The University of Texas may have won the Red River Rivalry this year, but Oklahomans may take some consolation in learning the state of Texas has paid the state of Oklahoma $10 million to settle a dispute about the actual Red River.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Gentner Drummond continues to butt heads with Gov. Kevin Stitt over representation in a lawsuit involving the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and an Oklahoma County District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit claiming the State Department of Health lacks authority to conduct unscheduled inspections of county jails.
If this week has not supplied enough election discourse for a lifetime, look to Norman. A previous candidate for Senate District 15 seeks a writ of mandamus from the Oklahoma Supreme Court about what he calls election irregularities in the August runoff. And regarding the city’s controversial arena plan, Norman residents will get the opportunity to weigh in at the ballot box Feb. 11, barring any legal challenges to referendum petition signatures submitted Oct. 17.
Read about all of that, and more, in this week’s roundup.
Stitt hires, Drummond fires attorney in ODMHSAS lawsuit
Attorney General Gentner Drummond has thwarted an attempt by Gov. Kevin Stitt to hire an outside law firm to contest a proposed settlement that the AG’s office helped develop. The settlement proposes a court-monitored improvement plan for ending allegedly unconstitutional delays of mental health competency restoration services in Oklahoma.
In a letter sent Nov. 1, Drummond notified Stitt that he was terminating a contract the governor entered into with William “Bill” O’Connor of the Hall Estill law firm. O’Connor was going to represent Allie Friesen, commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and Debbie Moran, executive director of the Oklahoma Forensic Center, in the case of Briggs et al. v. Friesen et al.
Friesen had objected to Drummond’s decisions while representing her in the case, and she sent a letter terminating his representation Oct. 8. Drummond said his client was the “state of Oklahoma” and that Friesen “cannot fire me.”
As the state’s chief law officer, Drummond said Nov. 1 he was exercising his constitutional authority to “take and assume control of litigation” involving the state. He reiterated that his client is the state, not Friesen and Moran in their individual capacities.
“I will continue to represent the state of Oklahoma, including Commissioner Friesen and executive director Moran in their official capacities, to the best of my abilities,” Drummond wrote.
Friesen told Stitt and other members of the Contingency Review Board last month that she would resign before agreeing to elements of Drummond’s proposed consent decree that would settle the lawsuit. Friesen said Drummond “has not represented our department.”
The Contingency Review Board considers major state lawsuit settlements when the Legislature is not in session. In September, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frizzell gave preliminary approval to a consent decree negotiated by Drummond and a group of Tulsa attorneys who filed suit on behalf of incarcerated Oklahomans for the extraordinary wait times they have faced for treatment of severe mental illness while awaiting criminal prosecution. A consent decree is a monitored settlement agreement that includes benchmarked improvement of state services.
The Briggs v. Friesen et al lawsuit alleges ODMHSAS is violating due process rights by failing to provide timely court-ordered competency restoration services for some pretrial defendants deemed not competent to stand trial. The result has been delayed justice for victims of crime, according to the Attorney General’s Office.
Red River settlement agreement nets $10 million
The state of Texas has paid the state of Oklahoma $10 million to resolve a boundary dispute involving a North Texas Municipal Water District pump erroneously placed on what had been Oklahoma’s side of Lake Texoma and the Red River.
Oklahoma’s Contingency Review Board unanimously approved the amended and restated Red River boundary agreement Oct. 30, with NTMWD representatives and members of Gov. Kevin Stitt’s administration lingering in the governor’s conference room after the meeting to receive confirmation that the $10 million wire transfer had occurred.
“Is (Texas Gov. Greg) Abbott personally going to deliver the $10 million to me?” Stitt joked during the meeting.
Stitt, House Speaker Charles McCall (R-Atoka) and Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat (R-OKC) all voted to approve the revised boundary agreement after hearing from OU President Joe Harroz, who helped lead the legal review and negotiation process as part of the Red River Boundary Commission created by legislators to find a solution acceptable for Oklahoma.
“The question was, what are the unintended consequences? And the No. 1 unintended consequence was, ‘Does this give Texas, the North Texas Water District or anyone else greater rights to the water than existed before?’ And the answer is, ‘No, it does not,'” Harroz said. “It also doesn’t affect land ownership as discussed because of the unique nature of where this exists, and it also doesn’t trigger the tribal interests or infringe on any tribal interests.”
McCall thanked Harroz for his diligence.
“This is the most controversial issue in my part of the state, particularly in my district,” McCall said. “We had to be 100 percent sure.”
Conversations about the problematic Lake Texoma water pump began in 2010 after the federal government alerted both states that the Texas water pump — constructed in 1989 — sat in Oklahoma waters following a 2000 redraw of the Red River boundary. The $10 million payment and Red River settlement agreement approved Oct. 30 have resolved the issue.
Companies agree to pay $49 million after artificially inflating drug prices
Eight years after litigation began, two generic drug manufacturing companies settled a lawsuit brought by multiple states alleging they artificially inflated generic drug prices. Heritage Pharmaceuticals and Apotex will pay $10 million and $39.1 million, respectively, for their roles in the scheme. In addition to fines, the companies agreed to “internal reforms to ensure fair competition and compliance with antitrust laws.”
The drug companies’ leaders were accused of conspiring to raise the price of generic drugs. According to a press release from Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s office, the defendants discussed “playing nice in the sandbox” and making sure each company made their “fair share” during informal gatherings over meals, parties, golf outings and even a “girls night out.”
While Heritage and Apotex settled, three cases against over a dozen drug manufacturing companies are still pending in Connecticut’s federal court. As part of their agreement, Heritage and Apotex join other companies who have settled during the litigation in cooperating with the government’s case. The first of the three trials is currently scheduled to begin in 2026.
“This is a positive development in our fight to hold accountable drug manufacturers for artificially manipulating prices, reducing competition and unreasonably restraining trade for numerous generic prescription drugs,” Drummond said. “I hope Oklahomans who are eligible will seek the compensation to which they are entitled.”
It is unclear how much of the $49.1 million settlement will go to Oklahomans. People can check their eligibility for compensation from the settlement at aggenericdrugs.com, by calling 1-866-290-0182, or by emailing info@aggenericdrugs.com.
More than 10,000 signatures verified for Norman arena vote
Barring legal protest, Norman voters will get the chance to approve or shoot down a controversial tax increment financing district planned between Interstate 35 and Max Westheimer Airport.
The TIF district would finance a new arena intended for use by the University of Oklahoma’s basketball and gymnastics programs, with a new entertainment district featuring retail, residential and office space planned to surround it. The TIF district’s price cap — $600 million over 25 years — has rankled some Norman residents, who worry that even though taxes will not increase on residents, the new entertainment district could economically endanger other parts of the city through cannibalization.
After a non-binding “advisory” vote was dismissed in court July 29, the Norman City Council passed the TIF district 5-4 in the early hours of Sept. 18. Norman residents opposed to the TIF district launched a referendum petition in hopes of bringing the project to a public vote. The petition’s organizers needed 6,098 signatures to trigger the referendum. They submitted 10,689 valid signatures, according to city clerk Brenda Hall.
On Nov. 6, Hall issued a letter to the individuals who filed the petition, stating a 10-day period will begin Nov. 10 where any eligible voter can protest the petition.
“This is the stage when the number of signatures, eligibility of those signing, the ballot title, and the appropriateness of the subject matter may be contested,” Hall wrote.
The Cleveland County District Court is required to hear any protest within 10 days of its filing.
Supreme Court: Tulsa law bars pet-sitters from suing for dog bites
A unanimous Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a Rover.com pet-sitter against the City of Tulsa after a Tulsa Animal Welfare foster dog bit her. The ruling effectively bars pet-sitters from suing over dog-bite injuries in the city. The decision emphasized local control over defining dog ownership in the absence of a definition under state law and instructed courts to interpret the state’s dog bite statute concurrently with municipal statutes that define dog ownership.
