CJ-2026-00072 - State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Gentner Drummond, Attorney General v. Dan Davis, Brian Davis, and Ryan Davis, d/b/a Prairie Fire Ranch

What's This Case About?

Let’s be clear: these ranchers didn’t just cancel a hunt — they allegedly took $5,200 in deposits from eight excited hog-hunting Nebraskans for a future slaughterfest… after they’d already decided to sell the ranch. That’s like selling tickets to a concert at a venue you’ve already put on Zillow. And no, they didn’t refund the money. They just ghosted the hunters like a bad Tinder date who promised to text. Welcome to Prairie Fire Ranch, where the only thing burning hotter than the barbecue is the sheer audacity.

Meet Dan, Brian, and Ryan Davis — the trio behind Prairie Fire Ranch, a Creek County, Oklahoma, operation that apparently offered the full redneck vacation package: lodging, animal hunts, and, if you’re lucky, a chance to shoot something with tusks. The Davises weren’t running some sketchy Craigslist side hustle; they were in the business of selling experiences. And for a certain type of outdoorsy Midwesterner, a guided hog hunt with meals and a bunk bed is basically paradise. But here’s the thing: when you’re taking deposits to lock in dates for future hunts, you’re not just running a business — you’re making promises. And the Davises, according to the state of Oklahoma, made promises they had zero intention of keeping.

The trouble starts in March 2023, when a group of hunters from Nebraska rolls through Prairie Fire Ranch while on another animal hunt (because apparently, when you’re from Nebraska, you just vacation by shooting things). They like what they see — or at least like the idea of shooting hogs — so they book a week-long hog hunt for March 2024. Meals? Included. Lodging? Covered. Total cost? A cool $5,200, paid in eight separate $650 deposits between March and April 2023. All standard stuff. Farmers take deposits all the time. Weddings, hunting trips, tractor rentals — it’s how business works. But here’s where it gets weird: just eight days after the first deposit, on April 27, 2023, Ryan Davis — one of the Davises — lists the entire Prairie Fire Ranch for sale. That’s right. The venue for the 2024 hog hunt is now on the market. And the Davises keep taking deposits. In fact, they take more deposits after the ranch is listed. Then, in August 2023, the property sells to a third party. Poof. Gone. The hunters’ future hog hunt? Now scheduled to take place on someone else’s land. Someone who, we can only assume, has never heard of Dennis Van Dusen or his dream of hog vengeance.

Naturally, the hunters start getting nervous. They see the ranch listed. They try to reach out — emails, phone calls, even the business website’s messenger (which, let’s be honest, is like sending a carrier pigeon in 2023). No response. Radio silence. No “Hey, the ranch sold, here’s your money back.” No “Sorry, we’re out.” Nothing. Just crickets and the faint echo of a thousand disappointed hog hunters wondering if they’ve been scammed. And that’s when the state of Oklahoma steps in — not because one guy got stiffed on a $650 deposit, but because this isn’t about one guy. It’s about a pattern. It’s about eight people who collectively dropped over five grand on a hunt that will never happen, on a ranch that no longer exists, run by a family that apparently thought “customer service” meant “don’t answer your phone.”

So why are we in court? Because the Oklahoma Attorney General, Gentner Drummond (who, by the way, has a name that sounds like a Western novel villain), decided this wasn’t just a bad business decision — it was a violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA). And under that law, taking money for a service you know you can’t deliver? That’s not just shady — it’s illegal. The state argues the Davises engaged in “unfair and deceptive trade practices,” which, under Oklahoma law, includes stuff that’s “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” Taking deposits for a hog hunt after selling the ranch checks every box. It’s like selling concert tickets after the band breaks up. Or booking a cruise after the ship sinks. The Davises didn’t just fail to deliver — they collected money knowing they couldn’t deliver. And that, my friends, is fraud-adjacent behavior, even if it’s dressed up in cowboy boots and a “Welcome to the Ranch” sign.

Now, what does the state want? Well, they’re not asking for the hunters to get their $5,200 back — at least not directly. Instead, they’re asking the court to slap the Davises with up to $10,000 in civil penalties per violation. And since there were eight deposits? That’s potentially $80,000 in fines. Plus, they want the court to issue an injunction — basically a legal “hands off” order — to stop the Davises from pulling this same move again. Is $80,000 a lot? For most people, yes. For a business that just sold a ranch, maybe not. But it’s not really about the money — it’s about the message. The state is saying: “You can’t just take people’s money and vanish. Not in Oklahoma. Not on our watch.” And honestly? It’s kind of refreshing. Too often, small-dollar scams slip through the cracks because no single victim wants to sue over $650. But when the state steps in, it sends a signal: we see you. We’re watching. And we will come for you, even if your crime is hog-hunting fraud.

Look, we’re not saying every failed business deal deserves a lawsuit. Sometimes things fall through. Ranches sell. Plans change. But there’s a difference between “We’re sorry, here’s your refund” and “We’re keeping your money and moving on.” The Davises didn’t try to make it right. They didn’t communicate. They didn’t refund. They just cashed the checks and disappeared. And while this isn’t a murder case or a corporate conspiracy, it’s still a betrayal. These hunters weren’t trying to scam the system — they were excited for a hunt. They trusted a business. And that trust was exploited. So while we’re not rooting for blood, we’re definitely rooting for accountability. Maybe the Davises will pay the fines, maybe they’ll apologize, maybe they’ll start a new ranch called “Second Chance Fire” and finally learn customer service. But one thing’s for sure: if they ever try to sell tickets to another hog hunt, we’re checking Zillow first.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Sylvia Lanfair

Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General

Relief Sought

$80,000 Monetary

Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs

State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Gentner Drummond, Attorney General government
Rep: Sylvia Lanfair, OBA #10144, Assistant Attorney General

Defendants

Dan Davis, Brian Davis, and Ryan Davis, d/b/a Prairie Fire Ranch business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act	Defendants allegedly engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, including taking deposits for a future hog hunt after selling the ranch.

