Riffel Law Firm PLLC v. Gaisford et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 42 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 02/02/21. (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RIFFEL LAW FIRM, PLLC, a
Professional Limited Liability Company,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HEATH D. GAISFORD, an individual;
)
ALISHA LOUISE GAISFORD, an
)
individual; DENNIS IRVIN GAISFORD, )
an individual; LOLA FAYE GAISFORD, )
an individual; STATE OF OKLAHOMA, )
ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX
)
COMMISSION; ELLIS COUNTY
)
TREASURER and BOARD OF COUNTY )
COMMISSIONERS; U.S. DEPARTMENT )
OF AGRICULTURE, ex rel. FARM
)
SERVICE AGENCY; and JOHN DOE,
)
occupant,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
HEATH D. GAISFORD, an individual;
)
ALISHA LOUISE GAISFORD, an
)
individual; DENNIS IRVIN GAISFORD, )
an individual; and LOLA FAYE
)
GAISFORD, an individual,
)
)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RIFFEL LAW FIRM, PLLC, a
)
Professional Limited Liability Company, )
CRAIG RIFFEL, an individual;
)
KATRESA RIFFEL, an individual; and
)
JONATHAN F. BENHAM, an individual, )
)
Counterclaim Defendants.
)

No. CIV-20-616-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Counter-Defendants Riffel Law Firm, PLLC, Craig Riffel, Katresa Riffel, and
Jonathan Benham (“Counter-Defendants”) have filed a Motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) seeking dismissal of the counterclaims alleged against them.

According to

Counter-Defendants, the allegations in the Amended Counterclaim fail to state a claim for
relief. After consideration of the allegations in Counter-Defendants’ Motion the Court
finds it should be denied. The claims in the Amended Counterclaim could have been more
artfully drafted or could have offered additional factual details. Nevertheless, even in their
present state, the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Additionally, to the extent
the Motion seeks dismissal of the claims against Katresa Riffel, Counter-Defendants’
Motion seeks resolution of a factual dispute. Of course, that action is improper at this
stage.
As set forth more fully herein, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Gaisford Defendants’ Amended Counterclaims (Dkt. No. 42) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February 2021.

2