Julian, a “neglected male pit bull mix” weighing 28 pounds, was rescued by Tulsa Animal Welfare in 2020 after his owner moved homes and left him chained in the backyard. After two years, he had recovered from heartworms and a large leg wound, as well as nearly doubling in weight before he was placed in a foster agreement with an attorney.
When the foster had to leave town for three days and Tulsa Animal Welfare did not respond to a call about where she could leave Julian, the foster hired Sarah Marshall, a Rover.com pet-sitter and then-law student.
Julian stayed with Marshall and five other dogs while her foster was away, according to court documents. During his stay, Julian bit Marshall’s right hand and caused “several fractures and nerve damage.” Prior to the incident, Julian did not have a history of aggression, the city stated in court filings.
Marshall sued the city to recover her medical costs since the city “owned” Julian under the terms of the fostership agreement, but the city’s attorneys filed to dismiss the suit arguing Marshall was also legally an “owner” of Julian at the time of the dog bite. District Court Judge Caroline Wall agreed with the city’s attorneys and dismissed the case.
Vice Chief Justice Dustin Rowe wrote the opinion explaining that municipalities may pass their own dog bite statutes that define the term “owner,” as long as the definition is not “inconsistent and irreconcilable with” state law.
State law makes the “owner or owners” of a dog liable for damages caused if it bites another person “in or on a place where he has a lawful right to be,” but it does not actually define the term “owner.”
Tulsa’s ordinances defined a dog owner as “the owner,” as well as “every other person having the care or custody of or harboring, keeping or maintaining any dog.”
Relying on Tulsa’s municipal definition, the court found that Marshall was an “owner” under municipal law because she was “caring for, keeping, and had possession” of Julian at the time of the bite. The decision overturned a 1993 Court of Civil Appeals decision, Hass v. Money, which limited dog bite liability to “a person having the legal right to possession.”
The new Supreme Court decision interpreted Tulsa’s laws specifically, but it will implicate other municipalities. According to a 1947 statute, “rural areas” are exempt from Oklahoma’s dog bite tort statute.
For municipalities that do not define dog ownership, the closest the court has come to providing a general definition is in 1987, when Justice Yvonne Kauger wrote “one who treats a dog as living at his/her home and undertakes to control the dog’s actions, may be considered to be the owner within the meaning of the law.”
Now, the new ruling effectively bars amateur pet-sitters in Tulsa from recovering damages for dog bites, unless the ordinance is amended.
SD 15 candidate brings election concerns to OK Supreme Court
Former Senate District 15 candidate Robert Keyes, known for being tough as a $2 steak, has filed an application for writ of mandamus asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to require a Cleveland County judge to issue findings of fact regarding what Keyes characterizes as election irregularities in his primary runoff against Lisa Standridge.
Keyes lost to Lisa Standridge by a margin of 56 votes, according to the Oklahoma State Election Board. On Aug. 30, Keyes filed a petition alleging election irregularities, including a discrepancy between the election board’s unofficial results page and the Oklahoma Election Data Warehouse.
The petition also alleged Standridge circulated campaign material including a note attributed to Kay Osborn reading, “If you need a notary, please call me and I will come to notarize your ballot.”
Osborn is Standridge’s campaign treasurer, according to Standridge’s candidate filing information. The initial petition cited Title 24, Section 14-108.1(C), which stipulates no notary may notarize more than 20 ballots, and Keyes requested the state or Cleveland County Election Board determine whether Osborn had violated that statute.
On Sept. 6, the parties agreed to dismiss the petition, with Keyes’ counsel stating they would agree to dismissal in exchange for the court issuing a finding of fact with regard to the results of the race’s recount, Osborn’s role in notarizing ballots, and the discrepancy between the online unofficial results and the Election Data Warehouse.
Keyes’ attorneys said the court did not hold up its end of the bargain, while Standridge’s attorneys said Oct. 7 that Keyes’ attorneys had misrepresented the terms of the dismissal in the first place. Cleveland County District Court Judge Jeff Virgin appeared to side with Standridge’s attorneys and dismissed Keyes’ motion to modify his previous ruling.
