The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LOCKE SUPPLY CO., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
and )
)
OKLAHOMA CITY COMMERCIAL )
DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION, )
)
Intervening Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-00420-PRW
)
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, a )
municipal corporation, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the Court are the Motion to Remand, filed by Defendant City of Oklahoma
City (Dkt. 9) and Plaintiff Locke Supply Company’s Response (Dkt. 12). The City did not
file a reply. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the Motion (Dkt. 9).
Background
The parties do not dispute the relevant facts. Section 50-14 of Chapter 50 of the
Oklahoma City Municipal Code sets forth the method of calculating development fees to
be assessed on new and expanded development and the procedures to dispute the
calculation. It also provides for an appeal procedure before the Oklahoma City Board of
Adjustment. Locke filed such an appeal, challenging the calculation of street development
fees assessed to its development. On February 14, 2024, the matter came before the Board,
which voted 3-0 to deny the appeal.
On March 26, 2024, Locke filed a Petition for Injunction, Declaratory Judgment and
Appeal from Final Order of The City of Oklahoma City Board of Adjustment in the District
Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. (Dkt. 1-1). In addition to appealing the Board’s
determination, Locke brings, among other things, a constitutional claim, arguing that
Section 50-14 violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. On April 26, 2024, the City
removed the case to this Court. The City now seeks remand of Locke’s Appeal from the
Final Order.
Legal Standard and Analysis
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction[,]” which “possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.”1
Among the powers that Congress has bestowed upon the courts is the power to hear
controversies arising under federal law—federal-question jurisdiction—and controversies
arising between citizens of different states—diversity jurisdiction.2
Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 grants federal courts power to hear all claims over
which courts otherwise lack original jurisdiction if those claims “are so related to claims
in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
1 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations
omitted).
2 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–1332.
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”* A claim is part of the
same case or controversy if it “derive[s] from a common nucleus of operative fact.’ Here,
Locke’s state law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with its
constitutional claims, so the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over them.
The parties do not dispute that the Court enjoys federal question jurisdiction over
Locke’s federal constitutional claims. The City seeks only a partial remand: of Locke’s
state-law based appeal. The City seems to think that the Court lacks supplemental
jurisdiction over that appeal, but as explained above, that is incorrect. Of course, even with
the power to hear those claims, the Court could decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over that appeal if any of the 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) reasons for doing so existed.
The City, however, makes no argument that they do.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion (DKt. 9).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of January 2025.
12
ames ——
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715, 725 (1966).