A fired worker's lawsuit stays dismissed after her attorney was found to have acted with…

Record source: CourtListener

United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma Case No. 22-cv-365-JDR-JFJ Courtney Goff, Plaintiff, versus BOKF, NA, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Courtney Goff sued her former employer, BOKF, NA for al- legedly violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Oklahoma’s Anti-Discrimination Act. Dkt. 2. This Court entered summary judgment in favor of BOKF, and Ms. Goff timely appealed. Dkts. 81, 83. While the appeal was pending, Ms. Goff moved to vacate the order, arguing that she was not “made fully aware of the summary judgment process” and that her attorney, Amber Hurst, filed a response to BOKF’s motion for summary judgment without Ms. Goff’s involvement. Dkt. 95 at 4. This Court could not provide substantive relief while the case was on appeal, but it indicated that, if the case were remanded, it would hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Ms. Hurst had filed an unauthorized brief. Dkt. 102 at 2-3.1 The Court of Appeals granted a limited remand, and this Court conducted an ev- identiary hearing on that question. Based on the evidence presented at the 1 The Court previously indicated that it would reject Ms. Goff’s claims for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) and (3) on remand. The Court does so now for the reasons set forth in the prior order. Dkt. 102. No. 22-cv-365 hearing, the Court concludes that (1) Ms. Goff was informed of both BOKF’s motion and the response filed by Ms. Hurst, (2) Ms. Hurst had authority to file the response to BOKF’s motion for summary judgment, and (3) Ms. Goff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure. The Court finds that Ms. Goff was informed of both BOKF’s motion for summary judgment and the response filed on her behalf. During the hear- ing, Ms. Hurst testified that she notified Ms. Goff of BOKF’s motion and advised Ms. Goff that she would be in contact if she needed any assistance while preparing the response. Although Ms. Hurst acknowledged that she did not initially send Ms. Goff a copy of the motion, she explained that Ms. Goff did not want to be copied on all documents submitted by BOKF. According to Ms. Hurst, Ms. Goff would become stressed or upset when reading char- acterizations that were unfavorable to her. This testimony is supported by an email indicating that Ms. Goff deleted her copy of this Court’s order granting summary judgment “to avoid reading it [and] getting upset.” Defs.’ Ex. 11. Ultimately, Ms. Hurst did not need Ms. Goff’s assistance with the re- sponse brief because the arguments she made were based on evidence that had already been developed and discussed with Ms. Goff. See Defs.’ Ex. 24 at 13-28 (reflecting numerous phone calls between Ms. Goff’s phone number and her attorney’s office in the seven months preceding the filing of the par- ties’ motions for summary judgment). Ms. Hurst represented that, although she did not send Ms. Goff a copy of the response brief prior to filing it,2 she advised Ms. Goff of the contents of the response and notified her that it had been filed. This representation is corroborated by evidence of a forty-minute call placed on January 10, 2024, the day after the response was filed. See Defs.’ 2 Ms. Hurst testified that she provided Ms. Goff with a copy of the brief when Ms. Goff asked for it in 2025, and that she would have provided a copy earlier if Ms. Goff had asked for one. She represented that Ms. Goff did not ask for a copy of the brief until the Court granted BOKF’s motion. No. 22-cv-365 Ex. 24 at 11. The Court credits Ms. Hurst’s testimony, which is corroborated in part by documentary evidence and is not contradicted by any testimony of record.3 Based on Ms. Hurst’s testimony and the other evidence presented at the hearing, the Court finds that Ms. Hurst told Ms. Goff that BOKF filed a motion for summary judgment, advised her of BOKF’s arguments, and pro- vided her with information about the responsive arguments made on her be- half. The Court further finds, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, that on January 10, 2024, Ms. Goff was aware of the response brief filed on her behalf, but she did not request a copy of that brief until after the Court entered its order on March 31, 2025. Next, the Court holds that Ms. Hurst had actual authority to file the response brief. The contract between Ms. Goff and her counsel authorized (and indeed required) Ms. Hurst and her colleagues to diligently prepare Ms. Goff’s case. Plf’s. Ex. 1; see Elam v. Town of Luther, 1990 OK CIV APP 7, ¶ 6, 787 P.2d 1294, 1296 (recognizing that agents act within the scope of their au- thority when they engage “in the transaction of business assigned” or do “that which may reasonably be said to have been contemplated as part of [their] duties”). That authority necessarily encompassed the preparation and filing of a response to BOKF’s dispositive motion, work that was essential to the preservation of Ms. Goff’s claims. Any attorney would reasonably con- template that work to be part of her duties as a party’s legal representative. Id.; see State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Hulett, 2008 OK 38, ¶ 17 n.16, 183 P.3d 1014, 1019 (disciplining attorney that “failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment,” resulting in harm to his client). Although an agent’s authority can be curtailed by a principal, Ms. Goff did not present evidence that Ms. Hurst’s authority was limited in any way. See Consol. Flour Mills Co. v. Roberts, 1926 OK 429, ¶ 12, 123 Okla. 101, 252 P. 29, 32 (recognizing that the scope of an agent’s authority may be limited by 3 Ms. Goff did not testify on her own behalf. No. 22-cv-365 instructions and other limitations placed on the agent by the principal). Ms. Goff did not present evidence that she required all filings to be provided to her or all briefs to be submitted for review prior to filing. Nor did she present evidence that Ms. Hurst understood that she could only file documents with Ms. Goff’s prior approval.4 To the contrary, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that Ms. Goff asked Ms. Hurst not to provide her with all of the documents concerning her case, typically communicated with Ms. Hurst over the phone, and did not object to Ms. Hurst’s practice of providing verbal updates and notifications concerning significant developments in her case. Although Ms. Goff was aware that Ms. Hurst had filed a response to BOKF’s motion for summary judgment in January 2024, she did not ask to see that brief until the Court granted BOKF’s motion a year later. The Court concludes that Ms. Goff authorized Ms. Hurst to communicate with her by phone; provide verbal summaries of case developments; and file documents on Ms. Goff’s behalf without submitting them to Ms. Goff first. Ms. Hurst’s actions fell within the scope of that authority. Finally, the Court concludes that Ms. Goff is not entitled to relief un- der Rule 60(b)(1), which authorizes relief from judgment resulting from “ex- cusable neglect.” See Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 856 (10th Cir. 2005). To begin, the Court notes th

Official opinion source