The Oklahoma Corporation Commission came out on top in a recent legal fight with an Oklahoma energy company as the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruled in its favor.
The fight stemmed from the Commission’s decision to uphold contempt citations issued against Oil Field Production Inc. of Tulsa for violating OCC rules and regulations. The commission order was issued in August of 2024 and Oil Field challenged the decision.
Oil Field contended in its application that its legal counsel had abandoned six of the cases but it claimed it had not been notified of the proceedings in two other cases. The matter went before a Corporation Commission Administrative Law Judge in January of 2025 where Oil Field claimed that the person in charge at the company had significant health issues and therefore was not aware of the hearings, even though records showed Oil Field’s attorney informed the company of the six hearings.
“Oil Field argued that extenuating circumstances led Oil Field to not be aware that it was unrepresented for the remaining six hearings. Oil Field offered no testimony or any evidence to support the arguments made to the ALJ,” stated the opinion by the Appeals Court.
The ALJ denied Oil Field’s Application and recommended the case be dismissed. The OCC issued its Order denying Oil Field’s Amended Application to Vacate Final Orders and dismissed the case. It is from this Order Oil Field appeals.
Can’t blame it on the mail
“Here, Oil Field’s argument is that it did not receive notice of the contempt complaints, thus, challenging the OCC’s jurisdiction over it. Reviewing the record, the evidence establishes that for two of the orders, OGCD presented evidence that the contempt complaints and summons were mailed by certified mail and regular mail to Oil Field’s last known address according to OCC records and to Oil Field’s registered service agent in Oklahoma. For the remaining six orders, the evidence at those proceedings showed that Eric King, Oil Field’s attorney of record, had
previously filed motions to withdraw from representation. Based on these motions, King appeared at the hearing and informed that he had communicated to Oil Field that he could not represent them and assured that Oil Field was aware that the hearing
was scheduled for that day. Nothing in the record shows Oil Field requested a continuance or hired another attorney.”
The Court of Civil Appeals sided with the Corporation Commission and the ALJ’s decision to dismiss the case.