Court Opinion

ID: 9736388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:54:26.900275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:06.384895
License: Public Domain

REIF, J.,
with whom Kauger and Colbert, JJ., join, dissenting.
{1 The issue in this case is whether the claimant's petition for judicial review was *925sufficient to invoke the district court's jurisdiction. The majority holds the petition was not sufficient because it did not name the Board of Review as a defendant in the caption or style of the petition. The majority relies upon precedent that requires the appealing party to name all necessary parties in the petition for review. The majority also notes that (1) judicial review is a special proceeding, (2) the procedural requirements for judicial review are mandatory; and (8) the terms of the statute must be complied with before the court can acquire jurisdiction. While I readily agree that these general principles govern judicial review, I do not agree that they are dispositive.
4 2 My chief disagreement with the majority opinion lies in the fact that the statute authorizing judicial review-40 O.S. Supp. 2008, § 2-610-does not require the petition for judicial review to name the Board of Review in the caption or style of the petition. Indeed, the statute does not require the petition to be in any particular form or bear a particular caption or style. The statute simply provides that judicial review may be obtained by "filing ... a petition for review ... against the Board of Review." Examination of the body of the petition in the case at hand clearly reveals that the petition was filed "against the Board of Review." As the Court of Civil Appeals opinion points out, (1) "the text of the petition recites the administrative history of the proceedings, including the appeal to the Board;" (2) "a copy of the Board's opinion is attached to the petition;" (3) "[the petition] lists ... errors in the proceedings and ... reasons for judicial review;" and (4) "[the] petition requests the court ... to reverse the ruling of the Appeal Tribunal/Board of Review."
T3 Not only does the statute mot require the petition for review to be in any particular form or to bear a particular caption or style, it is well settled that the failure to name a party in the caption of a petition is a mere irregularity if the body of the petition otherwise states a cause of action against a defendant. Klopfenstein v. Okla. Dep't of Human Services, 2008 OK CIV APP 16, ¶ 17, 177 P.3d 594, 598 (citing Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir.1996) ("[A] party not properly named in the caption ... may still be properly before the court if allegations in the body of the [pleading] make it plain the party is intended as a defendant. ..."}. As this Court has said:
A suit at law is not a children's game, but a serious effort on the part of adult human beings to administer justice. If [a pleading] names [a party] in such terms that every intelligent person understands who is meant, as the case here, [the pleading] has fulfilled its purpose; and courts should not put themselves in the position of failing to recognize what is apparent to everyone else. C
C & C Tile Co. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 7 of Tulsa County, 1972 OK 137, ¶ 24, 503 P.2d 554, 559 (citations omitted).
T4 Furthermore, the fact that judicial review of a decision by the Board of Review is a special proceeding should not exempt the pleadings in such cases from being construed so as to do substantial justice. 12 0.S8.2001 and Supp.2009 § 2008(F). This Court has recently applied this rule in construing the pleadings in condemnation cases which are likewise special proceedings. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Dep't of Transportation v. Cole, 2009 OK 40, 236 P.3d 49. In Cole and its companion cases, this Court held that landowners had timely demanded a jury trial based on language in their respective motions to withdraw the commissioners' award. Each motion stated landowners were withdrawing the commissioners' award "pending trial of the issues by jury." The reason it was necessary to construe such language as a demand for jury trial was that landowners formal pleadings entitled "Demand For Jury Trial" were filed out of time, whereas the motions to withdraw the commissioners' awards . were filed within the time to demand a jury trial. If this Court had not construed the language in the motions "as to do substantial justice," the trial court would have lacked jurisdiction to give landowners a jury trial on the issue of damages. Id. at ¶¶ 15-17, 236 P.3d at 53. There is no cogent reason to refuse to construe the body of the petition for review in the case in hand as similarly sufficient to name the Board of Review and invoke judicial review by the district court.
*926T5 The position taken by the majority is particularly alarming in light of the large numbers of people who pursue unemployment compensation benefits pro se. Such individuals most likely would not associate "filing ... a petition ... against the Board of Review" as requiring the naming of the Board of Review in the caption or style of the pleading. Indeed, a pro se person most likely would understand the statute to require only the statement of some reason or reasons why the pro se party believes the Board of Review is wrong.
16 Finally, there is no dispute that the petition in question was served on the Board of Review. Likewise, there is no dispute that the Board of Review understood the claimant was aggrieved by the decision of the Board and was seeking judicial review of that decision. No claim has been made that the Board or any other party was misled to their detriment, or that the form and content of the pleading caused any problem with respect to the Board preparing and transmitting the record to district court. The majority's refusal to construe the petition for judicial review so "as to do substantial justice" exalts form over substance without furthering any reasonable purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Act. Accordingly, I cannot join such a strict interpretation of the statute governing judicial review and must respectfully dissent.