In taking his grievances to the Supreme Court, Keyes’ application for a writ of mandamus and arguments made by Keyes’ counsel Sept. 5 cite a different statute than Keyes’ initial petition with regard to Osborn’s role in notarizing ballots. According to Title 24, Section 14-108(B), “The ballot shall not be notarized (…) by any campaign chairperson or campaign treasurer for a candidate whose name appears on the ballot.”
“While these compromised ballots may not have altered the election result, Oklahomans deserve full transparency and assurance in our voting system,” Keyes said in a press release. “The steps taken by the Standridge campaign and the Oklahoma State and Cleveland County Election Boards to prevent judicial inquiry into what are regarded as serious crimes, to suppress evidence, and to obstruct judicial findings are alarming.”
At the Sept. 5 hearing, Standridge’s attorneys objected to the reference of that statute during oral arguments.
“They did not make a claim under this particular statute on the face of their petition. And as required in the petition for pleading of irregularities, you’re only allowed to bring new claims if those instances or facts could not have been known at the time of filing,” Standridge’s attorney said.
Standridge defeated Democrat Elizabeth Foreman on Tuesday to secure the Senate District 15 seat.
Judge dismisses Behenna’s attempt to limit OSDH jail inspections
On Tuesday, Oklahoma County District Court Judge C. Brent Dishman granted the Oklahoma State Department of Health’s motion to dismiss in litigation that sought a ruling to prohibit OSDH from unannounced inspections of county jail facilities.
Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna filed the lawsuit in late July seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment that the State Department of Health lacked statutory authority to conduct inspections without prior scheduling. Behenna’s petition opened with a quote from President-elect Donald Trump that raised eyebrows in the legal community given the topic at hand: health and safety inspections of a county jail facility commonly referred to as the worst detention center in America.
“The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within,” Behenna wrote, quoting Trump from Nov. 11, 2023. “Our threat is from within.”
In support of its motion to dismiss, OSDH attorneys wrote in an Oct. 29 filing that inspections of the Oklahoma County Jail were continuing to be denied, even amid serious ongoing issues at the facility.
“Since the Department filed its Motion to Dismiss in this matter, the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority denied [OSDH’s] investigators access to the jail on Aug. 28, 2024, when they arrived to conduct six death investigations as well as multiple serious injury/incident investigations,” OSDH attorneys wrote. “Additionally, another inmate at the jail died while in custody on Sept. 26, 2024. Finally, the jail had several critical infrastructure systems fail starting Oct. 12, 2024. The systems included parts of the plumbing system and the fire suppression system. The plumbing issues caused flooding in the electrical room and on several floors of the Jail. As a result, detainees on several of the floors were without hot water for several days.”
Dishman ultimately agreed with the state and dismissed the county’s litigation. If Dishman wrote an order granting the motion to dismiss, it was not posted to OSCN by the publication of this article. However, Rep. Jason Lowe (D-OKC) praised Dishman’s decision.
“I applaud Judge Dishman’s ruling to allow state health inspectors to conduct unscheduled inspections at the Oklahoma County Jail,” Lowe said. “Transparency is imperative to the health, wellbeing, and safety of those incarcerated at the facility and those who work there.”
Longtime CJAC director tapped to run Juvenile Affairs
Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Advisory Council executive director Tim Tardibono has been appointed executive director of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs by Gov. Kevin Stitt.
Tardibono is familiar with the department, having worked there during former Gov. Frank Keating’s administration. For the past six years, he has directed CJAC, which is the advisory arm of the county when it comes to the Oklahoma County Jail and other criminal justice matters. The council aims to reduce recidivism and keep people out of the criminal justice system in the first place. Since CJAC was founded, there has been a slow and steady decline in the population of the Oklahoma County Jail from more than 2,000 detainees to about 1,600 today.
The Office of Juvenile Affairs is responsible for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs, along with other health, safety and housing programs for youth. The agency is responsible for overseeing youth detention centers around the state, including the Family Center for Juvenile Justice in Tulsa, which OJA threatened to close down after extensive allegations of misconduct at the facility.
OJA representatives were present when a search warrant was served at the facility in July.
