You are on page 1of 8

l ||||'l|l 'l

* 1 0 z 3 3
7 1 8 7 0
*
c . /. ( 13
Sl; I
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA _
.,,,
4A C
O
UNTY
BROCK A. WERDEL, CLARK R. CHAMBERS,
JOSEPH E. HOWARD and TITUS L. WEST,
for themselves and al
others similarly situated,
Plaintifs,
)
)
)
)
)
)
5 20L3

""2
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, e rel,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
CZa1 -607
)
Deendnt.
PETITION
)
)
)
COME NOW Brock A. Werdel, Clark R. Chambers, Joseph E. Howard and Titus L.
West, on behalf of temselves and a cass of all those similarly situated, to briug tis cause of
action against the State of Oklahoma, e rel, the Oklahoma Department of Public Safet and say:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over tis action ad venue is proper, as te act and conduct of
Defendant, Department of Public Safety (DPS), alleged in tis petition ocurred in Oklahoma
Count, and in all countes throughout the State of Okahoma.
PLAINTIFFS
2. Plaintifs are alcitiens of Okaoma, whose drivr's licenses were roked by the DPS
pursuant to 47 O.S. 753 or 754 (OSCN 2013), and who have paid or may be ruire to pay
statutory fees.
3. Plaintiffs had their driving privleges revoked by DPS through a procedun that involved a
breath test conducted on the Model 800 Intoxlyzer (or upon a refsal to take that test).
4. The notices of r n given to te Plaintifs durng their as icuded the ftlly
invalid report of the arresting oficer.
5. The Courts of Okahoma hav chariz.d the invalid report as a ftai defct in the
prcss because this report is a statutor prerequisite for DPS revocaton.
6. These notices of revocation given to the Plaintif during their arrests a void.
DEFENDANT
7. The Department of Pblic Saft is the tatutor agency of the Statt of Okahoma
rsponsible for the licen of drer ad ay subsequent r n of those licenses.
PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
8. Plaintfs bring ti< ation individually and as te representatives of a11 members of a
plaintif class pursuant to 12 O.S. 2023 (OSCN 2013).
9. The proposed class to be represented by Plaintiffs is comprised of all those prsons who
have had a license to drive revoked by the DPS using a void notice of revocation.
10. On infonntion and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the cass members numbr in the
thousands and constitute a class s numerous that joider of all class members is impracticable.
11. The questions of fact common to the proposed class are:
a) Eah member of the class has had a driver's license revoked by the DPS aer
tang a breat test using the Model 80Intoxilyzer, or having ref used
to take said test.
b) Each member's revoation order is fatally flawed.
c) Each member requests an injunction to enjoin the Defndant from enforcing
these void orders.
d) Each member requests an adrntrative expungement of the revocati< in order
fom hiser dg rcord.
e) Each member has paid or my be required to pay fees to the DPS resulting
from an erroneous revocation order and desires a refnd to be compelled
b a wt of mandamus.
f Many members have been required by the DPS to have an ignition interlock
device installed, at the member's own expense, upon every motor
vehicle operated by that person. The class members who have incrred
tis expense request judgment against the DPS for the amounts pa id.
g) Each member requests interest to be paid b the DPS from the date of the
erroneous payment(s) to the date of the rpayment.
h) The Plaintif request an injunction fom this Court preventng te DP'
from contacting indiidual class members to negotiate settlement '>f
teir claims while this matter is befre this Court.
i) The DPS has in the past contacted prspective class members fr the pmpose
of settlement of their claims after a class action had been fled in District
Court. (see Okahoma Count CJ-1993-5216; Supreme Court 1995 OK 150)
12. The questions of law common to the Plaintifs' cass as found in OSCN 2013 are:
a) The Defendant ha- incorrectly applied 47 O.S. 753 and 754 and other
statutes to te detriment of the class members.
b) The Defendant may be enjoined by this Court under 12 O.S. Ch. 24.
c) Writs of mandamus may issue from this Court under 12 O.S. Ch. 26.
d) Fees paid erroneously to the DPS are stated in 47 O.S. 6-212 and 754.1.
e) Fees erroneously collected by te DPS may be ordered refunded by this Court
through the DPS agency clearing account puruant to 62 O.S. 34.r7(E).
f Interest on judgments to recover damages certain is controlled by 23 0 .S.
6, and 12 O.S. 727.1.
13. These que5tions of fact and law are common to the Plantffs' class and prdominate over
questions afecting only indiidual members.
14. The claims of Plaintifs are typical of the claims of the proposed class members.
15. The only question afecting individual members i the vaing amount of each refnd and
the computation of interest.
16. The amount of each payment is found in the DPS fnancial records maintained fr ec
cla"s member and in the records of the providers of the ignition interlock devices.
17. Plaintifs will be fair and adequate representatives of the cass beause their interests
do not conflict w the interest of the class.
18. Plaintiffs will be fair and adequate representatives of te cla's bee ause the are
represented b counsel both sklled and experenced in class action litigation again -t te DPS.
19. The prosecution of separate actions b individual members of the class, which could be
brught in all sevent-seven countes of Okaoma, would create a rsk of incnsistent decisions
with rspect to individual members of te class which would establish incompatil 1le standards of
cnduct for the DPS.
20. Adjudications with respect to individual members of the class would, as a practcal matter,
be dispositive of the interets of the other members not parties to te decisions or substntl
