 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores3/13/2001
ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
Plaintiff/Meadows filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., two of its personnel, Wal-Mart's security company and a security guard for assault and battery, defamation and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff prevailed upon the assault and battery and defamation claims, while Wal-Mart prevailed upon the malicious prosecution claim. In a post-trial motion, Plaintiff sought attorney fees, contending Wal-Mart improperly denied discovery requests under (1) 12 O.S. Supp. 1996, §3237(D) and for (2) asserting defenses not well grounded in fact, contrary to 12 O.S. 1991, § 103 . The motion was denied. This Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Retain to consider the third exception to the mandatory sanction requirement of § 3237(D) that the party failing to admit had reasonable grounds to believe he might prevail on the matter. Ultimately, the test under § 3237(D) is not whether the party prevailed at trial but whether he acted reasonably in believing he might prevail. Under this evaluation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees.
TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES IS AFFIRMED.
The controversy arose out of an incident in which Meadows attempted to return some merchandise to a Wal-Mart store with a friend. When store officials refused to allow Meadows to return the merchandise, he became angry. The situation soon escalated with store managers and security using force against Meadows, who was then ultimately arrested for trespass by the Midwest City Police Department. Meadows was released several hours later and the charges were eventually dropped.
Meadows subsequently filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., two Wal-Mart employees, Wal-Mart's security company and a security guard (collectively Wal-mart or Wal-Mart Defendants) for defamation, assault and battery and malicious prosecution. During the course of the pretrial discovery, Meadows requested that the Wal-Mart Defendants admit the truth of several matters. Wal-Mart denied each of the requests tendered by Meadows. Meadows presented his claims to a jury in September 1999. Meadows prevailed on the defamation and assault and battery claims, while Wal-Mart prevailed on the malicious prosecution claim.
In a post-trial motion, Meadows sought attorney fees pursuant to (1) 12 O.S. 1991, § 3236 & 12 O.S. Supp. 1996, § 3237(D), contending the Wal-Mart Defendants improperly refused to admit the matters that were the subject of his discovery requests and (2) 12 O.S. 1991, § 103, contending that Wal-Mart asserted positions and defenses not well grounded in fact. The Wal-Mart Defendants countered that they had reasonable grounds to believe they might prevail on the matters that were the subject of Meadows' requests for admissions and he was not entitled to a fee under § 3237(D)(3). They also denied that any of their defenses were not well grounded in fact, contrary to 23 O.S. 1991, § 103 . The trial court denied Meadows' motion for attorney fees.
Meadows appealed the fee denial. He filed a motion to retain asking the Supreme Court to determine that because he prevailed at trial, § 3237(D) imposed a mandatory duty upon the trial court to award him his reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney fees occasioned by the improper denials. This Court retained this appeal to consider the third exception to the mandatory sanction requirement of § 3237(D) – Did the Wal-Mart Defendants have reasonable grounds to believe they might prevail on the matters contained in the requests for admission?
I. STANDARD OF REV
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|