CJ-2026-780 - Amanda Drake v. City of Broken Arrow

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut straight to the good part: a woman in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, is suing her city for $75,000 because raw sewage exploded out of her toilet and turned her home into a biohazard zone. Not a little trickle. Not a minor smell. We’re talking full-on wastewater invasion—a brown, stinking, soul-crushing flood of city sewage that backed up through her plumbing and ruined her house, her stuff, and possibly her will to live. And now, she’s demanding the city pay up—because apparently, when the pipes blow, someone’s gotta take the fall.

Meet Amanda Drake, a homeowner just trying to live a normal life at her residence on Briarwood Avenue. She pays her taxes. She flushes her toilet like a responsible adult. She probably even recycles. And in return, she expected one simple thing: that when she turned on the faucet or flushed the toilet, the water would go away, not come up. But on August 17, 2025, fate had other plans. That’s the day the City of Broken Arrow’s sewer system apparently said “nah” and decided to reroute its entire downstream flow—straight into Amanda Drake’s bathroom, kitchen, and likely her entire sense of peace.

Here’s how it went down, according to the lawsuit: Amanda’s house, like most homes, has a private sewer line that connects to a larger, city-owned mainline. That mainline is supposed to carry waste away from homes and to a treatment facility, not use residential plumbing as a backup storage unit. But something went wrong—badly wrong. The city’s main sewer line became blocked. And when that happened, all that lovely wastewater had nowhere to go… except up. And up. And up. Until it started gurgling out of drains, bubbling up through toilets, and flooding her home with raw sewage.

Imagine coming home—or worse, being home—and suddenly realizing your bathroom floor is a toxic swamp. Your carpets? Soaked in sludge. Your furniture? Possibly condemned. Your kitchen sink? A portal to the underworld. This wasn’t a minor clog. This was a full-scale infrastructure betrayal. And Amanda wasn’t just inconvenienced—she was traumatized. The filing says she suffered “significant disruption of life, inconvenience, nuisance, and stress.” Which is legalese for: “I had to wade through poop water and now I can’t sleep without hearing phantom gurgling sounds.”

Now, you might think, “Well, that sucks, but isn’t that just one of those ‘act of God’ plumbing nightmares?” Maybe. If it happened once, to one person, and the city fixed it fast with a sincere apology and a gift card to Home Depot. But here’s the kicker: Amanda’s not just suing for negligence—she’s also invoking inverse condemnation. Yes, that’s a real thing. No, it’s not something you yell during a city council meeting. Inverse condemnation is when the government effectively takes or damages your property without formally seizing it—like when a city project floods your basement every time it rains, or, in this case, when the city’s broken sewer system turns your home into a septic tank.

Amanda’s argument? The city didn’t just fail to maintain its pipes—it invaded her property with sewage, damaged her home, diminished its value, and left her emotionally shaken. And because the city owns the mainline, and because they had a duty to maintain it, their failure wasn’t just a mistake—it was a constitutional violation. Under Oklahoma’s Constitution, private property can’t be “taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.” So even though the city didn’t send in bulldozers to raze her house, they might as well have—because the result is the same: her property was ruined by a public utility failure.

The legal claims are actually pretty layered. First, there’s negligence: the city had a duty to maintain the sewer system, they failed to do it, and that failure directly caused Amanda’s damages. That’s the “you messed up, now pay for it” claim. Then there’s nuisance—a legal term for when someone’s actions unreasonably interfere with your use and enjoyment of your property. In plain English: “You turned my home into a toxic dump, and now I can’t live in it like a normal human being.” And finally, inverse condemnation, which is like the nuclear option—basically saying, “The government ruined my property through its public works, so I deserve compensation like they formally took it.”

Now, about that $75,000. Is that a lot? For a sewer backup, maybe not. Cleanup alone after a major sewage flood can cost tens of thousands—we’re talking professional remediation, tear-out of drywall and flooring, replacement of appliances, deep cleaning of personal belongings, maybe even temporary housing. And that’s before you factor in emotional distress, loss of property value, and the sheer trauma of mopping up human waste from your child’s bedroom. Insurance might cover some of it, but if there are gaps—or if the city’s negligence voids certain claims—then $75k starts to look reasonable. Especially when you consider Amanda isn’t asking for a mansion. She just wants to be made whole. And maybe sleep through the night without dreaming of toilets bubbling like hot springs.

What makes this case deliciously petty-civil-court-drama is the sheer intimacy of the offense. This isn’t a zoning dispute or a fence line argument. This is bodily waste invading someone’s sanctuary. It’s the ultimate betrayal of urban living: we trust the city to handle the gross stuff for us, so we don’t have to think about it. And when that system fails? It’s not just inconvenient. It’s humiliating. It’s primal. It’s the kind of thing that makes you question civilization itself.

And let’s be real—the City of Broken Arrow is not exactly rolling out the apology wagon. They denied Amanda’s initial claim, which is why she’s now in court. No “we’re so sorry,” no “here’s a check,” no “we’ll personally power-wash your carpets.” Just silence, then rejection. So now she’s demanding a jury trial. Because sometimes, when the system fails you in the most disgusting way possible, you don’t just want repairs. You want justice. Or at least a verdict that makes the city flinch.

Our take? We’re rooting for Amanda. Not because we love lawsuits, and definitely not because we enjoy imagining sewage floods (though the mental images are… vivid). But because this is about accountability. The city runs the sewer system. They collect taxes to maintain it. When it fails catastrophically and invades a homeowner’s life in the most grotesque way possible, they can’t just shrug and say, “Oops, try a plunger.” If Amanda wins, it sends a message: your infrastructure is only as good as the people it serves. And if it starts pooping in their living room? You’re gonna pay for it—literally.

Also, can we just appreciate that this case is a perfect storm of American suburban horror? It’s Silence of the Lambs meets This Old House. It’s The Perfect Storm, but with fecal matter. And honestly? If this doesn’t get a true crime podcast spin-off titled Flushed: The Broken Arrow Sewer Uprising, we’re all living in the wrong timeline.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Ryan J. Fulda

FULDA LAW, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Amanda Drake individual
Rep: Ryan J. Fulda, OBA #21184

Defendants

City of Broken Arrow government

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	negligence, nuisance	Damage to property and personal injury due to sewer backup
2	inverse condemnation	Taking of property without just compensation