Petition Text

1,035 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CREEK COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, v. DAN DAVIS, BRIAN DAVIS, AND RYAN DAVIS, d/b/a PRAIRIE FIRE RANCH, Defendants. PETITION 1. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, State of Oklahoma, by and through GENTNER DRUMMOND, the duly appointed Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma ("Plaintiff", "State", or "Attorney General"), brings this action against Defendants, Dan Davis, Brian Davis and Ryan Davis, d/b/a Prairie Fire Ranch ("Defendants" or "Prairie Fire"), for violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. §§ 751 et seq. ("OCPA"). 2. The Attorney General brings this action in the public's interest to protect public health, safety, and welfare pursuant to his authority, powers, and duties under the OCPA. See 15 O.S. § 756.1. Defendants have violated or are continuing to violate the OCPA. 3. Upon such information and belief, the State alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This petition is filed, and these proceedings are instituted, pursuant to the provisions of the OCPA. 5. The Attorney General has standing to commence this action pursuant to Section 756.1 of the OCPA. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2004 and 15 O.S. § 756.1 because Defendants have transacted business within the State of Oklahoma and have engaged in conduct impacting the State of Oklahoma at all times relevant to this Petition. 7. Venue for this action properly lies with this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. § 133. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants’ business was located in Creek County, Oklahoma, and each of the consumer transactions out of which this action arises occurred, at least in part, in Creek County. THE PARTIES 8. Plaintiff is the State of Oklahoma, by and through Attorney General Gentner Drummond who is charged with enforcement of the OCPA. See 15 O.S. § 756.1. 9. Defendants are Dan Davis, Brian Davis and Ryan Davis, co-owners and co-operators of Prairie Fire Ranch. 10. As used herein, any reference to “Prairie Fire” or “Defendants”, means Dan Davis, Brian Davis and Ryan Davis, jointly and severally, d/b/a Prairie Fire Ranch. 11. Subsection 15 O.S. 752(14) of the OCPA defines “unfair trade practice” as follows: “‘Unfair trade practice’ means any practice which offends established public policy or if the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” 12. Defendants were, at all times relevant hereto, engaged in consumer transactions in the State of Oklahoma, in that Prairie advertised lodging and animal hunts in the State of Oklahoma. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 13. Dan Davis, Brian Davis and Ryan Davis conducted business as Prairie Fire Ranch, and, in the course of their business, offered for sale lodging and animal hunts. 14. Prairie Fire required deposits to reserve a particular date for a hunt. 15. On March 19, 2023, while in Oklahoma on an animal hunt, several hunters from Nebraska went to Prairie Fire to inquire about the cost of a hog hunt. During this visit to the ranch, the hunters booked a hog hunt for March 3rd to March 9th, 2024 ("the hunt."). The hunt included meals and lodging. 16. The following deposits, totaling Five Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($5,200.00), were made by these hunters: a. March 28, 2023, Dennis Van Dusen paid Prairie Fire a deposit of Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) for the hunt. b. On March 28, 2023, Richard Matzek paid Prairie Fire a deposit of Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) for the hunt. c. On March 28, 2023, Steven Rockefeller paid Prairie Fire a deposit of Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) for the hunt. d. On March 30, 2023, Peter Ludowese paid Prairie Fire a deposit of Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) for the hunt. e. On April 1, 2023, Wayne Wall paid Prairie Fire a deposit of Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) for the hunt. f. On April 4, 2023, Kenneth Harvey paid Prairie Fire a deposit of Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) for the hunt. g. On April 19, 2023, Steven Quadhamer paid Prairie Fire a deposit of Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) for the hunt. h. On April 19, 2023, Duane McCan paid Prairie Fire a deposit of Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($650.00) for the hunt. 17. On April 27, 2023, the real estate known as Prairie Fire, was listed for sale by Ryan Davis, managing member of 3D Holdings LLC. 18. Upon seeing Prairie Fire listed for sale, the above hunters reached out via email, telephone calls and business website messenger regarding their reservation but did not receive a response. 19. The real estate known as Prairie Fire was sold on August 31, 2023, to an unrelated third-party. 20. The hunters were not contacted by Dan Davis, Brian Davis and Ryan Davis nor did they receive refunds of their deposits. VIOLATIONS 21. The State incorporates by reference and re-alleges each allegation set forth above. 22. Defendants took deposits for a future hog hunt eight (8) days before placing the real estate at which the hunt and lodging were to occur was placed for sale. 23. Defendants kept deposits for a hog hunt booked for March 2024 after Prairie Fire was sold in August 2023. 24. The conduct alleged above constitutes violations of the OCPA insofar as Defendants, in the course of their business, engaged in the following: a. committed unfair and deceptive trade practices as defined in 15 O.S. § 752, which are prohibited by 15 O.S. § 753; 25. By engaging in the conduct set forth above, Defendants committed eight (8) violations of the OCPA. 26. An action under the OCPA carries a civil penalty of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) per violation. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 27. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter an Order: a. Finding that Defendants have violated Section 753 of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act by engaging in the unlawful acts and practices alleged herein; b. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from engaging in the unfair or deceptive trade practices alleged herein; c. Directing Defendants to pay civil penalties of up to Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) for each violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. d. Requiring Defendants to pay all costs for the prosecution and investigation of this action, as provided by Section 756.1 of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act; and e. Granting Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and proper. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. GENTNER DRUMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA By: Sylvia Lanfair Sylvia Lanfair, OBA #10144 Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Unit Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: (405) 522-8159 Email: [email protected]