Hicks v. Cadle Company, et al

Filing 501

ORDER Denying Motions. ORDERED that Plaintiff Kerry R. Hicks' Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental Complaint and to compel Arbitration 470 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Abstain or Stay Pending Resolution of the Prior Filed Ohio Action 480 is DENIED AS MOOT, by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 9/25/12.(sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 04-cv-02616-WYD-KLM
KERRY R. HICKS,
Plaintiff
v.
DANIEL C. CADLE, and
THE CADLE COMPANY,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
_____________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kerry R. Hicks' Motion for
Leave to File Second Supplemental Complaint and to compel Arbitration [DE-470] and
Defendants’ Motion to Abstain or Stay Pending Resolution of the Prior Filed Ohio Action
[DE-480]. This case has a long and tortured history. Prior to the instant motions, the
Court entered a judgment against Defendants in favor of Hicks in the amount of
$3,150,000 [DE-443]. When Hicks had trouble collecting that judgment, he registered
the judgment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and
initiated a collection action in the Trumball County Court of Common Pleas, an Ohio
state court. In response to the collection lawsuit, Defendants herein filed counterclaims
against Hicks for intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with
business relationship and for violation of an Ohio RICO statute.
Hicks seeks to reopen this case to assert a claim for abuse of process against

Defendants. Hicks maintains that the counterclaims in the Ohio state court action
constitute abuse of process. I must deny Hicks’s motion for at least two reasons. First,
Hicks recently filed a satisfaction of judgment acknowledging that Defendants satisfied
the $3,150,000 entered on November 5, 2010. [DE-499]. This Court’s jurisdiction ends
with the satisfaction of a judgment. See Goss Intern. Corp. v. Man Roland
Druckmaschinen, 491 F.3d 355, 365 (8th Cir. 2007); Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall.
166, 73 U.S. 166, 187 (1867) (“[T]he jurisdiction of a court is not exhausted by the
rendition of the judgment, but continues until that judgment shall be satisfied.”)). Thus, I
lack jurisdiction to reopen this closed case and allow Plaintiff to add a supplemental
claim at this late date.
Moreover, I have considerable doubt that this is the proper venue for an abusive
of process claim. Hicks’s claim for abuse of process relates to the counterclaims
initiated in the state court in Ohio. The abuse of process claim therefore concerns
proceedings in Ohio, not Colorado. Courts have found that venue for an abusive of
process claim is proper in the location where the lawsuits giving rise to abuse of
process are located. Basile v. Walt Disney Co., 717 F.Supp.2d 381, 386–87
(S.D.N.Y.2010); Jones v. Trump, 919 F.Supp. 583, 587 (D.Conn.1996); and Engel v.
CBS, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 728, 732 (C.D.Cal.1995). Accordingly, even if the Court still had
jurisdiction, Colorado would be an improper venue for Hicks’s abuse of process claim.
That claim should be filed in Ohio. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED THAT
(1)

Plaintiff Kerry R. Hicks' Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental
Complaint and to compel Arbitration [DE-470] is DENIED.
-2-

(2)

Defendants’ Motion to Abstain or Stay Pending Resolution of the Prior
Filed Ohio Action [DE-480] is DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated: September 25, 2012
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge

-3-