In re Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu Haddock (2026)

Case details
Full caption
In re the Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu Haddock
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma (OK)
Court
Oklahoma Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
3�IN THE DISTRICT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTYSTATE OF OKLAHOMA))))))))IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:AMY HADDOCK,PETITIONER,ANDJUSTIN BLU HADDOCK,RESPONDENT.CASE NUMBER FD-2021-987HONORABLE RODNEY SPARKMANFD DOCKET C DISTRICT� • � E"6MAY 2 1 2026ORDER� 957e5585.2809881.Now, on this 1 � day of April 2026 the above captioned matter comes beforeme, the undersigned judge of the District Court. Petitioner, Amy Haddock, Wife,appears in person and through her counsel of record Randy Rankin and AshleyCupryk. The Respondent, Justin Blu Haddock, Husband, appears in person and byand through his counsel Patrick McCord of the firm JOHNSON & MCCORD. Theparties' adult son, Colbe Haddock, Son, appears in person as a third-partysubpoenaed to testify and produce documents and appears by and through hiscounsel Keith A. Jones of the firm KAJ0NESLAW PLLC. By prior arrangement, asMr. Jones is ill, he is appearing via video conference. The Court having reviewedin detail all of the pleadings herein having heard the statements and arguments ofcounsel, and having inquired of the parties, finds and orders as follows:ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT. At the last setting, the Court requested allcounsel to provide a list of the issues each believed should be set for hearingtoday. All three counsel provided the exact same list. Thus, set for hearing beforethe Court today are:1
32.3.A. Son's Motion to Quash 4/15/251. Husband's Motion to Dismiss 4/30/25a) Son's Response 6/5/2025b) Husband's Motion to File Corrected Motion 8/27/25c) Husband's Corrected Motion to Dismiss 8/27/25B. Husband's Motion for Sanctions against Rankin and Petitioner 4/30/251. Wife's Response 6/5/20252. Wife's Amended Response 10/20/25C. Husband's Renewed Motion in Limine 4/30/20251. Wife's Response, filed 6/5/2025D. Son's Motion for Attorney Fees and Sanctions 9/24/251. Son's Affidavit in Support 9/29/252. Husband's Motion to Dismiss 10/13/2025a) Son's Response to Motion to Dismiss 10/16/253. Husband's Response to Motion for Fees 10/13/25E. Husband's Motion for Sanctions against Son 11/12/251. �MR. JOHNSON. The Court has previously ordered Husband's counsel,N. Scott Johnson to appear at this hearing. The court noted that Mr. Johnson'sappearance today would be excused with an appropriate note from a medicalprofessional. The Court is in receipt of such proof and, accordingly, Mr. Johnson'sappearance is excused. The hearing will continue without his appearance.SoN's MOTION TO QUASH. The Court finds that Son's Motion to Quashwas timely filed and that the second request within the Subpoena issued to Sonwas overly broad and excessive. The remainder of the Subpoena had legitimatepurpose and were a little bit more narrowly tailored, but insofar as the Motion toQuash addressed the second request within the Subpoena, Son's Motion to Quashis granted.2
4.HUSBAND'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST SON. Husband's Motionfor Sanctions is denied.5. HUSBAND'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST RANDY RANKIN ANDPETITIONER. Court finds no inappropriate conduct by Wife or her counsel relatedto how the deposition ofColbe Haddock was setup or the outcome ofit. Husband'sMotion for Sanctions is denied.6. HUSBAND'S RENEWED MOTION IN LIMINE. This issue has previouslybeen addressed by Judge Chesbro when he was assigned to this docket. The Courtviews the present dispute as an issue for cross-examination at trial, not an issue forthis Court to dictate what can and cannot be testified to at trial. Both parties arefree to cross-examine and potentially impeach any witness' credibility at trial. TheCourt finds no reason to modify the prior Orders of this Court on this topic.Husband's Renewed Motion in Limine is denied.7. Son's Motion for Attorney Fees and Sanctions. The Court notes thatit has interacted with Mr. Johnson for three decades, both as a colleague beforetaking the bench and as an advocate since taking the bench. The Court has alwaysfound Mr. Johnson to be a highly effective advocate.a. On April 30, 2025 Husband, through counsel, filed a Motion toDismiss the Motion to Quash that Son had filed. Husband's Motioncontained three citations to nonexistent law and three citations to cases withinaccurate descriptions of the propositions of law for which they stood. Theerrant citations were pointed out to Mr. Johnson on August 25, 2025, at3
