United States of America v. Crockett et al

Filing 69

ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. United States' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 55] is GRANTED. The Court hereby construes Defendants' Document # 37 as an amendment to their Answer.(Kanies, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVY O. CROCKETT, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:10-CV-04247-NKL

ORDER
Pending before the Court is the United States’ Motion to Dismiss Connie Clark and
Davy Crockett’s (“Defendants”) Counterclaim. [Doc. # 55]. The United States requests that
this Court construe Defendants’ Counterclaim as an amendment to their Answer, or in the
alternative, dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaim for failure to state a claim. For the following
reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and will construe Defendants’ Document # 37 as an
amendment to their Answer.
I.

Background
On November 18, 2010, the United States commenced this civil action seeking to

reduce to judgment federal income tax and civil penalty assessments against Defendants and
to foreclose on tax liens that encumber their property interests, including real property
located in Osage Beach, Missouri. [Doc. # 1]. Defendants answered the United States’
Complaint on February 23, 2011. [Doc. # 32]. On February 28, 2011, Defendants filed a

1

Counterclaim against the United States. [Doc. # 37]. Namely, Defendants contend that
“[m]any of the factual allegations” relating to the United States’ allegations of fraudulent
transfer are untrue.” [Doc. # 37, ¶ 3]. In addition, Defendants allege that the United States
filed a “frivolous claim” without “adequate investigation and factual support,” failed to
consult relevant, publicly available documents before bringing suit, “gave no notice or
demand” to Defendants of the United States’ claims prior to filing the suit, and improperly
included other defendants in the suit. [Doc. # 37, ¶¶ 4, 6, 7, 10]. They claim the United
States filed the Complaint solely to “embarrass” them and “pressure [them] into paying or
admitting to tax liability.” [Doc. # 37, ¶ 8]. In their prayer for relief in the Counterclaim,
Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Count III of the United States’ Complaint. They also
seek costs, attorney’s fees, and reimbursement for any economic loss they incur as a result
of the underlying suit. [Doc. # 37, at 3].
II.

Discussion
On a motion to dismiss, the Court construes the complaint liberally, in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2008).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must present “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The purpose of
a short and plain statement is to provide defendants with “fair notice of what the . . . claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545
(2007) (citation omitted). To satisfy this standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
2

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). On a
motion to dismiss, a court’s evaluation of a plaintiff’s complaint is a “context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
Here, Defendants–as counterclaim plaintiffs–have failed to meet these pleading
standards. Defendants’ request for relief appears to be prefaced on the allegation that the
United States filed a “frivolous claim.” Yet, merely stating this alleged conduct, even when
coupled with explicit requests for relief, provides the Court with little guidance as to why
Defendants are entitled to relief. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants failed to adequately
plead a counterclaim. However, the Court also finds that it is in the interest of justice to
construe Defendants’ Document # 37 as an amendment to their Answer to the United States’
Complaint, as Defendants’ document asserts defenses as to why the United States should not
prevail in its case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(2).
III.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc.
# 55] is GRANTED. The Court hereby construes Defendants’ Document # 37 as an
amendment to their Answer.

s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
3

Dated: May 23, 2011
Jefferson City, Missouri

4