Agrawal et al v. Oklahoma Department of Labor et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 12/15/2016. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KRIS AGRAWAL, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-16-3-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants the Oklahoma Department of Labor (ODOL)
and Lloyd Fields’1 Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 9], to which Plaintiffs have
responded [Doc. No. 11]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
BACKGROUND
According

to

Plaintiffs’

Second

Amended

Complaint,2

Defendant

Christopher Holland filed a wage claim against Plaintiff GEO Exploration, LLC

1

Defendant Fields was Oklahoma Labor Commissioner during the relevant times
involved in Plaintiffs’ complaint. The current commissioner is Melissa
McLawhorn Houston.
2

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was stricken by the Court as unreasonably
long, verbose and virtually impossible to understand [Doc. No. 5]. Although
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is entitled “Second Amended Complaint
for Removal” [Doc. No. 7] and it states that “a Notice of Removal [was] filed,” see
id. at 1, this matter was originally filed in this Court and not removed from any
state proceeding [Doc. Nos. 1, 3, and 7]. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel and
are therefore not entitled to the deference accorded pro se plaintiffs. To this end,

before the ODOL. During the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ), Plaintiffs allege that although the ALJ permitted Holland to present his
case, it refused to allow Agrawal to testify, thereby depriving him of protections
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Second
Amend. Compl. at 2-3. Plaintiffs also contend that, despite GEO’s pending
bankruptcy, the ALJ found Holland was owed unpaid wages and entered judgment
in his favor against Agrawal. Plaintiffs allege this ruling violated the “automatic
stay” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362) Id. at 3.
Plaintiffs bring suit before this Court, alleging the judgment is void in light
of the fact that (1) GEO was in bankruptcy, (2) Agrawal was not afforded an
opportunity to be heard and defend his case, and (3) Agrawal was not Holland’s
“employer” for purposes of the wage statutes. Id. at 4. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek
that the Oklahoma Supreme Court certify two questions, namely, (1) whether the
ALJ denied Agrawal the right to be heard and (2) whether an automatic stay was
warranted under § 362. Id. at 5.3

counsel for plaintiffs is advised that membership in this bar presumes a working
knowledge of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this
Court. The Court will disregard the erroneous procedural reference under which
Plaintiffs contend this case arises.
3

This request, too, is puzzling. The Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of
Law Act, 20 OKLA. STAT. § 1601 et seq., allows a court of last resort within the
state to certify a question of law to the highest court of another state, a federally
recognized Indian tribal government, Canada, a Canadian province or territory,
2

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically,
Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed because (1) they are
protected under the doctrine of sovereign immunity; (2) Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (3) Plaintiffs’ claims are precluded under
the doctrines of res judicata and/or claim preclusion; (4) Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim against Fields in his individual capacity; and (5) Plaintiffs have failed
to present proper issues for certification.
The Court finds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to the facts of this
case. “Generally, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes lower federal courts
‘from effectively exercising appellate jurisdiction over claims actually decided by
a state court and claims inextricably intertwined with a prior state-court
judgment.’” PJ ex rel. Jensen v. Wagner, 603 F.3d 1182, 1193 (10th Cir. 2010)
(citing Mo’s Express, LLC v. Sopkin, 441 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir. 2006)). “The
Supreme Court recently clarified the narrow scope of the Rooker- Feldman
doctrine, stating that it is ‘confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine
acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries
caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings
Mexico, or a Mexican state. Id. § 1601.2. It also allows a court of last resort within
the state to answer a question so certified by said jurisdictions. Id. § 1602. It is
unclear in the Second Amended Complaint the jurisdiction to which Plaintiffs
request the questions be certified.
3

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.’”
Id. (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284
(2005)). The doctrine applies to both claims that were brought and claims that
could have been brought in the state court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16 (1983).
The Tenth Circuit approaches jurisdictional questions under the RookerFeldman doctrine “by asking whether the state-court judgment caused, actually and
proximately, the injury for which the federal-court plaintiff seeks redress, paying
close attention to the relief sought in the federal suit.” Mo’s Express, 441 F.3d at
1237 (citing Kenmen Eng’g v. City of Union, 314 F.3d 468, 476 (10th Cir. 2002)).
In this regard, the Court has taken judicial notice of the underlying state court
proceedings in this case, which are available on Westlaw and publically accessible
through http://www.oscn.net.4 The record shows that the ALJ’s award was
affirmed by the Oklahoma County District Court, which, in a reported decision,
was affirmed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dep’t of
Labor, 2015 OK 67, 364 P.3d 618.
Based on its review of those proceedings, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
unquestionably seek review and rejection of the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s
4

See United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204, 1214 n. 6 (10th Cir. 2009)
(exercising court’s discretion “to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in
[the] court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the
disposition of the case at hand”) (citation omitted).
4

decision affirming the ALJ’s award of unpaid wages to Holland. There, as here,
Plaintiffs disputed the validity of the wage claim and alleged error in the failure to
allow them to present evidence at the administrative hearing. “If the decision of a
state agency has been upheld by a state court, then the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
applies, because a challenge to the agency’s decision necessarily involves a
challenge to the judgment of the state court.” Pretlow v. McPherson, 497 F. App’x
846, 848 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (quoting Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521,
1525 (11th Cir. 1994)). Consequently, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine and the Court finds the Second Amended Complaint should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Even if the Court were to assume that Rooker-Feldman does not apply,
Plaintiffs’ claims would still be barred under the doctrines of res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel. See Kemper v. LPR Const. Co., 271 F. App’x 760, 762 (10th
Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (“Attempts merely to seek relief denied in state court – to
relitigate a state case – are properly dismissed on grounds of res judicata or
collateral estoppel.”); Yancey v. Thomas, 441 F. App’x 552, 557 (10th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished) (“Under Oklahoma law, ‘[t]he principle of res judicata as claim
preclusion teaches that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the
parties from relitigating not only the adjudicated claim, but also any theories or

5

issues that were actually decided, or could have been decided, in that action.’”)
(citing Read v. Read, 2001 OK 87, ¶ 15, 57 P.3d 561, 567 n. 18).
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 9] is GRANTED as
set forth herein.5 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 7] is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice. See Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d
1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be
without prejudice because the court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction
over the action, is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the
underlying claims.”) (citations omitted). A judgment shall be issued forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2016.

5

Plaintiffs’ alternative request for certification was directed to the Oklahoma
Supreme Court. It is, therefore, not properly before the Court and the Court
declines to consider it.
6