Hinton, OK

1

07-12-2021

PETITION filed by Sugar Creek Ambulance Service District

Sugar Creek Ambulance Service District seeks to prohibit the Town of Hinton from contracting with an ambulance service housed in Hinton and provide emergency services to the residents of the Town of Hinton.

2

07-12-2021

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION  filed by Sugar Creek Ambulance Service District

Sugar Creek Ambulance Service District acknowledges the Town of Hinton has issued a Request for Proposals from ambulance services who are interested in serving the Town of Hinton. Sugar Creek asks the Court to issue a preliminary order prohibiting Hinton from contracting with an ambulance service provider to serve the citizens of Hinton.

3

08-05-2021

HINTON’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO SUGAR CREEK’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

(This is related to document #2.)

Hinton objects to Sugar Creek’s attempt to stop Hinton from securing the services of an ambulance provider that will be located in Hinton and ensure that the citizens of the Town of Hinton receive quick and highly skilled care. In its filing, Hinton provides a detailed history of Hinton’s support of the Sugar Creek Ambulance Services District since Sugar Creek began operating in early 2003, the yearly contract between Hinton and Sugar Creek (under which Sugar Creek was housed in the Hinton Fire Station and Hinton paid Sugar Creek $2,000 per month), Sugar Creek’s decision to terminate its agreement with Hinton and move out of the Fire Station, and the fact that the State Department of Health decides whether an ambulance provider is permitted to serve a particular area of the state.

This document includes 60 pages of supporting evidence.

4

08-20-2021

ORDER DENYING SUGAR CREEK AMBULANCE SERVICE DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

(This is related to documents #2 and #3.)

On August 20, 2021, the Court held a hearing to consider Sugar Creek Ambulance Service District’s request that Hinton be immediately prohibited from making an agreement with an ambulance service provider to locate within the Town of Hinton and provide emergency ambulance services. Sugar Creek’s attorney presented Sugar Creek’s position, including testimony from Ray Simpson, owner of Medic West Oklahoma, LLC. Hinton’s attorney spoke in support of Hinton’s right to provide the services that the Town believes will best serve Hinton’s citizens.

A court is more likely to grant a party’s request for temporary injunction when it determines that (1) the party asking for the injunction is likely to win on its claims at the end of the lawsuit; (2) the party will be irreparably harmed if the court doesn’t enjoin the action about which it is complaining; (3) the party asking for the injunction will be harmed more by the action than the party doing the action will be harmed by being stopped from doing it; and (4) it is in the public’s best interest to stop the action.

The Court, after considering the applicable law, the statements of the attorneys, and the evidence, denied Sugar Creek’s Motion for Temporary Injunction.

5

08-23-2021

HINTON’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

(This is related to document #1.)

The first part of this document is Hinton’s response to each of the numbered statements in Sugar Creek’s Petition (document #1 above). Beginning at page 5 of the document is Hinton’s counterclaim and request for declaratory judgment against Sugar Creek. Hinton submits that Sugar Creek Ambulance Services District’s Board of Trustees has never been properly appointed and authorized to serve as required by the Oklahoma Constitution, that the individuals who hold themselves out as trustees of Sugar Creek (Keith Gardner, Gary King, Randy House, Patti Sharry, and Chuck Morgan) contracted for ambulance services without competitive bidding and permit the District’s assets to be used by a private for-profit entity in ways that do not benefit the District, that the trustees have not taken care of the District’s business and funds the way Oklahoma law requires them to do so.

Hinton also explains that Sugar Creek and its trustees have repeatedly and intentionally violated the Oklahoma Open Records Act and Oklahoma Open Meetings Act.