Big Cat Rescue Corp v. Schreibvogel
5:16-cv-00155
W.D. Okla.Sep 11, 2017Background
- Big Cat Rescue filed an amended complaint alleging fraudulent transfers (actual and constructive) against Shirley Schreibvogel and constructive trust/equitable lien against assets conveyed to Greater Wynnewood Development Group, LLC (Greater Wynnewood D.G.).
- Greater Wynnewood D.G. filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging abuse of process against Big Cat Rescue, claiming the lawsuit was filed to coerce surrender of property and payment of debts belonging to third parties.
- Schreibvogel sought leave to amend her answer to add a nearly identical abuse-of-process counterclaim against Big Cat Rescue.
- Big Cat Rescue moved to dismiss Greater Wynnewood D.G.’s abuse-of-process counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike numerous affirmative defenses under Rule 12(f) as conclusory or improperly pleaded.
- The district court evaluated pleading standards (Twombly/Iqbal) and Oklahoma law on abuse of process, focusing on whether plaintiffs alleged a definite act or threat beyond filing the lawsuit itself.
- The court dismissed Greater Wynnewood D.G.’s counterclaim with prejudice (amendment futile), denied Schreibvogel’s motion to add the same counterclaim, and granted the motion to strike the affirmative defenses but gave Greater Wynnewood D.G. leave to amend its answer to properly plead affirmative defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greater Wynnewood D.G.’s abuse-of-process counterclaim states a claim | The filing of the lawsuit is not a wrongful use of process; counterclaim lacks a definite act or threat beyond filing | The suit was filed to coerce surrender of property/payment of debts of third parties — an improper ulterior purpose causing damage | Dismissed: filing the suit alone, amid a bona fide dispute over title, fails to plead an abuse-of-process; amendment would be futile |
| Whether Schreibvogel may amend to add an abuse-of-process counterclaim | N/A (Big Cat Rescue opposes) | Schreibvogel seeks leave to add a counterclaim mirroring Greater Wynnewood D.G.’s (ulterior purpose coercion) | Denied: claim is not viable for same reasons as Greater Wynnewood D.G.’s counterclaim |
| Whether Greater Wynnewood D.G.’s affirmative defenses should be stricken under Rule 12(f) | Defenses are boilerplate, conclusory, and provide no factual basis; should be stricken | Defenses give fair notice and are plausible based on the case history | Granted in part: defenses struck for failure to meet Twombly/Iqbal; court grants leave to amend to plead affirmative defenses with factual support |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Greenberg v. Wolfberg, 890 P.2d 895 (Okla. 1994) (abuse of process requires improper use of process for ulterior purpose)
- Meyers v. Ideal Basic Indus., Inc., 940 F.2d 1379 (10th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff must show a definite act or threat not authorized by process for abuse of process)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (elements of a claim inform plausibility analysis under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (court construes well-pleaded facts in plaintiff's favor when evaluating a complaint)