Date: 07-13-2023

Case Style:

Lessie Benningfield Randle, et al. v. City of Tulsa, et al.

Case Number: CV-2020-1179

Judge: Caroline Wall

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Demario Solomon-Simmons, et al.

Defendant's Attorney: Gerald Bender, et al.

Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendants on public nuisance theories claiming that unlawful acts and omissions that began with the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 that has continued to this day. Plaintiffs also sought to recover for unjust enrichment for the Defendants' exploitation of the Massacre for their own economic and political gain.

Plaintiff sought to remedy what they claimed was an ongoing nuisance caused by the Masscre in the Greenwood District and to obtain benefits unjustly received by Defendants as a result of the massacre.

Outcome: WALL, CAROLINE; FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE ENTERED. THE COURT HEREBY SUPPLEMENTS THE ORDER ISSUED JULY 7, 2023 WITH CERTAIN NECESSARY FINDINGS IN THE DETERMINATION OF THIS FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. THE COURT INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE CONTENTS OF THE ORDER ENTERED AUGUST 3, 2022 AND ATTACHES HERETO A COPY IN FULL, MARKED AS COURT'S EXHIBIT (1) ONE.
THE COURT DETERMINES PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED PETITION FAILS TO STATE A JUSTICIABLE PUBLIC NUISANCE CLAIM UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW. PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED PETITION FAILS TO ALLEGE A LEGALLY COGNIZABLE ABATEMENT REMEDY. PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED PETITION FAILS TO CURE THE DEFECT IN PLEADING WHICH THE COURT FOUND TO EXIST AND LIBERALLY GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND PURSUANT TO 12 O.S. 2012 §G.
THE COURT MAKES THIS DETERMINATION AS PROVIDED BY OKLAHOMA LAW, TAKING THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE AND EXAMINING THE CONTROLLING LAW. AS STATED IN THE COURT'S ORDER ENTERED AUGUST 3, 2022 AND FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH HEREIN, THE COURT FINDS DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED PETITION SHOULD AND SHALL BE GRANTED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE ABATEMENT REMEDY. THIS COURT DECLINES TO ENGAGE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY MATTERS THAT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES. SEE J&J DECISION, 2021 OK 54, ¶39. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE STYLED MATTER IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
CLERK FILED ORDER AND MAILED COPY TO
JOHN TUCKER, COLIN TUCKER, KERRY LEWIS, AUSTIN JACKSON, DAVID O'MEILIA, GERALD BENDER, KRISTINA GRAY, MICHELLE MCGREW, LAWSON VAUGHN, STEPHEN WANGSGARD, KEITH WILKES, KEVIN MCCLURE, DEMARIO SOLOMAN-SIMMONS, KYMBERLI HECKENKEMPER, SPENCER BRYAN, STEVEN TERRILL, ERIC MILLER, LASHANDRA PEOPLES-JOHNSON, CORDAL CEPHAS, MAYNARD HENRY SR, MICHAEL SWARTZ, RANDALL ADAMS, ANNALISE BENDER-BROWN, VICTORIA HARRIS, EKENEDILICHUKWU UKABIALA, AMANDA BARRETT BARKIN, SARA ELENA SOLFANELLI, ERIKA LYNNE SIMONSON, MCKENZIE HAYNES.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: