HOLLAND v. AGRAWAL
Christopher HOLLAND, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Kris AGRAWAL, Vimala Agrawal, Coal Gas USA, LLC, Mittal Well Tech, LLC, Realty Management and Assoc., LLC, Energy Production Services, LLC, and Kay Kay Engineering, Defendants/Appellants
Attorneys
Kris Agrawal Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Pro Se., Daniel M. Delluomo, Kyle W. Riddel, Del-luomo & Crow, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellees.
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
OPINION
§1 The order on appeal which Defen dam/Appellant Kris Agrawal seeks to address was entered by District Judge Barbara Swinton, District Court of Oklahoma County, on October 11, 2018, case number CV-2010-1171. The court ordered a stay on the collection of the judgment and required the Defendants to post a supersedeas bond within thirty days. No bond was ever posted. Other orders have been entered in this matter regarding stays, collections and the posting of supersedeas bonds. 1
12 Holland sought to collect on his judgment, which was granted in the Administrative Order of Determination on February 8, 2009, in the Oklahoma Department of Labor (ODOL) by Labor Compliance Officer Debra Metheny, and affirmed by the ODOL in its Final Agency Determination, filed on March 17, 2010. The Final Agency Determination was affirmed by the district court on appeal on September 10, 2012, and Appellant's motion for new trial was overruled on May 3, 2018. As noted above, no supersedeas bond was issued to stay the judgment.
13 On January 8, 2014, Plaintiff/Appellée Holland brought an Application for. Original Jurisdiction in this Court, Case Number 112,-462, seeking a writ of mandamus to Judge Swinton, attaching an order dated November 22, 2018 2 The order granted Appellant's motion for rehearing and ordered <a stay without bond. On March. 4, 2014, this Court entered the following order in case number 112,462:
Petitioner's application to assume original jurisdiction is granted Let the writ of mandamus issue directing the respondent, the Honorable Barbara G. Swinton, District Judge, in and for Oklahoma County, to lift the stay of execution. A stay pending appeal to this Court, of a decision of the district court affirming a final administrative order issued in a wage claim proceeding pursuant to 40 O.8. § 165.7, is governed by the provisions of 75 0.8. § 323 and § 12 0.8. 990.4. All other requested relief is denied. The "Counter Application" filed by Kris K. Agrawal is denied.
T4 This Court's March 4, 2014 order therefore held that the appeal in this case was subject to the same rules which are required for appeals "to the Supreme Court from the district court in civil actions" under 75 0.8. § 828, thus requiring the filing of a supersedeas bond under 12 O,8.2011 § 990. 4(A) No supersedeas bond was ever filed, although the collection of the Judgment was ordered stayed by the district court.
5 Appellant has reusedhumeroqs issues in his petition in error which appear to address the merits of his case which were resolved at the time the judament became final. There is little, if any, connection between those allegations and the collection of this judgment or his requirement to post a bond which is the subject of the order he has appealed. 3
*628 T6 We find the order entered by this Court on March 4, 2014, has superseded the judgment on appeal in this case, number 112,816. We, therefore, declare this appeal to be moot, and it is dismissed.
T7 APPEAL DISMISSED.
. On January 18, 2011, Judge Parrish, Oklahoma County District Judge, entered an order which, in effect, stayed Holland's collection efforts pending appeal, by ruling that 40 O.S. § 165.7 bars collection of an award until all appeals have been finally adjudicated. She also extinguished Holland's garnishments and ordered the funds collected to be returned." On October 11, 2013, Judge Swinton, as noted, entered an order which stayed collection of the judgment, and ordered a supersedeas bond. On November 22, 2013, Judge Swinton granted Defendant's motion for rehearing, ruling that execution on the Judgment was stayed thhout bond
. See
. In fact, his petition in error and brief in. chief contain inflammatory and accusatory statements against counsel, the parties, and judges of the Oklahoma Judiciary. 'Many of the statements relate to matters outside the scope of this appeal, as well as to. unfounded accusations made by Appellant since this appeal process began. They are undeserving of a response by this Court.