Wilson v. Family Dollar Stores of Oklahoma LLC

W.D. Oklahoma

Wilson v. Family Dollar Stores of Oklahoma LLC

DecidedJuly 10, 2019

Docket5:19-cv-00557

StatusUnknown

This text of Wilson v. Family Dollar Stores of Oklahoma LLC (Wilson v. Family Dollar Stores of Oklahoma LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Family Dollar Stores of Oklahoma LLC, (W.D. Okla. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM T. WILSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-19-557-SLP ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF ) OKLAHOMA, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

O R D E R

Defendant has filed a Notice of Constitutional Challenge [Doc. No. 6] in which it indicates that its state-court-filed answer (now removed to this Court) “calls into question the constitutionality of [Okla. Stat. tit. 23] § 9.1.” Thus, Defendant has invoked the Court’s duty to provide certification of a constitutional challenge to a statute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(b). The State of Oklahoma is not a party to this action. The subject matter of the constitutional issues affects the public interest. Title 28, § 2403(b), of the U.S. Code and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(b) require the Court to certify the above issue to the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, and the Court hereby does so. Cf. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson v. Pope, 516 F.3d 1214, 1216 (10th Cir. 2008) (“The public interest is not well served when a federal [or state] statute is challenged and potentially invalidated in litigation among private parties, or even in litigation involving state governments, in the absence of input from the institution that has the responsibility and expertise to defend Acts of [the legislature].”). Accordingly, if he wishes to do so, the Oklahoma Attorney General is granted leave to intervene in this action for purposes of presenting evidence and argument as to the constitutional challenge raised by Defendant. The Oklahoma Attorney General may intervene within sixty days of the date of this order. By certifying Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the Oklahoma Attorney General, as the Court is required to do by rule and by statute, the Court does not express any view on the merits of Defendant’s indicated challenge to Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to provide to the Oklahoma Attorney General a copy of this Order, a copy of Defendant’s Notice of Constitutional Challenge with the exhibit thereto [Doc. Nos. 6 and 6-1], and a copy of the Court’s docket sheet in this action as it now stands. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10" day of July, 2019. / CZ. kb SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM T. WILSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-19-557-SLP ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF ) OKLAHOMA, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

O R D E R

Defendant has filed a Notice of Constitutional Challenge [Doc. No. 6] in which it indicates that its state-court-filed answer (now removed to this Court) “calls into question the constitutionality of [Okla. Stat. tit. 23] § 9.1.” Thus, Defendant has invoked the Court’s duty to provide certification of a constitutional challenge to a statute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(b). The State of Oklahoma is not a party to this action. The subject matter of the constitutional issues affects the public interest. Title 28, § 2403(b), of the U.S. Code and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(b) require the Court to certify the above issue to the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, and the Court hereby does so. Cf. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson v. Pope, 516 F.3d 1214, 1216 (10th Cir. 2008) (“The public interest is not well served when a federal [or state] statute is challenged and potentially invalidated in litigation among private parties, or even in litigation involving state governments, in the absence of input from the institution that has the responsibility and expertise to defend Acts of [the legislature].”). Accordingly, if he wishes to do so, the Oklahoma Attorney General is granted leave to intervene in this action for purposes of presenting evidence and argument as to the constitutional challenge raised by Defendant. The Oklahoma Attorney General may intervene within sixty days of the date of this order. By certifying Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the Oklahoma Attorney General, as the Court is required to do by rule and by statute, the Court does not express any view on the merits of Defendant’s indicated challenge to Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 9.1. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to provide to the Oklahoma Attorney General a copy of this Order, a copy of Defendant’s Notice of Constitutional Challenge with the exhibit thereto [Doc. Nos. 6 and 6-1], and a copy of the Court’s docket sheet in this action as it now stands. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10" day of July, 2019. / CZ. kb SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilson v. Family Dollar Stores of Oklahoma LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-family-dollar-stores-of-oklahoma-llc-okwd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack