 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grazier v. First National Bank of Nowata6/30/1998
Mandate Issued: July 28, 1998
RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION BY ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
ROY GRAZIER, Appellant,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NOWATA, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF NOWATA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
Honorable James L. Sontag, Trial Judge
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff, Roy Grazier, seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing his action, imposing sanctions against him, and awarding attorney fees and costs to Defendant, First National Bank of Nowata (Bank). On review of the record and applicable law, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Grazier filed this action after he was served with a notice that his deposition had been scheduled in another Nowata County case, First National Bank of Nowata v. Collier (the Collier case), in which Grazier is counsel for one of the defendants. In his petition, Grazier alleged that on March 8, 1997 (a Saturday), a deputy from the Nowata County Sheriff's office served a "notice" on Grazier to appear at the Nowata County Courthouse on March 11 at 9 a.m. to have his deposition taken in the Collier case. Grazier further alleged the same deputy served him with a subpoena at 8:50 a.m. on March 11 for the same deposition. Grazier claimed that, " ue to the threat of force and the probability of arrest," he attended the deposition, which he alleged was designed to humiliate him and interfere with his ability to represent his client. He asserted the alleged actions constituted an abuse of process by Bank, and sought damages and an injunction to prohibit Bank from using the deposition in the Collier case.
In response, Bank filed a document, titled "Special Appearance and Objection to Jurisdiction," containing a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2012(B)(1), (6), and (8) (asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and another action pending). Bank argued Grazier's proper remedy was in the Collier case, and that no claim for abuse of process was possible. Bank also moved for sanctions of $17,000 together with its attorney fees and other costs. It asserted Grazier's action was frivolous, "unfounded by fact and law," and in violation of 12 O.S. Supp. 1997 § 2011.
The trial court granted Bank's motion to dismiss and gave Grazier leave to amend. In response to the amended petition, Bank filed an "Amended Special Appearance and Objection to Jurisdiction," and again moved to dismiss. The trial court granted Bank's motion and dismissed the case. Finding that portions of Grazier's petition and amended petition were "in violation of the Oklahoma Pleading Code," the court also granted Bank's motion for sanctions. It assessed $17,000 against Grazier plus $1,430.75 in attorney fees and costs. Grazier appeals.
Grazier does not challenge the trial court's dismissal of his action pursuant to § 12(B)(6) -- i.e., for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Rather, he contends the trial court erred in sustaining Bank's motion to dismiss after Bank "raised non-jurisdictional questions and asked for affirmative relief," thereby making a "general" appearance. He also alleges the trial court erred in deciding Grazier's action "was in violation of the Oklahoma Pleading Code and awarding excessive sanctions" and attorney fees against Grazier. Finally, Grazier alleges there is an issue on appeal concerning the geographical range in which subpoenas may be served.
We reject Grazier's argument concerning Bank's "appearance"
Page 1 2 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|