which point the parties agreed to pass that day's setting. This Court was notthe assigned Judge at that time and has no direct knowledge of anythingother than what is reflected in the minutes. Mr. Johnson sought leave to filea corrected pleading and then filed a corrected Motion to Dismiss. The Courtnever had a chance to grant leave to file, but it was filed anyway. The Courtfinds that the mere filing of the corrected Motion does not moot the issuefrom the Court's perspective.b. The Court does not render a finding that, based upon theaffidavit filed by Mr. Johnson and executed by his paralegal, that there havebeen similar cases filed. Nevertheless, even if a paralegal performs legalresearch for counsel, it is not the paralegal's responsibility to insure that thefacts and law in a pleading are accurate; it is counsel's responsibility.c. The issue before the Court is basically, for me, trustworthinessand basically an attorney's ethics on their filings because the attorney signsoff on those pleadings attesting that they know all of this is true and correct.d. The Court sustains Son's Motion for Sanctions and Fees subjectto a later determination as to a reasonable amount of attorney fees.e. The Court considered a wide range of sanctions against Mr.Johnson. This Court also looks at Mr. Johnson's history with this Court andothers. The Court knows of no other issues like this ever alleged against Mr.Johnson. As far as the Court can tell, this was a one-time, one-filing event.4
%The Court does not have any other case or any other pleadings in this caseor the Court's other cases where this issue has arisen with Mr. Johnson.f. The court sanctions Mr. Johnson $2,000 to be paid into theCourt fund within thirty (30) days of today's date.g. The court will conduct a hearing on May 20, 2026 at 9:00 amto determine the amount of the attorney fees judgment and exactly againstwhom the judgment will be granted. Counsel are invited to brief the issue ofagainst whom the judgments should be granted. Said briefs to be filed byMay 1, 2026.h\Mr. Ranki 's granted leav to file a fee application on behalf ofhis client. If tmaely filed, it wi e heard Ma 0, 2026.�, 5/2411. Mr. Jones and Mr. Rankin, should he file an application, shallproduce their time records to Mr. McCord no later than May 11, 2026.j. This Court does have a responsibility to make sure what is filedis accurate. So I'm going to ask the firm to go through their bank of cases tosee if any of these or any other cases in there that could be used areappropriate. And I would ask Mr. McCord to advise the Court and the partieswhen that has been completed so that this Court can know that the bank isnot containing invalid cites for future reference .. Mr. McCord will providethe Court and counsel with a full report on the process and procedures usedfor the audit and the outcome thereof.i3," ��. ·, .5� *. �
%�k. The Court will not issue any additional sanctions other than theforegoing, but will contact the Oklahoma Bar Association about this orderand its findings.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED by the Court that theforegoing paragraphs are made the order of this Court as if set forth hereunder infull.I SSOORDEREAp roved as Fo m:e•�Ran , OBA # 7414Ashley Cupryk, OBA # 36092.1515 South Denver Ave.Ke' A. one A #17072KAJONESLAW, LLC5801 East 41s Street, Suite 300Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135-5628Keith@KAJonesLaw.comAttorneys for Third PartyTulsa, Oklahoma 74119Randy@ran rankinlaw.comAttorney r Peti o er5ant«sin..a..� - �z.e// -atrick McCord, OBA # 21747JOHNSON & MCCORD302 East 10th StreetTulsa, Oklahoma 74120Patrick@johnsonmccord.comAttorney for Respondent6
·,8�CERTIFICATE OF MAILINGI hereby certify that on the file stamped date above, I emailed and mailed atrue and correct copy of the foregoing document via first class United StatesPostal Service mail with the proper amount of postage prepaid thereon, to:7Randy Rankin, Esq.Ashley Cupryk, Esq.1515 South Denver Ave.Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119Randy@randyrankinlaw.comAttorney for PetitionerN. Scott Johnson, Esq.Patrick McCord, Esq.JOHNSON & MCCORD302 East 10 � StreetTulsa, Oklahoma 74120Scott@johnsonmccord.comAttorney for spondentI ith A. Jon , OBA # 17072���
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access