African American Chamber of Commerce v. Walton et al

Filing 23

OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#6] or in the alternative to Make More Definite and Certain is DENIED except as to Plaintiff's third claim, which is DISMISSED as MOOT. Signed on 12/7/09 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (mkk)

Download PDF
FIlEJr09 f£C (fl15f8JS1:iIP I N T H E U N I T E D STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E DISTRICT OF O R E G O N AFRICAN AMERICAN C H A M B E R O F C O M M E R C E , a n O r e g o n Nonprofit Corporation Plaintiff, v. E L B E R T A. W A L T O N ; E T AL., Defendants. A l e c J. L a i d l a w L A I D L AW & L A I D L A W , P C 4 8 0 0 S.W. M e a d o w s R o a d , S u i t e 3 0 0 L a k e Oswego, O R 97035 A t t o r n e y for P l a i n t i f f E l b e r t A. W a l t o n M E T R O L A W FIRM, LLC 2 3 2 0 Chambers R o a d St. Louis, M O 63136 A t t o r n e y for D e f e n d a n t s ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09-1090-JO OPINION A N D O R D E R JONES, Judge: P l a i n t i f f A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e b r i n g s this a c t i o n 1 a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s Elbert Walton Jr. and Metro Law Firm, LLC, alleging claims for intentional interference w i t h economic relations, libel, and "pierce corporate vei1." I n essence, p l a i n t i f f alleges that i n February 2009, Walton, a licensed Missouri lawyer, acting i n the course and scope o f his role as a m e m b e r and m a n a g e r o f M e t r o L a w F i r m , i n t e n t i o n a l l y e n g a g e d i n a d e f a m a t o r y a n d l i b e l o u s e m a i l and l e t t e r w r i t i n g c a m p a i g n t h a t i n t e r f e r e d w i t h p l a i n t i f f s e x i s t i n g a n d p r o s p e c t i v e e c o n o m i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n Oregon. P l a i n t i f f f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i v i t i e s a r o s e o u t o f W a l t o n ' s d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s p r o b l e m s i n t h e state o f M i s s o u r i . The case is n o w before t h e court o n defendants' j o i n t m o t i o n (# 6) to dismiss p l a i n t i f f s second amended complaint o r i n the alternative to make more defInite and certain. F o r the reasons explained below, defendants' motion (# 6) is denied except w i t h respect to p l a i n t i f f s third claim, which is dismissed as moot. DISCUSSION D e f e n d a n t s s e e k d i s m i s s a l o f t h e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t o n t h e f o l l o w i n g grounds: 1. 2. 3. 4. P l a i n t i f f has failed to allege legal capacity to sue; P l a i n t i f f is not the real party in interest; P l a i n t i f f h a s failed t o j o i n i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s ; P l a i n t i f f h a s failed t o s t a t e a c l a i m b e c a u s e a s a n o n p r o f I t c o r p o r a t i o n , i t c a n n o t s u f f e r a n y e c o n o m i c o r b u s i n e s s loss; and P l a i n t i f f fIled this act~on i n Clackamas County Circuit Court. Defendants removed it to this court o n the basis o f diversity jurisdiction i n September 2009. The complaint a t i s s u e i n this m o t i o n i s p l a i n t i f f s S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t . 1 2 - OPINION A N D O R D E R 5. P l a i n t i f f has failed to state a claim to pierce the corporate veil because Metro Law F i n n i s a limited liability company, a n d b e c a u s e p l a i n t i f f h a s n o t c l a i m e d a n y a c t i o n o n t h e p a r t o f M e t r o L a w F i I m g i v i n g r i s e t o a s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t t o p i e r c e t h e c o r p o r a t e veil. I n the alternative, defendants seek an order requiring p l a i n t i f f to m a k e its claims m o r e definite and certain. I a d d r e s s t h e s e arguments i n t u m . 1. a. M O T I O N S T O DISMISS Failure to Allege Capacity to Sue D e f e n d a n t s argue t h a t p l a i n t i f f , a n o n p r o f i t corporation, m u s t a l l e g e t h a t i t s b o a r d o f directors authorized this action, citing a Second Circuit case, Meredith v. T h e Ionian Trader, 279 F.2d 471 (2nd Cir. 1960), and a version o f Rule 9(a) that does n o t exist i n the current Federal R u l e s o f Civil P r o c e d u r e . S e e D e f e n d a n t ' s W a l t o n a n d M e t r o ' s F i r s t A m e n d e d J o i n t Memorandum, p. 2. I n any event, defendants are incorrect about the law. B y statute, an Oregon nonprofit corporation has the general power to "[s]ue and b e sued, complain and defend i n its corporate name," O.R.S. 65.077(1), unless the articles o f incorporation provide otherwise, which is an issue not presently before the court. Moreover, Rule 9(a), contrary to defendants' rendition, specifically provides that a party's capacity to sue o r be sued need n o t b e alleged, "[ e ]xcept when required to show that the court has jurisdiction . . . . " Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(a). This court's jurisdiction has not been challenged, consequently, defendants' motion w i t h respect to capacity to sue lacks merit and is denied. 