( Rapp )
( Oklahoma County - Bryan C. Dixon )
AFFIRMED
Richard K. Goodwin, RAINEY, GOODWIN, MEE & MARTIN, LLP, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Plaintiff/Appellant
Teresa Thomas Keller, General Counsel, OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Defendants/Appellees
OPINION
Claimant Charles Grant Goodwin (Goodwin) appeals the district court's dismissal of his appeal grounded on the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits. The question here on appeal is of a singular nature - did the district court err in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Goodwin's appeal. Based on statutory authority, this Court on review concludes the trial court did not err and affirms its decision.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Goodwin's employment was terminated and he applied for unemployment benefits; following a hearing, benefits were denied. Goodwin pursued his administrative remedies and, failing to obtain the desired relief, filed a petition for review with the district court. Goodwin named in his petition the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission and his former employer as defendants. Goodwin did not name the Board of Review as a defendant. He caused summons to be served upon:
"Oklahoma Employment Security Commission The Clerk of the Board of Review"
-- and also apparently the employer.
The Commission filed a special appearance and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Commission argued that Goodwin's failure to timely name the Board of Review as a defendant within the statutory time required by 40 O.S. 2-610, was fatal to his appeal. In response, Goodwin requested an opportunity to amend the case caption to name the Board of Review as a defendant. Goodwin's response to the Commission's special appearance, stated in part at page 2, 12:
"Based upon existing case law, Plaintiff will admit that the Board of Review is a necessary party to this case and that without the Board of Review being named as a party, based upon existing case law, the case should be dismissed. BUT, the Board of Review is a sic named as a party in the allegations of the petition for review."
The district court determined that Goodwin's failure to name the Board of Review as a defendant meant that it never acquired subject matter jurisdiction over his appeal. It denied Goodwin's request to amend the style and dismissed the appeal with prejudice to refiling. Goodwin appeals.1
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The only issue on appeal is one of law: whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear Goodwin's appeal. This Court reviews questions of law de novo. Clayton v. Fleming Cos., 2000 OK 20, 11, 1 P.3d 981, 984. "In a de novo appellate review the court exercises its judgment independently and without deference to the findings of fact or to the legal rulings made below." Stidham v. Special Indem. Fund, 2000 OK 33, n.17, 10 P.3d 880.
DISCUSSION
Judicial review of a decision of the Board of Review is provided by statute, which states:
"Within the ten (10) days after the day a notice of decision of the Board of Review is mailed to the parties, the Commission, or any party to the proceedings before the Board of Review, may obtain judicial review thereof by filing in the district court . . . a petition for review of such decision, against the Board of Review. In such petition for review all other parties to the proceeding before the Board of Review and the Commission shall be made codefendants."
Title 40 O.S. 2-610(1) (2001). The district court determined Goodwin, by failing to name the Board of Review as a defendant, did not successfully invoke its jurisdiction.
The seminal case on this issue is Edmondson v. Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc., 1978 OK 45, 577 P.2d 72. In Edmondson, the Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded that section 2-610(1)'s statutory predecessor required that appeals to the district court name both the Commission and the Board of Review as separate entities. Id. at 6, 577 P.2d at 73. In reaching its conclusion, the Court observed that judicial review of a decision by the Board of Review is a special proceeding and its "procedural requirements are mandatory." Id. at 4, 577 P.2d at 73.
Edmondson was revisited by the Supreme Court in 1995 in Oklahoma Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Carter, 1995 OK 74, 903 P.2d 868. In Carter, the Supreme Court considered section 40 O.S. 2-610(1) as it now exists and reached the same conclusion - that a claimant's failure to name both the Commission and the Board of Review as defendants is fatal to the claimant's appeal. The Court reiterated, "When the ten-day appeal period provided in 40 O.S. 2-610 has run without all necessary parties being named, the district court is without jurisdiction." Id. at 13, 903 P.2d at 871.
Goodwin contends that naming the Board of Review is not required by section 40 O.S. 2-610, but concedes that his "contention is in conflict with the case law." He asserts, however, that the Board of Review was actually named as a party by virtue of his allegations in his petition for review even though it was not listed in the case style as a defendant. He relies on 12 O.S. 78 & 12 O.S. 2008(F) to assert that he should have been allowed to amend the petition to correct his failure to name the Board of Review as a defendant in the case style.
Goodwin's argument is rejected. In Carter, the Supreme Court held that the district judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he allowed the claimant in that case to amend her petition to name the proper parties. Carter, 1995 OK 74, 14, 903 P.2d at 871. This Court on review fords no authority to support Goodwin's assertion. See id. and Edmondson, 1978 OK 45, 577 P.2d 72. Further, in each instance where general principles of civil procedure have been argued as an antidote to this situation, the argument has been rejected. Carter, 1995 OK 74, 12-14, 903 P.2d at 871; Williams v. Okla. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 1995 OK CIV APP 66, 11, 898 P.2d 1320, 1323; Dist. Court Seventeenth Judicial Dist. v. Bd. of Review for Okla. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 1993 OK CIV APP 35, 15, 849 P.2d 1102, 1103; Taylor v. State, ex rel. Okla. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 1993 OK CIV APP 195, 3, 867 P.2d 490, 492. Moreover, it appears here that service was also made upon the Commission by serving the Clerk of the Board of Review and not upon the Board of Review. Summons upon the Board of Review was never issued. See Taylor, 1993 OK CIV APP 195, 3, 867 P.2d at 492.
Goodwin failed to name a necessary party, the Board of Review, as a defendant within the applicable time frame. As a result, he never successfully invoked the district court's jurisdiction to consider his appeal. This Court is bound by stare decisis to affirm the district court's correct action in its dismissal of Goodwin's petition for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
GOODMAN, P.J., and STUBBLEFIELD, J., concur.
(FOOTNOTES):
1 Goodwin filed his petition for review on April 7, 2003, but the matter was not assigned to this Court until February 2, 2005. A classification error in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court resulted in this unfortunate delay. See Supreme Court order of January 14, 2005.