impair or impede their abilit to protect their interests.
21. The DPS has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby
makng final injunctive relief and the issuance of extraordinary writs appropriate.
22. A
c
lass action is suprior to other available methods fr a fair and efc ient adjudication of
the cntroversy because such acton is uniquely suited to determining the rights of and dages
to tousands of similarly situated individuals while minimizng the amount of judicial resources
necessary to resolve te contrvers.
23. The interest of members of the
c
lass in individualy cntrolling the prsecution of
separte actions is negligible considering te small dollar amounts sought and the legal resources
of the DPS and Okahoma Attorey Generl which are available to the Defendant.
24. Litigation concering the controvers already commenced by inddual members of the
class h rsulted in appellate decisions fmding the procdures followed b the DPS to be
erroneous. (see recent Okahoma Court of Civl Appeals case #112,06; released for publication
in October, 2013, and companion cases #111,697; #111,699; #111,752; #111,960; and #112,002)
2. These previous individual ca<es originated in three counties and further litigation would
be made more eficient by concentrating litigation in one forum.
26. Any d iculties likely to be encountered in the management of this cass action will be
minimal. Plaintifs' counsel have deades of experience litigting aginst the DPS. One of te
underigne was appointed class counsel by the District Court in te case cited ah< 1ve i ll(i).
COUNT I WERDEL
27. Plaintiff Brock A. Werdel (D.L. # L082630481, br June 15, 1990) h his drer's
license revoked by DPS after an arrest i Oklahoma Count on July 7, 2012.
28. PlaintifWerdel has paid $175 to te DPS for a modification of his license.
29. Plaintiff Werdel h paid, and contnues to pay fees assoiated with an igi1ition interlock
devce istlled on h car.
30. PlaintifWerdel ask for an administrative expungement of the revocaton order from his
dring recrd.
31. Plaintiff Werdel asks for an injunction preventing the DPS from frher t"nforcement of
ts void revocation order.
32. PlaintiffWerdel asks for refunds of all of the above sums with interest.
33. PlafWerdel ask to be appointed a Class Representative.
COUNT II CHAMBERS
3. Plaintiff Clark R. Chambers (D. L. # C080576667, bor August 23, 1985) bad his driver's
license revokd by DPS afer an arrest in Cleveland County on July 8, 2012.
35. Plaintiff Chambers has paid $175 to the DPS for a modification of his liceHse.
36. Plaintif Chambers h pad, ad continues to pay fes associated with an ignition
interock device installed on his car.
37. Plaintif Chambers ask for an administrtive expungerent of the revoation order from
his driving record.
38. Plaintif Chambers ask for an injunction preventing the DPS fom furth1r enforcement
of this void revocation order.
39. Plaintiff Chambers asks fr refunds of all of the above sums wit interest.
40. Plaintiff Chambers asks to be appointed a Class Representatie.
COUNT III -- HOWARD
41. Plaintif Joseph E. Howard (D.L. # U082688778, bor October 8, 1982) h his drer's
license roked by DPS after an arrest in Cleeland County on October 9, 2010.
42. Plaintiff Howard has paid $1 75 to the DPS fr a modification of his licenst #
43. Plantiff Howard has paid, and continues to pay fes associated with an ignition interlock
device installed on his car.
4. Plaintif Howard ask for an administrative expungement of te rvocation order from his
dring recrd.
45. Plaintif Howar ak fr a injunction preventing te DPS fom frther t!nforcement of
this void revocation order.
46. Plaintiff Howard ask fr refnds of all of the above sums with interest.
47. Plaintif Howard ask< to be appointed a Class Representative.
COUNT IV -- WEST
48. Plantiff Titus L. West (D.L. # N082540359, bor August 15, 1989) h h drver's
license revokd b DPS aer an arrest in Oklahoma Count on December 22, 2011.
49. Plaintif West h paid $175 to the DPS fr a m n of his license.
50. Plaintiff West h paid, and continues to pay fees associated with an ig1ition interock
device installed on his car.
51. Plaintiff West ask fr an administrative expungement of te revocation order fom h
dring rcord.
52. Plaintiff West ask for an injunction preventing the DPS fom frther tnforcement of
this void revocation order.
53. Plaintiff West ask for rfnds of all of te above sums with interest.
5. Plaintif West ask< to b appointed a Class Represe.
RELIEF REQUESTED
55. That Defendant be enjoined from settling with any member of Plaintif-' dass during the
pendency of tis suit.
-~~~- . . .
56. That Defendant expunge these revocations from Plaintifs' drivng record immediately.
57. That Defndant rfnd any moneys to Plaintffs received pursua to tht se revoations,
incuding both modification fes ad reinstatement fees found in 47 O.S. 6-2L2 and 754.1,
(OSCN 2013) together with interest.
58. That Defendant rpays any moneys paid b PlaintiflS fr the installaion ad rent of
ignition interlock devises based upon void revocations, together \ interest.
59. That a Plaintiffs' class be certifed to extend te relief sought above to aother imilarl
situated.
60. That costs and a reasonable attore fee be assessed against the Defendanr.
61. Such other and frter relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ATORNEYS' LIEN CLAIMED
Respectfully submit ted,
h E. Hunsucker, OBA# 17540
uncker Legal Group, Oka,oma City
D. Bruce Edge, OBA# 18697
Edge Law Fr, Tulsa
Richard D. Laquer, OBA# 5236
Attoreys for Plaintiffs
One North Hudson, Suite 7()
Okahoma Cit, OK 7310
tel: 405/231-5600
f: 405/231-5601
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
On this 5th day of November, 2013, a true and correct copy of the fregoing wa mailed,
postage prepaid, to: Okhoma Department of Public Safet
Legal Division
P.O. Box 11415
Oklahoma Cit, OK 73

You might also like