Big Cat Rescue Corp v. GW Exotic Memorial Animal Foundation
5:14-cv-00377
W.D. Okla.Sep 11, 2017Background
- Big Cat Rescue obtained judgments totaling $1,028,000 against G.W. Exotic Animal Memorial Foundation and related entities; an Agreed Judgment found Garold Wayne Zoo a successor and entered judgment against it as well.
- Garold Wayne Zoo ceased operations Feb 8, 2016; Greater Wynnewood opened Feb 15, 2016; Big Cat Rescue moved ex parte for appointment of a receiver over Greater Wynnewood and the court initially granted an ex parte receivership order.
- Greater Wynnewood filed an intervenor complaint alleging wrongful receivership, abuse of process, tortious interference, and sought declaratory relief; it alleges Big Cat Rescue coerced an employee (Horn) to breach a confidentiality agreement and divulge proprietary information.
- Big Cat Rescue moved to dismiss Greater Wynnewood’s intervenor complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court applied the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard, accepting intervenor allegations as true for purposes of the motion.
- The court later vacated the March 14, 2016 receivership order and set briefing on the receiver motion; it noted that a future appointment of a receiver could affect the viability of wrongful-receivership and abuse-of-process claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Declaratory judgment: is there an actual justiciable controversy? | Big Cat Rescue: no justiciable controversy; complaint is nonjusticiable and formulaic. | Greater Wynnewood: seeks declaration that it is not successor liable and to end alleged abusive conduct. | Dismissed for failure to plead sufficient facts; leave to amend granted. |
| Wrongful receivership: did Big Cat Rescue wrongfully procure a receiver? | Big Cat Rescue: insufficient facts to state wrongful receivership. | Greater Wynnewood: receiver was obtained ex parte without notice/hearing and to coerce/harm Greater Wynnewood. | Survives 12(b)(6); claim not dismissed (subject to later developments). |
| Abuse of process: did Big Cat Rescue misuse judicial process for improper ends? | Big Cat Rescue: allegations insufficient. | Greater Wynnewood: process used to coerce payment, injure business, and force closure. | Survives 12(b)(6); claim not dismissed. |
| Tortious interference: did Big Cat Rescue induce breach of employee confidentiality? | Big Cat Rescue: pleading fails to show malicious, wrongful interference. | Greater Wynnewood: alleges Big Cat Rescue coerced employee Horn to breach confidentiality to obtain litigation advantage and harm business. | Survives 12(b)(6); claim not dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (12(b)(6) assessment considers elements of claims)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (court construes plaintiff's factual allegations favorably at pleading stage)
- Wagoner Oil & Gas Co. v. Marlow, 278 P. 294 (Oklahoma law on remedies for wrongfully procuring receivership)
- Greenberg v. Wolfberg, 890 P.2d 895 (abuse of process requires use of process for ulterior illegitimate purpose)
- Tuffy's, Inc. v. City of Okla. City, 212 P.3d 1158 (elements and malice requirement for tortious interference)