After a four and a half hour hearing Tuesday, a judge ruled that work on the Rock Creek Entertainment District will continue.
During the hearing, Cleveland County Judge Michael Tupper ruled against Oklahomans for Responsible Economic Development and in favor of the city of Norman, Norman Tax Increment Finance Authority and UNP North, LLC, a subsidiary of the OU Foundation, in the lawsuit against the Rock Creek Entertainment District.
The hearing covered motions from both ORED and the defendants, and the courtroom was packed with supporters of both sides. Former Athletic Director Joe Castiglione, Athletic Director Roger Denny, former Councilmember Joshua Hinkle and Councilmember Trey Kirby were in attendance.
Tupper granted motions filed by the city, Norman Tax Increment Finance Authority, Cleveland County Recreational and Entertainment Facilities Authority and UNP North, LLC. to dismiss the lawsuit. He also granted UNP North, LLC.’s motion for a partial summary judgment, ruling against ORED’s claim that the city violated the Open Meetings Act at Norman City Council’s Sept. 3, 2024 meeting.
Two motions from ORED, the plaintiff in the case, were denied: one requesting to temporarily pause work on the entertainment district and the other for a summary judgment on ORED’s first cause of action, which claims the city violated the Local Development Act.
During the hearing, Judge Tupper heard arguments from Norman City Attorney Rick Knighton, ORED Attorney Rob Norman and representatives from Norman’s Tax Increment Finance Authority, Cleveland County Recreational and Entertainment Facilities Authority and University North Park, LLC.
Arguments surrounding violations of the Open Meetings Act, which were crucial points of ORED’s lawsuit, were ruled insufficient. ORED Attorney Rob Norman claimed the entertainment district was approved during meetings that violated the act, a claim Tupper ruled against.
According to Tupper, the two meetings held for the entertainment district were in accordance with the law and the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claim.
After the hearing, Knighton told OU Daily he believes the court “did a really good job.”
“I think the court did a really good job looking at the facts and looking at the governing law and making his determination based on his understanding of the facts and the law,” Knighton said.
Norman said he and the plaintiffs are disappointed by the ruling, but he believes Tupper made a thorough consideration of the arguments.
“This is not the end of the story. We’ll go evaluate our rights of appeal and do that thoroughly,” Norman said. “We felt we got a fair shake out of the judge. … He gave it thorough consideration and that’s all we can ask.”
Read more:
Spencer Windholz contributed to this reporting.
This story was edited by Audrey McClour.