Petition Text

1,073 words

DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA AMANDA DRAKE Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BROKEN ARROW, Defendant. DISTRICT COURT FILED FEB 20 2026 DON NEWBERRY, Court Clerk STATE OF OKLA. TULSA COUNTY Case No. CJ-2026-00780 PETITION WITH JURY DEMAND TRACY L. PRIDDY Plaintiff Amanda Drake, by and through her attorney of record, Ryan Fulda of FULDA LAW, PLLC, for her claims against Defendant City of Broken Arrow, alleges and states as follows: 1. Plaintiff Amanda Drake ("Plaintiff") is domiciled in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Plaintiff lives in Oklahoma and intends to remain in the state. 2. Defendant City of Broken Arrow ("The City") is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Oklahoma and with its principal place of business in Oklahoma. 3. This Petition asserts claims for negligence, nuisance and inverse condemnation against Defendant City of Broken Arrow. 4. Venue is proper in District Court of Tulsa County under OKLA. STAT. TIT. 12 § 137 because the cause of action occurred in the county's jurisdictional boundaries. I. COMPLIANCE WITH OKLAHOMA GTCA 5. Prior to filing this Petition, Plaintiff has complied with the tort claim notice requirements of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claim Act, OKLA. STAT. TIT. 51 § 151, et. seq. 6. Plaintiff filed a notice of claim to the City of Broken Arrow (the "Notice"). 7. Plaintiff's Notice was filed within one year form the occurrence alleged herein and was denied by the City. 8. This Petition is being filed within 180 days from the Defendant's denial pursuant to OKLA. STAT. TIT. 51 § 157(B). 9. This Court has jurisdiction, and venue is proper in this Court. II. THE CITY'S SEWER SYSTEM AND SEWER BACK-UPS 10. At all times relevant to the underlying claims, Plaintiff was a resident of the City of Broken Arrow. 11. Plaintiff's home is located in the City. 12. The City is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the City's wastewater collection system. 13. Having undertaken the maintenance and upkeep of the City's wastewater collection system, the City owes residents a legal duty to perform such maintenance and upkeep in a reasonable manner. III. THE PLAINTIFF AND THE SEWER BACK-UP FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: NEGLIGENT INJURY TO PERSON AND PROPERTY 14. Plaintiff Amanda Drake is the owner and occupant of a personal residence at 7726 Briarwood Ave., Broken Arrow, 74011. 15. The Plaintiff's residence has a "private" sewer line which runs underground and connects her private plumbing systems to a "main line" owned and maintained by the City. 16. On or about August 17, 2025, the mainline connected to Plaintiff's private line became blocked. 17. After the blockage of the main line, sewer water was unable to flow downstream. As a result, the sewer water had nowhere to go but into the Plaintiff's residence. 18. The sewer water backed up into Plaintiff's residence and caused damage to Plaintiff's home and personal property. 19. As a result of the backup, Plaintiff experienced significant disruption of life, inconvenience, nuisance, and stress. 20. Defendant had a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and upkeep of the wastewater collection system. 21. Defendant breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and upkeep of the wastewater collection system. 22. Defendant's breach of duty was a proximate cause of the property damage and nuisance experienced by Plaintiff. 23. The City's nuisance has unlawfully injured and endangered Plaintiff's use of her property, causing ongoing nuisance, inconvenience, disruption of life, and emotional distress to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE the Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant City of Broken Arrow for property damage, personal injury, inconvenience, disruption of life, emotional distress, and attorney fees for the maximum amount allowed under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: INVERSE CONDEMNATION 24. Plaintiff adopts the above allegations and incorporates them by reference. 25. Inverse condemnation actions are authorized under Section 24, Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution, which states, in part: “Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation...” 26. A claim for inverse condemnation is a claim for a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution. This is not a tort claim; therefore, this claim is not affected by Oklahoma’s Governmental Tort Claims Act. 27. On or about August 17, 2025, Defendant’s acts and omissions directed sewage water into Plaintiff’s residence. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiff’s residence sustained significant damage. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiff’s residence was substantially damaged, and the value of the Plaintiff’s residence was substantially impaired. 30. The actions and inactions of Defendant were done wrongfully, unlawfully, and without prior permit or condemnation. 31. The value of the Plaintiff’s residence was diminished as the result of an exercise of the government's power of eminent domain to effectively take the Plaintiff’s property. 32. Plaintiff’s damages are special damages which are different from that suffered by the community in general. 33. The Defendant’s substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of Plaintiff’s residence is so substantial that it constitutes an effective taking of Plaintiff’s Residential Properties. 34. Since the Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiff’s residence has been taken and damaged without just compensation having been made or paid, and the Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated in a sum to be determined pursuant to law. 35. The Defendant’s actions have caused the Plaintiff to incur expenses of flood clean up and repair/replacement of portions of Plaintiff’s residence. 36. The Defendant’s actions and inactions were unlawful. 37. The Defendant’s actions and inactions constituted a failure to perform a duty to the Plaintiff. 38. The Defendant’s actions and inactions unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff’s use of her property. 39. The Defendant’s actions and inactions made the Plaintiff insecure in her life. 40. The Defendant’s actions and inactions made the Plaintiff insecure in her use of the property. 41. Plaintiff demands judgment: a. Determining that the Plaintiff’s property has been taken by the City, b. Determining and awarding the Plaintiff the just compensation to which she is entitled, together with reasonable costs, disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, actually incurred, c. For damages in excess of $75,000, d. Awarding the Plaintiff interest, and e. Awarding the Plaintiff such other and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable. WHEREFORE the Plaintiff seek damages from Defendant City of Broken Arrow for inverse condemnation and for the maximum amount of damages allowed under Oklahoma law. Respectfully submitted, Ryan J. Fulda, OBA #21184 FULDA LAW, PLLC 1800 South Baltimore Avenue, Suite 420 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 Telephone & Fax: (918) 550-8109 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF