STRICKLEN v. O.I.P.M., L.L.C.
394 P.3d 290
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Stricklen was the named defendant in a collection suit by O.I.P.M. for unpaid medical bills; Fisher & Fisher represented OIPM and hired Anderson to serve process.
- Anderson filed an affidavit claiming personal service on Stricklen; no answer was filed and Fisher & Fisher obtained a default judgment and began garnishment.
- Stricklen retained counsel, who informed Fisher & Fisher she had not been served; Fisher & Fisher suspended garnishment and later voluntarily vacated the default judgment; the underlying collection action remains pending.
- Stricklen filed a separate suit alleging fraud, deceit, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional tort, slander, and wrongful garnishment based on the allegedly false service affidavit.
- Appellees moved to dismiss under 12 O.S. §2012(B)(6), arguing litigation-related communications are privileged and no civil remedy exists for such misconduct; the trial court ultimately dismissed all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether litigation-related statements (affidavit of service) give rise to a civil claim | Stricklen: Anderson lied in his affidavit; resulting judgment and garnishment were wrongful and actionable | Appellees: Litigation privilege and Oklahoma law bar civil claims for litigation-related misconduct; such matters belong in the underlying case | Dismissed — litigation privilege and precedent bar a separate civil action for these allegations |
| Whether wrongful garnishment claim stated a cause of action | Stricklen: Garnishment was wrongful because judgment was void and obtained by fraud | Appellees: No factual allegations that garnished property was not Stricklen’s or that garnishment process was irregular; claim is a collateral attack | Dismissed — claim only alleges collateral attack on judgment and relies on privileged communications |
| Whether the plaintiff must raise defenses in the underlying action rather than a new suit | Stricklen: Brought independent suit to vindicate harms from alleged fraud and garnishment | Appellees: Alleged misconduct is a defense in the underlying collection action and subject to sanctions there | Dismissed — alleged wrongs are defenses/sanctions matters for the underlying proceeding |
| Whether Anderson preserved the defense in his motion to dismiss | Stricklen: Argued Anderson failed to preserve "civil immunity" defense | Anderson: Motion argued failure to state a cause because no civil remedy exists for litigation misconduct (substantively the immunity argument) | Held preserved — Anderson articulated the legal theory adequately despite not using the term "civil immunity" |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson Investment Co. v. Chevaillier, 988 P.2d 327 (Okla. 1999) (recognizes litigation privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings)
- Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc., 987 P.2d 1185 (Okla. 1999) (Oklahoma provides no civil action for damages caused by perjury or litigation-related misconduct)
- Lockhart v. Loosen, 943 P.2d 1074 (Okla. 1997) (standard of review for dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- General Supply Co. v. Pinnacle Drilling Fluids, Inc., 806 P.2d 71 (Okla. 1991) (describes wrongful garnishment and grounds to dissolve garnishment)