Bergman v. Moto
2:22-cv-00161
| W.D. Wash. | Jun 30, 2023Background
- Plaintiff reported to law enforcement that Defendant had abused and assaulted her.
- Defendant asserted counterclaims against Plaintiff alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and sought to assert abuse of process.
- Plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaims under the federal pleading standard.
- The Court applied Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards and Ninth Circuit rules about accepting allegations and considering documents and judicial notice.
- The Court dismissed the defamation claim (finding communications to police are privileged under Washington law and damages were insufficiently pleaded) and dismissed the IIED claim (holding seeking legal process, even maliciously, is not extreme/outrageous under Washington precedent).
- The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss but permitted Defendant to file a First Amended Counterclaim asserting abuse of process within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation: whether counterclaim survives | Plaintiff argued the report to police is privileged and the defamation claim fails to state facts showing falsity or damages | Defendant argued Plaintiff made false statements to police that harmed him | Dismissed: communications to government (police) are immune under RCW 4.24.510; damages inadequately pleaded |
| IIED: whether filing/reporting supports outrage claim | Plaintiff argued seeking legal process (reporting to police) cannot satisfy extreme/outrageous conduct required for IIED | Defendant argued Plaintiff acted maliciously and recklessly causing severe emotional distress | Dismissed: Washington precedent holds initiating legal process, even maliciously, is not sufficiently outrageous for IIED |
| Leave to amend for abuse of process | Plaintiff sought dismissal of counterclaims | Defendant sought leave to assert abuse of process | Granted: Court allowed filing of First Amended Counterclaim for abuse of process within 14 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applied and clarified plausibility standard)
- Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2007) (pleading standards and accepting factual allegations)
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (court need not accept conclusory allegations contradicted by referenced documents)
- Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006) (courts may consider documents central to claims and not subject to authenticity dispute)
- United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (judicial notice may be considered on motions to dismiss)
- Herron v. KING Broad. Co., 112 Wash.2d 762 (1989) (elements of defamation under Washington law)
- Kloepfel v. Bokor, 149 Wn.2d 192 (2003) (elements required for IIED in Washington)
- Saldviar v. Momah, 145 Wash.App. 365 (2008) (holding filing suit or seeking legal process, even under false pretenses, did not constitute IIED)