3 - OPINION A N D O R D E R b. Real PartY i n Interest As d e f e n d a n t s c o r r e c t l y o b s e r v e , " a n a c t i o n m u s t b e p r o s e c u t e d i n t h e n a m e o f t h e r e a l party in interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a). Contrary to defendants' argument, however, p l a i n t i f f does i n fact allege that defendants' actions were intended to injure plaintiff. See. e.g., Second Amended Complaint, ~ 7, 10-11, 15. Whether plaintiff can support those allegations with evidence is a question n o t properly framed on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss. Consequently, defendants' motion with respect to real party i n interest is denied. c. J o i n d e r o f Indispensable Parties Defendants contend that p l a i n t i f f has failed to j o i n the actual target o f the alleged d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s , b u t m a k e s no a d d i t i o n a l a r g u m e n t i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s m o t i o n . F o r t h e reasons set forth i n subsection 1(b), this motion also is denied. d. A b i l i t y t o S u f f e r E c o n o m i c H a r m o r B u s i n e s s Loss Defendants' argument w i t h respect to this motion seems to b e t h a t nonprofit corporations are unable, b y their very nature as nonprofit, to suffer any economic harm. Defendants have failed to provide any persuasive authority for this novel proposition, and I decline to accept it. W h e t h e r p l a i n t i f f did o r d i d n o t s u f f e r d a m a g e s i s n o t a n i s s u e p r o p e r l y f r a m e d b y t h e p r e s e n t motion to dismiss, and this motion is denied. e. Pierce C o m o r a t e Veil Defendants have judicially admitted that Walton and Metro Law Firm, LLC, are one and the same. See October 21, 2009, Minute Order (dkt # 19). Consequently, p l a i n t i f f s third claim, "Pierce Corporate Veil," is moot and is dismissed. 4 - OPINION A N D O R D E R 2. M O T I O N T O M A K E M O R E DEFINITE A N D C E R T A l N D e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d that p l a i n t i f f s claims a r e n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y d e f i n i t e a n d c e r t a i n b e c a u s e p l a i n t i f f h a s not attached the alleged emails, letters, and other correspondence as exhibits to the complaint. Defendants overlook that the federal pleading rules do n o t require such specificity. Instead, all that is required is " a short and plain statement o f the claim showing that t h e pleader is entitled to r e l i e f . . . . n Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a)(2). The Supreme Court has explained that "[s]uch a statement must simply 'give the defendant fair notice o f what the p l a i n t i f f s claim is and the grounds upon which i t rests.'" Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 5 0 6 , 5 1 2 (2002)(citation omitted). T h e s i m p l i f i e d n o t i c e p l e a d i n g s t a n d a r d t h u s " r e l i e s o n l i b e r a l d i s c o v e r y r u l e s a n d summary j u d g m e n t motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose o f unmeritorious claims. n Id. (citations omitted). D e f e n d a n t s d o n o t a c t u a l l y s u g g e s t t h a t t h e y h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d fair n o t i c e o f w h a t p l a i n t i f f s claims are o r the grounds upon which they rest. Indeed, defendants have submitted the emails and other documents at issue to the court as exhibits to their motions. Because these are Rule 12 motions, I have not considered defendants ' evidentiary submissions, and note only that defendants have failed to persuade m e that they do not comprehend the nature o f p l a i n t i f f s claims. W h e t h e r e i t h e r o f p l a i n t i f f s c l a i m s h a v e m e r i t i s a n i s s u e t o b e d e t e r m i n e d o n s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o r at t r i a l a f t e r a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c o v e r y . D e f e n d a n t s ' R u l e 1 2 ( e ) m o t i o n i s d e n i e d . 5 - OPINION A N D O R D E R CONCLUSION Defendants' motion (# 6) to dismiss o r i n the alternative m a k e m o r e definite and certain is DENIED except as to p l a i n t i f f s third claim, which is DISMISSED as M O O T . DATED this 7th day o f December, 2009. 6 - OPINION A N D O R D E R

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?