants created by this serial litigation cannot have been lost on Tal and T.A.R.
T2 Sanctions in the form of additional costs and attorneys' fees are awardable under Rule 1.2, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules;1 12 0.8. Supp.1996 § 995 ;2 and 20 *2730.§.1991 § 15.1,3 for filing and prosecuting appeals that are non-meritorious, frivolous, or violate the Court's rules. It appears to me that Tal and TAR. have likely violated some or all of these provisions. Consequent ly I would have granted leave to appellees to file in the trial court motions for appropriate sanctions from the violation of the last cited statutes and Court Rule in the conduct of this appeal, and, should any of the appellees decide to file such motions, I would direct the trial court to hear and decide them. In this connection, I note that the trial court has granted appellees' motions for sanctions and attorneys' fees incurred as a result of Tal and T.AR.'s conduct in having filed the suit in the first place.
13 In their August 28, 2000 motion to strike the supplement to the record filed by 0G & E, Tal and TAR. claim that OG & E's supplement should be stricken because OG & E's motion to dismiss was not ruled on in the trial court order dismissing the actions against the other defendants. I concur in the majority's ruling denying that motion but it seems to me that a discussion of Tal and T.A.R.'s possible motives in filing their motion is in order.
T4 Clearly, this Court's ruling in Tal Z, which has been reaffirmed here, stands for the proposition that Tal and T.A.R. lacked standing to prosecute Qui Tam actions arising from the Bricktown project, regardless of whom the individual defendants might be. As noted by the majority, Tal and TAR. have no more standing to prosecute a Quf Tam action against OG & E than they had to prosecute one against the other defendants to this appeal. Although, it seems to me, this fact should by now be clear to Tal and TAR., I am concerned that Tal and T.A.R.'s August 28, 2000 motion might have been designed to create a circumstance that they believed would allow them to prosecute yet another appeal in this case after this one. On this score I observe that motions for sanctions for Tal and T.A.R.'s conduct in this case are presently pending and I would have granted appellants leave sua sponte to file additional motions for sanctions. I would expect, therefore, that Tal and T.A.R. would engage in no more conduct designed to lengthen this litigation or any other arising from the Bricktown development.
15 I join in the majority's affirmation of the trial court's order dismissing Tal and TAR.'s action because Tal and TAR. lack standing to prosecute any action concerning the Bricktown project. I dissent because I would have remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to hear and decide, under Rule 1.2, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules; 12 O.S. Supp.1996 § 995; and 20 ©.9.1991 §$ 15.1, any motions for sanctions or other appropriate relief that appellees may file arising out of Tal and T.A.R.'s conduct in their prosecution of this appeal.

. Rule 1.2 provides,
Compliance with these rules is required. In case of failure to comply with any rule or order of the Court, the Court may continue or dismiss a cause, reverse or affirm the judgment appealed, render judgment, strike a filing, assess costs or take any other action it deems proper.

. Title 12 0.S. Supp.1996 § 995 provides:
The Oklahoma Supreme Court or Court of Civil Appeals shall dismiss an appeal that is frivolous, and may impose sanctions against the appellant, the appellant's attorney, or both. The sanctions that may be imposed may include the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the appeal, including a reasonable attorney's fee. The court shall dismiss a cross-appeal or an original proceeding that is frivolous and may impose sanctions as provided by this section.

. Title 20 0.$.1991 § 15.1 provides:
On any appeal to the Supreme Court, the prevailing party may petition the court for an additional attorney fee for the cost of the appeal. In the event the Supreme Court or its designee finds that the appeal is without merit, any additional fee may be taxed as costs.