RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
RichardLennox,
Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew_DeRosa,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. RSC-CV-2876
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION
TO DISMISS
Plaintiff RichardLennox (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully submits this response opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
the Ridgeway Rules of Evidence, Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure, and Ridgeway
Rules of Professional Conduct. For the reasons set forth below, the motion should be
denied in its entirety.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss, supported by the Ridgeway Rules of
Evidence, Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Ridgeway Rules of Professional
Conduct. In the motion, Defendant claims that Plaintiff has failed to jointly prosecute
AfricaFarmer, a third-party person who potentially participated in the incident. Defendant
also accuses the Plaintiff of demonstrating an abuse of process because of a privately
made statement by the Defendant. Lastly, Defendant believes there to be insufficient and
speculative evidence, based on Plaintiff’s inability to determine which person shot the
last bullet that would ultimately kill Plaintiff.
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT REQUIRED TO JOIN THIRD-PARTY PERSON
Defendant claims that AfricaFarmer is a "indispensable party" and that failure to
join him results in dismissal. This is incorrect. According to Rid. R. Civ. P. 15, joinder is
only required when a party is both necessary and indispensable, which means that the
court cannot offer comprehensive remedy without jeopardizing the absent party's interest.
In this case, total relief can be provided only to Plaintiff and Mr. Andrew_DeRosa
(Defendant), because the complaint asserts that Defendant personally fired rounds at
Plaintiff, causing significant harm and thus bears individual blame for wrongful death.
Defendant was not required to precisely fire the last, deadly bullet in order to be
exclusively accountable for wrongful death; however, their act of shooting repeatedly at
Plaintiff obviously makes them culpable for wrongful death.
Even if AfricaFarmer were potentially liable, joint tortfeasors need not be joined in
civil litigation. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498
U.S. 5 (1990), “It is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a
single lawsuit.”
Moreover, the Plaintiff’s decision not to sue AfricaFarmer was a deliberate
litigation choice based on jurisdictional and practical concerns. The account has only one
friend, the Defendant, and one could call it a crime-alt account. At the time of the
shooting, AfricaFarmer was a tourist in Ridgeway, and Plaintiff assumed that the Court
would not have jurisdiction over their conduct in a private matter. This does not preclude
recovery from a tortfeasor like Andrew_DeRosa, against whom liability is properly
pleaded and supported by video evidence.
Relief requested: Deny dismissal for failure to join a party.
THE “ABUSE OF PROCESS” ARGUMENT MISCHARACTERIZES
PLAINTIFF’S INTENT
Defendant misrepresents a discovery response to argue that this lawsuit is
retaliatory. Plaintiff’s interrogatory answer admitted to making a flippant, non-serious
comment in communication, not as a genuine intent to misuse judicial resources.
Importantly:
- Plaintiff has never filed a frivolous or duplicative claim
- Plaintiff has articulated a clear factual and legal basis for the claim
- The complaint is rooted in video evidence, witness testimony, and statue
- The damages sought are limited to $5,000, further undercutting the suggestion of a
vindictive or excessive litigation strategy
Under Christiansburg, sanctions are warranted only when a case is entirely without legal
merit and brought in bad-faith, a high bar not remotely met here. Defendant’s motion
improperly tries to chill legitimate claims by invoking Rules of Professional Misconduct
without showing actual misconduct.
Relief requested: Deny dismissal and decline to impose sanctions
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATES A VIABLE CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL
DEATH
Defendant incorrectly claims that Plaintiff fails to state a claim due to “speculative
evidence.” On the contrary, the complaint:
- Alleges a plausible, coherent timeline supported by multiple videos;
- Specifically states Defendant was the first shooter, used a firearm, and continued
firing at Plaintiff;
- Identifies a witness who can testify to Defendant’s conduct.
Under Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint need only state a plausible claim, not prove
liability at the pleading stage. Plaintiff’s allegations are far beyond mere conclusions,
they are grounded in video, admissions, and eyewitness testimony.
Moreover, any issues about “who fired the last bullet” go to the weight and credibility of
the evidence, not whether the claim survives a motion to dismiss. This issue is for the
jury/bench, not for pretrial dismissal.
Relief requested: Deny dismissal under Rule 12.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
1. Deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety;
2. Allow this case to proceed to trial on the merits; and
3. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
