Sooner Emergency Services, Inc. v. USV Trucking, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SOONER EMERGENCY SERVICES, 	)
INC., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-153-GLJ
)
USV TRUCKING, INC., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Plaintiff Sooner Emergency Services, Inc. (“SEMI”), brings this diversity action for
quasi-contract/quantum 	meruit 	against 	Defendant 	USV 	Trucking, 	Inc., 	based 	on
remediation services provided by SEMI following an accident involving a tractor-trailer
rig driven by Defendant’s employee. 	This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support of Defendant USV Trucking, Inc.
[Docket No. 38]. Genuine issues of material fact exist and preclude the entry of summary
judgment for either party. The undersigned Magistrate Judge therefore finds the motion is
DENIED.
SEMI filed the present action in Oklahoma state Court on April 10, 2025, see
Muskogee County District Court Case No. CJ-2025-150, and Defendants removed the case
to this Court on May 8, 2025. 	Docket Nos. 1-2. 	The parties previously consented to
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction before U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder, effective
May 30, 2025. 	Docket Nos. 15, 25. 	On July 17, 2025, this case was transferred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge at the direction of the Court. 	Docket No. 22. 	Defendant
6:25-cv-00153-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 04/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
previously moved to dismiss, which was granted in part, resulting in dismissal of all
statutory and contract claims, but leaving Plaintiff’s claim for quantum meruit/quasi-
contract. See Docket No. 31.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “quantum meruit” as:
1. The reasonable value of services; damages awarded in an amount
considered reasonable to compensate a person who has rendered services in
a quasi-contractual relationship.
2. A claim or right of action for the reasonable value of services rendered.
3. At common law, a count in an assumpsit action to recover payment for
services rendered to another person.
4. A claim for the market value of a party’s performance under an implied-
in-fact contract or an express contract that does not specify a price.
5. A claim for the value of benefits provided without a contract, as when
the plaintiff brings a claim for restitution and that value provides the measure
of recovery.
Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). 	“Where a person performs services without a
written contract, the law implies an agreement to pay what is reasonable, meaning thereby
what he reasonably deserves.” 	Brown v. Wrightsman, 1935 OK 885, ¶ 14, 51 P.2d 761,
763; see also Martin v. Buckman, 1994 OK CIV APP 89, ¶ 38, 883 P.2d 185, 193-194
(“[I]t is founded on a Latin phrase meaning, ‘as much as he deserves,’ and in law has been
defined as ‘a legal action grounded on a promise that the defendant would pay to the
plaintiff 	[for 	his 	services] 	as 	much 	as 	he 	should 	deserve.’”) 	(citations 	omitted).
Furthermore, “[c]laims brought under a quasi-contract are essentially the same as claims
for quantum meruit or unjust enrichment.” Armijo v. Affilion, LLC, 854 Fed. Appx. 236,
241 (10th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted); see also ASI Constr., LLC v. City of Oklahoma
City, 2023 WL 4305131, at *2 (W.D. Okla. June 30, 2023) (“[A] quasi-contract, also
6:25-cv-00153-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 04/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
known as implied-in-law or constructive contract, is a fictional contract imposed by law to
adapt the case to a remedy.”).
In any case, summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 	A genuine issue of material fact exists when “there is
sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that
party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The moving party must
show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 325 (1986), with the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party, Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). However, “a party asserting
that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to
particular parts of materials in the record . . . or . . . showing that the materials cited do not
establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The undisputed facts reflect, inter alia, that on September 3, 2024, Defendant’s
employee lost control of one of Defendant’s semi trucks, wrecked, caught fire, and spilled
frozen pizza dough and icing, as well as diesel fuel and motor oil. Docket Nos. 38, p. 2,
¶ 1 & 39, p. 3, ¶¶ 1-2. A towing service that is not a party to this case notified Plaintiff of
the incident, and Plaintiff was present at the scene on September 3, 5, and 6, 2024. Docket
Nos. 38, pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 2-3 & 39, pp. 1-2, ¶¶ 2-3. Plaintiff’s first contact with Defendant was
on September 11, 2024. Docket Nos. 38, p. 3, ¶ 4 & 39, p. 2, ¶¶ 4.
Oklahoma 	Uniform 	Jury 	Instructions 	set 	forth 	the 	following 	instruction 	for
“Quantum Meruit”:
6:25-cv-00153-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 04/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
You may determine that [Defendant] is liable to [Plaintiff] for [describe the
goods or services that the plaintiff provided to the defendant ], if you find
that:
1. [Plaintiff] [furnished/rendered] valuable [goods/services] to
[Defendant ] with a reasonable expectation of being compensated;
2. 	[Defendant] 	knowingly 	accepted 	the 	benefit 	of 	the
[goods/services]; and
3. 	[Defendant] 	would 	be 	unfairly 	benefited 	by 	[(the
services)/(receiving the goods)] if no compensation were paid to
[Plaintiff ].
If you find all of these elements are satisfied, then you should return a verdict
for [Plaintiff] in an amount that reasonably represents the fair value of the
[goods/services] that [Plaintiff] [furnished/rendered] to [Defendant ].
OUJI 23.10. The Court has carefully reviewed the briefs in support of and in opposition
to the motion, as well as the exhibits submitted by the parties. Based on this review and
mindful of the standard of evaluating the evidence at the summary judgment stage, it
appears that genuine issues of material fact are in dispute with respect to elements two and
three. Regardless of when Plaintiff first contacted Defendant, the undisputed facts do not
address when Defendant became aware of the work Plaintiff was performing (or whether
Defendant thereby knowingly accepted Plaintiff’s work), given Defendant’s employee was
in a wreck with Defendant’s property on September 3, 2024. 	Summary judgment is
therefore inappropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support of
Defendant USV Trucking, Inc. [Docket No. 38] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2026.
___________________________________________
GERALD L. JACKSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:25-cv-00153-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 04/09/26 Page 4 of 4