Stoller v. Funk et al
Filing
77
ORDER granting 62 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 5/30/12. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILLIAM H. STOLLER, an,
individual and trustee of the William H.
Stoller Trust, for himself and
derivatively on behalf of Express
Services, Inc., a nominal defendant,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT A. FUNK and the ROBERT A.
FUNK TRUST,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV-11-294-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), seeking dismissal of
counterclaims raised by Defendants Robert A. Funk and the Robert A. Funk Trust.
Defendants assert counterclaims for abuse of process, arguing that Plaintiff was not justified
in filing the present action. Arguing that Defendants have failed to state a claim for relief
under Oklahoma law, Plaintiff seeks dismissal of the abuse of process counterclaims because
the allegations are based on actions occurring before the present action was filed. Plaintiff
argues that because Oklahoma jurisprudence states an abuse of process claim must be based
on actions occurring within the lawsuit itself, Defendants’ counterclaims fail to state a claim
and are subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
The standard for consideration of motions to dismiss brought pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) has undergone some adjustment in the last five years. Beginning
with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and
the subsequent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Supreme Court made
clear that to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint must contain enough allegations of fact
which taken as true “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570. That is, a plaintiff must “nudge his claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible” in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. Here, the resolution of the Motion to
Dismiss hinges more on a question of law than the adequacy of the facts pleaded.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has set out the elements which must be established to
state a claim for abuse of process. These elements are: “(1) the improper use of the court
process (2) primarily for an ulterior improper purpose (3) with resulting damage to the
plaintiff asserting the misuse.” Greenberg v. Wolfberg, 1994 OK 147, ¶ 22, 890 P.2d 895,
905 (footnotes omitted). The Oklahoma court further clarified the nature of the tort, stating
“that malicious prosecution be distinguished from abuse of process–the former lies for the
malicious initiation of process and the latter for a perversion of the process after it is issued.”
Id. at ¶ 25, 906.
After review of the allegations set forth in the counterclaims and the arguments raised
in response to the motion, it is clear that for each assertion of fact in the counterclaims
Defendants are relying on actions that Plaintiff took prior to filing the lawsuit. None of the
actions assert or argue that after this lawsuit was initiated that Plaintiff undertook wrongful
acts. Defendants argue that by using the lawsuit for an improper purpose–that is, to gain
advantages that Plaintiff could not gain within the scope of the lawsuit–he has improperly
used the process and therefore the tort should lie.
2
Defendants’ argument overlooks the clear distinction between abuse of process and
malicious prosecution identified by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. As noted above, in
Greenberg, the court clearly identified that a lawsuit or action that was wrongfully brought
would give rise to a malicious prosecution claim. It is only where wrongful acts are taken
within the course of an active or ongoing lawsuit that abuse of process can lie. As the court
notes in Greenberg, for a malicious prosecution claim to prevail, the party asserting that
claim must have the action terminated in their favor. Greenberg, ¶ 14, 901-902. Thus,
Defendants’ counterclaims cannot be construed as malicious prosecution claims and as abuse
of process claims they fail to state a claim for relief.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 62) is
GRANTED and the counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of May, 2012.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?