State, Swadley’s each claim the other owes millions
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – Lawyers for the State of Oklahoma claim Swadley’s Foggy Bottom Kitchen owes the state more than $4.7 million for allegedly falsifying expense reports, according to a recent court filing. Swadley’s claims the state owes them more than $2.5 million.
It’s the first time the State of Oklahoma has put a dollar amount on the fraud it claims Swadley’s Foggy Bottom Kitchen committed against the state while operating restaurants in six state parks.
The Oklahoma State Department of Tourism filed a lawsuit against Swadley’s in 2022, claiming it breached its contract with the state.
A March 15 filing by the state’s lawyers in the ongoing lawsuit argues Swadley’s “owes the state more than $4,700,000,” claiming Swadley’s “overbilled the state for management fees” it charged for running the restaurants, and “submitted false invoices to the state” for remodeling work it did at the restaurants.
The state filed that response after February request from lawyers representing Swadley’s, asking the judge to close the lawsuit and award Swadley’s more than $2.5 million dollars in a summary judgement.
In that filing, Swadleys’ attorneys claimed the state “filed this lawsuit to distract from unwise spending decisions.”
They argued the expenses they submitted to the state were all for things Department of Tourism leaders specifically asked Swadley’s to purchase or provide.
Swadley’s lawyers also claimed “Governor Stitt and Lieutenant Governor Pinnell self-servingly supported tourism’s lawsuit so that neither candidate would have to address this political hot potato in an election year.”
They argued there is no disputing the state is “liable to Swadley’s, not the other way around,” and asked for the summary judgement of more than $2.5 million as a result.
But the March 15 response from state attorneys argues there is plenty to dispute.
They argued invoices Swadley’s used as proof the state owes them money are falsified and cannot be trusted as factual.
State lawyers argued there are too many facts in dispute to allow for a summary judgement, and a jury should decide what to believe.
The state’s lawyers went on to write some of the things they accuse Swadley’s executives of doing were “intentional acts that rise to the level of criminal misconduct.”