DAVIS v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION

DAVIS v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION
2010 OK 45
Case Number: 107100
Decided: 06/15/2010

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

JUDY A. DAVIS Appellant/Petitioner,
v.
OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and TINKER AFB 72 FSS/FSSCEM, Appellee/Respondents.

ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION IV

¶0 Respondent, Tinker AFB 72 FSS/FSSCEM, appealed the decision of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission to award Petitioner, Judy Davis, unemployment benefits. The Appeal Tribunal of the OESC reversed the prior finding and Davis appealed to the Board of Review, which upheld the Appeal Tribunal's finding. Davis next appealed to the District Court of Oklahoma County. The Honorable Vicki Robertson dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Davis' failure to name the Board of Review as a defendant as required by

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED;
OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED;
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.

Brian M. Dell, BRIAN M. DELL, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioner/Appellant.
Teresa Thomas Keller, OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellees/Respondents.

WINCHESTER, J.

¶1 The primary issue on appeal is whether failure to name the Board of Review ("Board") of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission ("OESC"), as a party to an appeal brought under

BACKGROUND

¶2 Petitioner, Judy Davis ("Davis"), sought unemployment benefits after she was terminated by her employer, Tinker AFB 72 FFS/FFSCEM ("Tinker"). OESC authorized such benefits to be paid and Tinker appealed the decision to OESC's Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal reversed OESC's determination finding that Davis had been discharged for misconduct connected to her employment which disqualified her from receiving such benefits. Davis appealed the decision to the Board of Review which affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's denial of benefits.

¶3 Davis next filed a petition for judicial review in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The caption of the petition listed only Tinker and OESC. The Board was not named in the caption, although Davis did serve a copy of the petition on the Board and the petition specifically mentioned the action of the Board. OESC appeared specially to move for dismissal of the case on the ground that the Board was not named as required by

DISCUSSION

¶4 In appeals from decisions of the OESC,

¶5 In Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Carter,

¶6 According to Edmondson, the judicial review provided by statute "is a special proceeding and the procedural requirements are mandatory." Edmondson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc.,

¶7 Davis urges that because she identified the Board in the body of the petition and served the Board with notice this was sufficient to satisfy § 2-610. COCA agreed dismissing the authority of the Edmondson and Carter cases by suggesting that those cases must have involved more than merely omitting the requisite party from the caption. We find nothing in those cases to support this finding. In fact, the Carter opinion specifically referenced Taylor v. Okla. Employment Security Commission,

¶8 The holdings in Edmondson and Carter are clear: the omission of any necessary party requires dismissal by the district court. Davis' failure to name the Board is fatal and the case is hereby dismissed.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED;
OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED;
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.

CONCUR: EDMONDSON, C.J., TAYLOR, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, WATT, WINCHESTER, JJ.

DISSENT: KAUGER (joins REIF, J.), COLBERT (joins REIF,J), REIF, JJ.

FOOTNOTES

1 Section 2-610(1), which was not altered by the 2008 amendment, provides:

Within the ten (10) days after the day a notice of decision of the Board of Review is mailed to the parties, the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, or any party to the proceedings before the Board of Review, may obtain judicial review thereof by filing in the district court of the county in which the claimant resides, or if the claimant is not a resident of the State of Oklahoma then in the district court of Oklahoma County, a petition for review of such decision, against the Board of Review. In such petition for review all other parties to the proceeding before the Board of Review and the Commission shall be made codefendants. Such petition for review need not be verified but shall state specifically the grounds upon which such review is sought. A copy of the petition for review shall be served upon a member of the Board of Review or upon such persons as the Board of Review may designate and the petitioner shall also deliver to the person so served as many copies of the petition as there are defendants. The Board of Review shall forthwith send by mail to each other party to the proceeding a copy of such petition, and such mailing shall be deemed to be service upon all such parties. In any proceeding under this section the findings of the Board of Review as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law. No additional evidence shall be received by the court, but the court may remand the case and order additional evidence to be taken before the Board of Review, and the Board may, after hearing the additional evidence, modify its findings of fact or conclusions, and file the additional or modified findings and conclusions, together with the transcript of the additional record, with the court.

OPALA, J., concurring

¶1 Anglo-American law teaches that all judicial decisions in a system must conform to the precedential pronouncements of its highest court.1 In Oklahoma the tribunal accorded that status for noncriminal cases is her Supreme Court.2 Only those pronouncements by the Court of Civil Appeals which are declared to be precedential by the Supreme Court may claim precedential status.3

FOOTNOTES

1 Rupert Cross, Precedent in English Law, pgs. 103 et seq. (1st ed. 1961).

2 Art. 7 § 4, Okl.Const.; In re M.B., 2006 OK 63, ¶8,145 P.3d 1040, 1044; Smith v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, 2001 OK 95, ¶6, 37 P.3d 872, 873.

3 20 O.S.2001 §30.5; 20 O.S.2001 §30.14(C); Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.200(c)(2), 12 O.S.2001, Ch. 15, App.1; Manley v. Brown, 1999 OK 79, ¶9 n.9, 989 P.2d 448, 452 n.9.

4 Taylor v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, 1993 OK CIV APP 195, 867 P.2d 490.

5 "When a dispute presents a public-law controversy, we are generally free to grant corrective relief upon any applicable legal theory dispositive of the case and supported by the record." State v. Torres, 2004 OK 12, ¶ 7, 87 P.3d 572, 578; City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Bd., 2006 OK 16, ¶ 21, 133 P.3d 281, 289 (citing Special Indemnity Fund v. Reynolds, 1948 OK 14, ¶6, 188 P.2d 841, 842).

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 sufficient 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 (3) 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.