Okla. Stat. » Title 12 — CIVIL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1434 (2026)

Time limit for ruling on motion – Standard of proof

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The court shall rule on a motion filed pursuant to Section 3 of the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act no later than thirty (30) days following the date of the hearing on the motion. B. Except as provided by subsection C of this section, on the motion of a party filed pursuant to Section 3 of this act, a court shall dismiss a legal action against the moving party if the moving party shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the legal action is based on, relates to or is in response to the party's exercise of: 1. The right of free speech; 2. The right to petition; or 3. The right of association. C. The court shall not dismiss a legal action under this section if the party filing the legal action establishes by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection C of this section, the court shall dismiss a legal action against the moving party if the moving party establishes by a preponderance of the evidence each essential element of a valid defense to the nonmovant's claim. Added by Laws 2014, c. 107, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 2014.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: John P. Thurlow v. Zakia C. Nelson, 2021 ME 58, 263 A.3d 494.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John P. Thurlow v. Zakia C. Nelson, 2021 ME 58, 263 A.3d 494. · cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1434 (LEXIS through the 2021 First Reg.”
Thacker v. Walton, 491 P.3d 756 (Okla. Civ. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “¶22 The OCPA's expedited dismissal procedure, if applied, would supplant or supplement Federal Rules allowing for early disposition of a case, namely Fed.”
Swadley's Foggy Bottom Kitchen v. Breuklander, 2025 OK CIV APP 32. · cites it 21× “" 12 O.S. § 1434 5. If this threshold requirement is met, the plaintiff has the burden in the second stage of demonstrating a prima facie case establishing a viable basis for the suit.”
Roberts v. Bush, 2023 OK CIV APP 32. · cites it 5× “§ 1431 12 O.S. § 1434 ¶12 Under § 1434, a party seeking dismissal of an action under the OCPA must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the action is based on the party's exercise of the right of free speech.”
Roberts v. Bush, 2023 OK CIV APP 32. · cites it 5× “Title 12 O.S. § 1434, provides the standard of proof for analyzing whether an action should be dismissed under the OCPA.”
KLX Energy Servs. LLC v. Magnesium Mach. LLC (W.D. Okla. 2021). · cites it 2× “12 O.S. § 1434(C). At the third stage, “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of subsection (C), … the court shall dismiss a legal action [here, a portion of the 10 The court is aware of one case that reached a different conclusion in a similar situation.”
Chantz Candler v. John James, 2026 OK CIV APP 7. · cites it 2× “3d 430 See also 12 O.S.2021, § 1434 Id . at ¶ 19. Furthermore, a petition that only meets the standard of notice pleading may not reach the standard of "clear and specific" for OCPA purposes.”
Bristol Asphalt, Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Prods., Inc., 227 N.E.3d 1019 (Mass. 2024). “Accordingly, our holding in Duracraft placed a threshold burden upon the proponent of a special motion to dismiss to show that each of the claims it was moving to dismiss had "no substantial basis other than or in addition to [its] petitioning activities." Id. at 167-168.”
Gilmore (N.D. Okla. 2025). “at 1233–34 (quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1434 (C)). Pursuant to the state law, on the filing of a motion to dismiss—except as provided elsewhere in the Act—“all discovery .”
Westwin Elements, Inc. v. CVMR Corp., Kamran Khozan, Michael Hargett, John Finley, & Sydney Lu; CVMR Corp. & Kamran Khozan v. Westwin Elements, Inc. (W.D. Okla. 2025). “The Westwin Parties assert that the OCPA applies in federal court because the OCPA does not conflict with any federal rules of civil procedure, and the OCPA is a substantive law, not merely procedural.”
Thacker v. Walton, 2021 OK CIV APP 5. “12 O.S. § 1434(B). ¶6 If we were to accept the proposition that "legal action" does not include separate claims within a lawsuit, a motion filed pursuant to the OCPA's special dismissal procedure would be appropriate only if all claims in the lawsuit could be subjected to the…”
Thacker v. Walton, 491 P.3d 756 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021). “12 O.S. § 1434(B). ¶6 If we were to accept the proposition that "legal action" does not include separate claims within a lawsuit, a motion filed pursuant to the OCPA's special dismissal procedure would be appropriate only if all claims in the lawsuit could be subjected to the…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1434(B): 3 cases
Thacker v. Walton, 491 P.3d 756 (Okla. Civ. App. 2020). “¶22 The OCPA's expedited dismissal procedure, if applied, would supplant or supplement Federal Rules allowing for early disposition of a case, namely Fed.”
Thacker v. Walton, 2021 OK CIV APP 5. “12 O.S. § 1434(B). ¶6 If we were to accept the proposition that "legal action" does not include separate claims within a lawsuit, a motion filed pursuant to the OCPA's special dismissal procedure would be appropriate only if all claims in the lawsuit could be subjected to the…”
Thacker v. Walton, 491 P.3d 756 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021). “12 O.S. § 1434(B). ¶6 If we were to accept the proposition that "legal action" does not include separate claims within a lawsuit, a motion filed pursuant to the OCPA's special dismissal procedure would be appropriate only if all claims in the lawsuit could be subjected to the…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1434(C): 3 cases
John P. Thurlow v. Zakia C. Nelson, 2021 ME 58, 263 A.3d 494. “See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1434 (LEXIS through the 2021 First Reg.”
Bristol Asphalt, Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Prods., Inc., 227 N.E.3d 1019 (Mass. 2024). “Accordingly, our holding in Duracraft placed a threshold burden upon the proponent of a special motion to dismiss to show that each of the claims it was moving to dismiss had "no substantial basis other than or in addition to [its] petitioning activities." Id. at 167-168.”
KLX Energy Servs. LLC v. Magnesium Mach. LLC (W.D. Okla. 2021). “12 O.S. § 1434(C). At the third stage, “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of subsection (C), … the court shall dismiss a legal action [here, a portion of the 10 The court is aware of one case that reached a different conclusion in a similar situation.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1434(D): 1 case
KLX Energy Servs. LLC v. Magnesium Mach. LLC (W.D. Okla. 2021). “12 O.S. § 1434(C). At the third stage, “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of subsection (C), … the court shall dismiss a legal action [here, a portion of the 10 The court is aware of one case that reached a different conclusion in a similar situation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.