Black Emergency Response Team v. OConnor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

BLACK EMERGENCY RESPONSE )

TEAM et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-21-1022-G

)

GENTNER DRUMMOND, in his official )

capacity as Oklahoma Attorney )

General, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. No.

257), filed July 21, 2025, signed by all current counsel and attempting dismissal of certain

aspects of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

The Stipulation states that it dismisses all claims brought by Plaintiffs Black

Emergency Response Team (“BERT”) and University of Oklahoma Chapter of the

American Association of University Professors (“OU-AAUP”). Id. at 1-2. The

Stipulation also states that it dismisses certain remaining claims of Plaintiff Oklahoma

State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

(“NAACP-OK”). Id. at 2; see also Stipulation of June 30, 2025 (Doc. No. 254). The

Stipulation concludes by stating that as a result of the above dismissals, “no claims remain

against the OU Defendants”—i.e., those defendants named in their official capacities as

members of the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. Id. at 3.1

The record does not establish that the Stipulation serves to effect the dismissals

sought by the parties, however.

First, although the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has entered orders of dismissal

regarding the claims of BERT, OU-AAUP, and the OU Defendants in two of the pending

appeals in this matter, there has been no such dismissal in the third appeal (in which BERT

and OU-AAUP are appellees). Nor has there been any appellate dismissal as to NAACP-

OK or as to the defendants sued in their official capacities as the Oklahoma State Regents

for Higher Education. See Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond, No. 24-6139

(10th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (order); Braught v. Black Emergency Response Team, No. 24-

6140 (10th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (order); see also Drummond v. Black Emergency Response

Team, No. 24-6141 (10th Cir.). The parties have not addressed the effect of these appeals

and have not provided authority for the proposition that the cited parties and claims may

properly be dismissed under Rule 41(a) while this case (with the exception of Count IV of

the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 50)) is before the appellate court. Cf. Lancaster v.

Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 5, 149 F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir. 1998) (noting that the filing of an

appeal “generally divests the district court of jurisdiction over the issues on appeal,”

although “the district court retains jurisdiction over collateral matters not involved in the

appeal” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

1 Dismissal of the OU Defendants would moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No.

224), the Joint Motion to Stay and Abate (Doc. No. 244), and the OU Defendants’ Motion

to Reconsider (Doc. No. 255).

Second, in Count I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Regan Killackey raises a

Fourteenth Amendment claim against the OU Defendants. See Am. Compl. § 160.

Contrary to the Stipulation’s representation that no claims remain against the OU

Defendants, Plaintiff Killacky’s claim has not been dismissed or otherwise resolved.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the Stipulation (Doc. No. 257) is ineffective and

shall not serve as a self-executing dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) as contemplated by

the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2025.

(Barba B. Kadota

United States District Judge