Redd et al v. Big Dog Holding Company LLC et al

Filing 73

ORDER granting 63 Defendant City of Oklahoma City's Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 1/28/16. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHARLESETTA REDD, individually and )
as Personal Representative of the ESTATE )
of BRIAN SIMMS, JR., deceased,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BIG DOG HOLDING COMPANY, L.L.C. )
d/b/a OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC
)
FARMERS MARKET;
)
365 LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C.
)
d/b/a 365 LIVE ENTERTAINMENT;
)
EVENT SECURITY, L.L.C.;
)
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, a
)
municipality, ex rel. CITY OF OKC
)
POLICE DEPARTMENT;
)
WILLIAM CITTY, Chief of Oklahoma
)
City Police, individually and in his official )
capacity; and
)
PAUL GALYON, individually,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-15-263-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant City of Oklahoma City’s Motion to Dismiss Portions
of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 63). Plaintiff filed a Response (Dkt. No.
66) and Defendant City of Oklahoma City (“OKC”) filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 68). The Motion
is at issue.
Defendant OKC filed this Motion requesting the Court dismiss portions of Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint, specifically:

1.

Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Galyon and Citty under
federal and state law;

2.

Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Oklahoma Constitution; and

3.

Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages against Defendant OKC.

Defendant OKC filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt.
No. 26) which this Court granted. In that Order, the Court discussed in great length the
reasons for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Galyon and Citty in their official capacities
as well as Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Oklahoma Constitution (Dkt. No. 47).
Defendant brings this Motion arguing that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No.
56) contains the same claims that were previously dismissed. Plaintiff concedes Defendant
OKC’s Motion. Plaintiff argues that she has not intentionally made independent official
capacity claims or claims under the Oklahoma Constitution, and that her Second Amended
Complaint should not be construed as such. Further, Plaintiff concedes that any independent
claim for punitive damages against Defendant OKC are prohibited.
It is clear to the Court that it was not Plaintiff’s intention to revive these already
dismissed claims by the wording used in her Second Amended Complaint. However, out of
abundance of caution and clarity, the Court again, dismisses Plaintiff’s official capacity
claims against Defendants Galyon and Citty and Plaintiff’s state law claim under the
Oklahoma Constitution. The Court also reaffirms that any independent claim for punitive
damages against Defendant OKC is prohibited.

2

Accordingly, Defendant City of Oklahoma City’s Motion to Dismiss Portions of
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 63) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of January, 2016.

3