On July 7, an Oklahoma judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921. The complaint alleged Oklahoma officials, by participating in the Massacre and profiting from it, created a public nuisance and received unjust enrichment.
Because the judge dismissed the case with prejudice, the plaintiffs cannot file a new complaint, but they can appeal the dismissal to a higher court.
“[C]ounsel will be appealing as the fight for justice is everlasting,” plaintiffs’ attorney Damario Solomon-Simmons told Legal Insurrection.
The plaintiffs, now centenarians, are three survivors of the Massacre. The defendants are the City of Tulsa, the Tulsa Regional Chamber, the Board of County Commissioners, the Sheriff of Tulsa County, and the Oklahoma Military Department.
The July 7 order dismissing the lawsuit incorporates an order dated August 3, 2022, which dismissed an earlier lawsuit, as the basis for dismissing the lawsuit. The three plaintiffs were previously joined by eight other plaintiffs whose claims the court dismissed with prejudice in the August 3 order.
The court allowed the three remaining plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to address issues with their complaint.
The three plaintiffs alleged the defendants in 1921 participated in a mob that destroyed the property of black residents and killed numerous black residents. According to the complaint, this public nuisance has created ongoing racial disparities and resulted in shorter lifespans for Tulsa’s black residents.
The plaintiffs further alleged some of the defendants have received unjust enrichment from the Massacre “by profiting off the deaths, destruction, and despair that they created” through “cultural tourism” based on Massacre.
Oklahoma law defines nuisance as “unlawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission . . . annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of others . . . or . . . [i]n any way renders other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property.”
Unjust enrichment occurs when one party confers a benefit on another without the other party giving proper restitution to the first party.
The August 3 order dismissed claims related to a continuing public nuisance stemming from the Massacre. The court found such “claims of public nuisance must be dismissed with prejudice because these claims request relief that violates the separation of power provided by the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma” and “present political questions.”
The court based this on a 2021 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision that restricted the scope of public nuisance claims to “discrete, localized problems, not policy problems.”
Expanding the scope of public nuisance suits to “policy problems,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court reasoned, would result in courts “stepping into the shoes of the Legislature by creating and funding government programs designed to address social and health issues.”
The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected this “unprecedented expansion of public nuisance law.”
The July 7 order does not elaborate on the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claims and provides no additional justification for the dismissal, except for the judge having considered the parties’ arguments and briefs.
“Judge Wall’s ruling is truly stunning,” argued Michael Swartz, who represents the plaintiffs. “Judge Wall reversed herself and dismissed the case with no explanation. That is a travesty of justice and undermines faith in the judicial system.”
“[W]e are absolutely appealing the [July 7] order,” Sara Solfanelli, another attorney for the plaintiffs, told Legal Insurrection.
The Massacre, as described by the Oklahoma Historical Society (OHS), began after an alleged incident involving a black man and a white woman. According to the OHS, the Massacre is “[b]elieved to be the single worst incident of racial violence in American history.”
During the Massacre, “more than one thousand homes and businesses were destroyed, while credible estimates of deaths range from fifty to three hundred.” White residents engaged in acts of violence following a failed attempt to lynch the black man, who was ultimately exonerated.
The Tulsa Regional Chamber and the City of Tulsa declined to comment.
The July 7 order dismissing the amended complaint:
The August 3 order incorporated into the July 7 order:
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY