The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2022

The defendants argued in response that the extension did not apply because the OID bulletin upon which the plaintiffs relied was rescinded June 30, 2020, before the McLenithans’ claim arose. 9 Despite the rescission of the OID bulletin and the termination of the SCAD orders prior to the claim, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, determining the bulletin effectively delayed the plaintiffs’ deadline to 90 days after the state of emergency ended, and the matter was filed within the suit limitation period based on the original OID bulletin’s extension. The extension granted in McLenithan suggests Oklahoma courts may generally apply a broad interpretation of COVID-19 deadline extensions. On the other hand, Oklahoma courts have also provided some distinction as to the limitations of COVID-19 deadline extensions. In Head v. City of Choctaw, the plaintiff failed to serve the defendant within the 180-day statutory deadline, even when accounting for the SCAD orders’ tolling period. 10 In fact, the plaintiff was three months over the deadline. 11 After hearing argument on the issue, the judge granted the city of Choctaw’s motion to dismiss, seemingly affirming the untimely service under the SCAD orders. 12 This

AUGUST 2022 | 17

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL