IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GARVIN COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
RIVERSIDE ESTATES, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF PAULS VALLEY,
Defendant.
Case No. CV 2026-28
VERIFIED PETITION
Plaintiff Riverside Estates, LLC ("Riverside" or "Plaintiff"), for its claims against Defendant City of Pauls Valley, states and alleges as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff is a domestic limited liability company operating an apartment complex known as the Sandpiper Apartment Homes in Garvin County, Oklahoma.
2. The City of Pauls Valley (the "City") is a political subdivision of the State of Oklahoma.
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the parties.
4. Venue is proper pursuant to 12 Okla. Stat. § 131 as all property at issue herein is located within Garvin County. Venue is also proper pursuant to 12 Okla. Stat.§§ 133 and 134 as Garvin County is the county where the case, or some part thereof, arose, and the county in which Plaintiff resides.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Riverside is the owner of certain property known as the "Sandpiper Apartments" located at 100 Arrowhead, Pauls Valley, OK 73075.
2. On or about February 14, 2025, Pauls Valley Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Hearing stating that "the undersigned city official/administrative body has determined that a
dilapidated building is located on your property…which is believed to be detrimental to the health, safety and/or welfare of the general public and the community and/or creates a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property.”
3. The Notice of Hearing further states that “this matter will be placed upon the agenda of the next regular meeting of the Pauls Valley City Beautification Commission…for hearing by said commission to determine whether said dilapidated building is detrimental to the community and/or creates a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property.”
4. The Notice of Hearing states “[y]ou are hereby further notified that said dilapidated building must be immediately torn down or removed and said property cleared of said dilapidated building.”
5. On or about March 17, 2025, the Pauls Valley City Beautification Commission (the “Commission”) held a hearing and determined that the Buildings 400 and 500 were a “detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and the community and/or the property creates a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property.”
6. On March 18, 2025 the Pauls Valley Code Enforcement issued two separate Notice of Actions for Buildings 400 and 500 which stated that the Commission “determined that the property is dilapidated and has become detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and the community and/or the property creates a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property.”
7. The Notice of Action states that “the property would be benefitted by the removal of such conditions and has directed that all dilapidated building(s) on the property be torn down and removed by the City of Pauls Valley and/or its contractors as follows:
• For commencement of work to tear down and remove the dilapidated building(s): No sooner than thirty (30) days after the above hearing date, if the property owner(s) wish(es) to avoid (1) the work being done by (or on behalf of) the city and (2) the lien and liability arising therefrom, the property owner(s) must complete the work (or cause the work to be completed) at his/her/their own expense before said date. Otherwise, upon said date, the municipality and/or its contractors are automatically and without further notice granted the right of entry on the property for the performance of the necessary duties as a governmental function of the municipality.
• For completion of the work: Within 90 days from the commencement of the work, or as soon thereafter as possible.
8. Building 500 of the Sandpiper Apartments (the "Subject Property") is unoccupied and secured such that it is not a public health or safety hazard.
9. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 823, Code of Ordinances of the City of Pauls Valley, Oklahoma Section 12-11, the City of Pauls Valley adopted 11 O.S. § 22-112 "for the purpose of establishing procedures for the condemnation and abatement of nuisances caused by dilapidated buildings..."
10. 11 O.S. § 22-112 provides that “a hearing shall be held by the governing body to determine if the property is dilapidated and has become detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public and the community or if the property creates a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property.”
11. The Notice of Hearing indicates that the Commission had already determined that the building was dilapidated prior to and without any notice or opportunity to be heard required by 11 O.S. § 22-112 and Oklahoma Constitution.
12. On April 1, 2025, in-house counsel for Riverside contacted the Pauls Valley City Attorney and confirmed that if remedial action was commenced within 30 days of the Notice of Action and the work was completed within 90 days from the commencement or as soon thereafter
as possible the buildings would not be demolished. See April 10, 2025 letter to Commission attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
13. On April 10, 2025, Riverside provided the Commission with evidence demonstrating the numerous efforts to remediate certain issues with the Subject Property with such expense incurred totaling $124,643.16 and confirmed further plans to remediate and rehabilitate the Subject Property including replacement of the Building 500 roof. See Exhibit 1.
14. On April 16, 2025, the City Attorney indicated that the City believed that Riverside had not made “satisfactory progress toward, remediation of the structure(s) which is/are the subject of the ongoing nuisance/hazard remediation proceedings.” See Email from J. Carlton dated April 16, 2025 attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
15. On April 17, 2025, newly retained outside counsel for Riverside (the undersigned) contacted the City Attorney requesting additional time to respond to the Notice of Action, stay of the demolition, and further conference with the Commission, the City Manager, and other city personnel. See Email from K. Phansalkar dated April 17, 2025 attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
16. On April 22, 2025, the City Manager, Joe Livingston, stated that “it is not in our best interest for us to delay the demolition of the two buildings.” See Email from J. Livingston dated April 22, 2025 attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
17. The Commission and the City of Pauls Valley failed to provide Riverside with notice as to any hearing regarding the actual determination of whether the Subject Property was “dilapidated” as evidenced in its Notice of Hearing and in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 11 § 22-112. The arbitrary determination that the property was dilapidated without notice and an opportunity to be heard is a violation of Riverside’s right to due process.
18. On April 24, 2025, Riverside filed an appeal of the Pauls Valley Beautification Commission decision from March 18, 2025 (the “First Appeal”).
19. The City Council never provided a hearing date for the First Appeal nor ever decided the First Appeal.
20. On or about August 7, 2025, a new Notice of Hearing was issued by Pauls Valley Code Enforcement setting the hearing on August 18, 2025, stating again that “the undersigned city official/administrative body has determined that a dilapidated building is located on your property…which is believed to be detrimental to the health, safety and/or welfare of the general public and the community and/or creates a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property.” See Notice of Hearing attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
21. On August 19, 2025 the Pauls Valley Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Action for Building 500 which stated that the Commission “determined that the property is dilapidated and has become detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and the community and/or the property creates a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property.” See Notice of Action attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
22. On August 26, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an appeal of the Pauls Valley Beautificaiton Commission decision from August 19, 2025 (the “Second Appeal”). See Second Appeal attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
23. On September 9, 2025, the City of Pauls Valey provided a Notice of Appeal scheduling the hearing on the appeal for September 23, 2025.
24. On September 23, 2025, Plaintiff and its counsel attended the hearing and the City Council GRANTED the Second Appeal.
25. The City Council minutes provided a summary of the hearing:
a. A motion was made to "Grant the Appeal with the stipulation that the roofing project must be started within 30 days, and must have the building dried in (roof, windows, and exterior envelope secured against weather) within 60 days. Further progress toward full compliance will be reviewed at subsequent meetings."
See September 23, 2025, City Council minutes attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
26. After the City Council hearing the Plaintiff made extensive efforts to repair and renovate, not only Building 500, but several of the other structures and common areas on the property.
27. The Plaintiff has made continued efforts to make improvements and repairs to the property including the following:
a. Plaintiff completed a comprehensive walkthrough of all residential units on the property and undertook repairs to correct habitability deficiencies, including but not limited to roof leaks, window leaks, water intrusion, water-damage conditions, and deficiencies related to fire-safety requirements within all occupied units.
b. Plaintiff performed extensive exterior repairs to the property, including replacement and/or repair of exterior siding, windows, and roofing components.
c. Plaintiff pressure-washed and cleaned all driveways, walkways, and parking areas throughout the apartment complex.
d. Plaintiff conducted full tree-trimming and removal services and completed a comprehensive upgrade of the property's landscaping.
e. Plaintiff painted the exterior of all buildings and installed exterior lighting and exterior fire-safety equipment throughout the property.
f. Plaintiff painted all curbs located on the premises.
g. Plaintiff performed a complete renovation and upgrade of the playground and common-area amenities.
h. Plaintiff made all necessary repairs to the swimming pool, pool fencing, and pool deck, installed new pool equipment, and reopened the pool after it had been closed for approximately two years.
i. Plaintiff installed all new signage throughout the property.
j. Plaintiff completed renovations to the property’s office and laundry facilities.
k. Plaintiff fully cleaned out and removed debris and trash from the 200 and 400 buildings.
l. Plaintiff performed complete mold remediation in the 200 and 400 buildings.
See Affidavit of Tony Balasuryia attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
28. On December 9, 2025, the City of Pauls Valley provided a letter of completion indicating that “based on the most recent site observation, exterior siding installation and roof covering work at Sandpiper Apartments has been completed to the extent necessary to provide exterior weather protection. The structure is currently enclosed from exterior exposure.” See Letter dated December 9, 2025, attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
29. On January 7, 2026, the City of Pauls Valley sent a letter to Plaintiff, stating that Plaintiff was “required to appear before City Council” on January 13, 2026, noting that failure to appear may result in “reversal of the appeal decision”. See Letter dated January 7, 2025, attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
30. Despite the Second Appeal being submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, the City of Pauls Valley failed to provide counsel for Plaintiff notice of the hearing on January 13, 2026. Further, the January 7, 2026 letter was provided to Plaintiff with less than ten (10) days notice.
31. On January 13, 2026, the City Council found that “the appeal previously granted to Sandpiper Apartments has been revoked…” See Notice dated January 15, 2026, attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
32. The City erred in “revoking” the previously granted Second Appeal without providing notice to Plaintiff’s counsel.
33. The City further erred in “revoking” the Second Appeal despite having previously approved that the structure was “enclosed from exterior exposure.”
34. The City erred in determining that the Subject Property has become detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public and the community and/or creates a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property. The Subject Property is in no immediate danger to collapse, is structurally sound, secured such that the general public has no access to the same, and poses no risk or danger to the health, safety and welfare of the general public.
35. The decision adopted by the City that the Subject Property was detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public and the community and/or creates a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence. The City has unfairly and arbitrarily targeted the Plaintiff and the Subject Property.
36. The City’s determination that the efforts made by Riverside to “dry-in” and secure the Subject Property were insufficient to abate the alleged nuisance was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Inverse Condemnation
37. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 – 36.
38. The City has been vested with the power of eminent domain pursuant to the provisions of Okla. Const. art. II, § 24, and 27 Okla. Stat. §§ 1-18.
39. The City failed to give notice and an opportunity for Plaintiff to be heard as to the determination of whether the Subject Property was dilapidated and detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public and the community and/or created a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property.
40. The City’s arbitrary determination that the Subject Property must be demolished significantly impairs the Subject Property’s usefulness and amounts to a taking by the City.
41. The City has failed to justly compensate Plaintiff for the taking.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Judgment
42. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 - 41.
43. An actual, justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiff and City.
44. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 12 Okla. Stat. §§ 1651-52, affirming that the City failed to provide proper notice and an opportunity to be heard and that the City’s determination that the Subject Property was dilapidated and detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public and the community and/or created a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property was arbitrary and capricious and against the weight of the evidence.
45. Plaintiff is further entitled to a declaratory judgment, affirming that the City improperly “revoked” the granting of the Second Appeal.
46. Plaintiff is further entitled to a declaratory judgment, affirming that the City failed to provide proper notice of the hearing to “revoke” the granting of the Second Appeal.
47. The City failed to meet its burden with respect to the determination that the Subject Property was a public nuisance.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Injunction
48. Plaintiff reasserts and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 - 47.
49. Pursuant to 12 Okla. Stat. §§ 1381 et seq., this Court may restrain the commission or continuance of some act that produces injury to Plaintiff or an action in violation of Plaintiff’s rights with respect to the subject of the action.
50. The Defendant’s actions and proposed action of demolishing the Subject Property as set forth above have (or will) produce irreparable harm to Plaintiff.
51. An injunction is necessary to prevent Defendant from taking additional actions that damage Plaintiff and violate Plaintiff’s rights including demolishing the Subject Property without first abiding by the proper condemnation proceedings.
52. Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Riverside Estates, LLC respectfully requests that the Court enter an order as follows:
a. Granting judgment against Defendant for damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 to be determined at trial;
b. Granting permanent injunctive relief precluding Defendant from further actions injurious to Plaintiff’s property;
c. Granting reasonable attorney fees and costs;
d. Determining that the Defendant failed to provide proper notice and an opportunity to be heard and that the City’s determination that the Subject Property was dilapidated and detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public and the community and/or created a fire hazard which is dangerous to other property; and
e. Providing for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Kiran A. Phansalkar, OBA #11470
Preston M. Sullivan, OBA #33619
CONNER & WINTERS, LLP
1700 One Leadership Square
211 N. Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 272-5711
Facsimile: (405) 232-2695
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Pratik Sonny Jogani, being first duly sworn on oath, states that he has read the above and foregoing Verified Petition, that he knows its contents, and that the facts stated therein are true and correct based on his personal knowledge and belief.
[Signature]
Pratik Sonny Jogani
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this 12th day of FEBRUARY, 2026.
[Signature]
Notary Public
My commission expires:
[SEAL]
SAUMIL DAVE
Notary Public - California
Los Angeles County
Commission # 2441981
My Comm. Expires Mar 21, 2027
