By Traci Chapman
Managing Editor
A lawsuit filed by Boevers Homes, LLC, against the city of Piedmont has come to an end – after a reportedly contentious hearing and dismissal filed by Boevers’ company itself.
The dismissal was entered July 8 by Boevers Homes in a 2021 case filed under seal in Canadian County District Court. That move came after a June 27 court hearing, after which District Judge Paul Hesse dismissed a February restraining order issued on Boevers Homes’ behalf – and granted a city motion to unseal the case, effectively opening it to public view.
With his June 27 order, Judge Hesse also granted the city of Piedmont the opportunity to file a motion to dismiss. The city filed that motion, also on July 8.
City of Piedmont July 8, 2022 Motion to Dismiss
Although not listed as defendants in the 2021 lawsuit, Mayor Kurt Mayabb and city councilmen Jonathan Hisey and Ron Cardwell have been cited in pleadings filed in the case, including the July 8 dismissal motion.
Boevers Homes’ own motion to close the case was submitted without prejudice – which means the company is not precluded from refiling the action against the city in the future.
The 2021 lawsuit was one of many filed by Boevers in Canadian County District Court against city officials and others over the years. It was brought by the home builder on a single cause of action – the alleged breach of a confidential settlement agreement.
The 2018 agreement – between Boevers and the city of Piedmont – was entered into “in order to settle eight prior lawsuits brought by Phil Boevers and/or some of his associated entities.” Civil actions subject to the confidential settlement agreement were filed in Canadian County District Court or United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
The city raised as a defense in its July 8 motion the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, which protects elected officials “acting in the scope of their governmental capacity regarding matters of public concern.”
The OCPA was enacted in 2014 and is considered an “anti-SLAPP” statute, providing protection from a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.”
Piedmont officials contended they were exercising their protected free speech rights granted them under the United States Constitution – and that any discussions or statements made were done under the purview of “public concern.”
“There is no question that communications related to a public subdivision and potential ordinance violations are matters for public concern,” the city stated in its dismissal motion.
Because Boevers voluntarily dismissed the case the same day the city filed its own motion, it was unclear as of press time whether the home builder’s company would be liable for any fees or costs. The city requested an award of “court costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred in defending against the legal action.”
See upcoming issues of the Piedmont-Surrey Gazette for a look at the confidential settlement agreement and other related civil cases.
