The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2022

an extension due to COVID-19 delays, one should always utilize specific information to explain exactly how the pandemic affected the timeliness of the action. By providing detailed accounts of COVID-19’s impact on the case, the attorney can more efficiently persuade the court to understand why a worthy cause exists for an extension outside the prescribed tolling periods. Further, a litigator arguing a deadline extension would best serve their client by determining if there is any extension applied to the time period from any agency. Since courts have been lenient in extend ing deadlines provided by state and federal agency orders, a litigator should research every agency that may influence the case to determine if a deadline extension was granted by that agency. The Department of Insurance, Supreme Court, Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy are just a few examples of the many agencies that provided some type of COVID-19 deadline relief. 41 Litigators should also pay attention to what is specifi cally being extended. Some agencies provided extensions only for very specific deadlines that could not be effectively accomplished during the pandemic. Be sure to explore every possible interpretation of its limita tions to best frame your arguments. CONCLUSION The COVID-19 deadline exten sions provided by state and federal agencies open the door for future extensions due to world or even local events. Although the pan demic affected deadlines on a wide scale, it is possible these types of extensions could become more common throughout various sections of the law as emergencies

arise. Litigators need to be aware of the courts’ responses to these deadline extensions and how they affect their clients in every area of law. COVID-19 deadline exten sions can be an important factor in the success or failure of a litigator’s case and should be thoroughly investigated in future cases. Editor’s note: This article was previously published by Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson LLP. Reprinted with permission.

13. In re State Question No. 805, Initiative Petition No. 421, 2020 OK 45, 473 P.3d 466. 14. Id. at ¶2, 473 P.3d at 466. 15. Id. 18. Kiesel v. Rogers , 2020 OK 65, 470 P.3d 294. In Kiesel, the proponents of the initiative sought to delay the signature gathering time frame due to pandemic safety concerns. Citing In re State Question No. 805 , the court determined the secretary of state’s duty to set a 90-day signature gathering time frame was mandatory and could be performed while taking necessary precautions. 19. Allen v. Sherman Operating Co., LLC, 520 F. Supp. 3d. 854, 859 (E.D. Tex. 2021) (quoting Cates v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 928 F.2d 679, 687 (5th Cir. 1991)). 20. See Argueta v. City of Galveston , 2021 WL 137664 (S.D. Tex.); Lewis v. City of Edmond, 2021 WL 6275174 (W.D. Okla.); In re Herman , 2020 WL 5351944 (C.D. Calif.); Allen v. Sherman Operating Co., LLC, 520 F. Supp. 3d. 854 (E.D. Tex. 2021). 21. Argueta v. City of Galveston , 2021 WL 137664 (S.D. Tex.). 22. Lewis v. City of Edmond, 2021 WL 6275174 (W.D. Okla.). 23. In re Herman, 2020 WL 5351944 (C.D. Calif.). 24. Barraza v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2021 WL 4139142, (N.D. Okla. Sept. 10, 2021). 25. Id. 26. Extension of Certain Timeframes for Employee Benefit Plans, Participants, and Beneficiaries Affected by the COVID-19 Outbreak, 85 FR 26351-01 (May 4, 2020). 27. 2021 WL 5741961 (D. Neb. Dec. 2, 2021). 28. Extension of Certain Timeframes for Employee Benefit Plans, Participants, and Beneficiaries Affected by the COVID-19 Outbreak, 85 FR 26351-01 (May 4, 2020). 29. Id. 30. Notice of Appeal, 8:21-CV-00171-BCB (8th Cir. Jan. 4, 2022). 31. Solze v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 2022 WL 618029 (D. Colo. Feb. 7, 2022). 32. See Pl.’s Resp. & Obj. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, McLenithan v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., et al., CJ-2021-37 (Craig Cnty. Dist. Ct., Dec. 7, 2021). 33. 2021 WL 5918560 (W.D. Okla., March 22, 2021). 34. 2021 WL 5992287, *1 (W.D. Okla., Feb. 12, 2021). 35. 2020 WL 1929405 (D.N.M., April 21, 2020). 36. Id. at *2. 37. Id. 38. 2020 WL 3035154, *2 (D.N.M. June 5, 2020). 39. Id. 40. Id. 41. PC Bulletin 2020-01, March 20, 2020; Extension of Certain Timeframes for Employee Benefit Plans, Participants, and Beneficiaries Affected by the COVID-19 Outbreak, 85 FR 26351 01 (May 4, 2020); Third Emergency Joint Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, SCAD No. 2020-36 (Okla. 2020), 2020 OK 23, 462 P.3d 703; Extension for COVID-19 Forbearance and COVID-19 Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Extension, HUD 2021-24, Sept. 27, 2021; NIFA Deadline Extensions due to COVID-19, March 17, 2020; Accommodating Interruptions from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Dept. of Energy, March 13, 2020. 16. Id. at ¶5, 473 P.3d at 467. 17. Id. at ¶6, 473 P.3d at 467.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Alexandra J. Gage is a litigation attorney for Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson LLP. She focuses her practice

on matters involving employment, insurance, contracts and commercial litigation. She is most experienced in insurance defense, representing high-profile insurance companies in complex bad faith litigation and breach of contract actions. ENDNOTES 1. Exec. Off. of the Governor, Executive Order 2020-07 (March 13, 2020). 2. Id. 3. First Emergency Joint Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, SCAD 2020-24 (Okla. 2020), 2020 OK 25, 462 P.3d 704; Second Emergency Joint Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, SCAD No. 2020-29, 2020 OK 24, 462 P.3d 262; Third Emergency Joint Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, SCAD No. 2020-36 (Okla. 2020), 2020 OK 23, 462 P.3d 703. 4. Id. 5. McBee v. Shanahan Home Design, LLC, 2021 OK 60, 499 P.3d 1. 6. Id. at ¶9. 7. Memorandum Opinion and Order, Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., CIV-21-660-C, (W.D. Okla. July 27, 2021); Order, Talley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., CIV-21-682-F, (W.D. Okla. Aug. 9, 2021); Barraza v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2021 WL 4139142, (N.D. Okla. Sept. 10, 2021); Order on Mot. to Dismiss, McLenithan v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., et al., CJ-2021-37 (Craig Cnty. Dist. Ct., Dec. 7, 2021). 8. PC Bulletin 2020-01, March 20, 2020. 9. PC Bulletin 2020-01 (#3), June 18, 2020. 10. See Def.’s Special Appearance & Mot. to Dismiss, Head v. City of Choctaw, CJ-2019-6526 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct., Dec. 4, 2020). 11. Id. 12. Journal Entry, Head v. City of Choctaw, CJ-2019-6526 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct., March 12, 2021).

20 | AUGUST 2022

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL