RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
Trooper_Novich, Arthur_Chen
Plaintiffs, cross-defendants,
v.
Tobyrulles4568,
Defendant, cross-plaintiff.
RESPONSE
RSC-CV-3102
Hon. Notsfeelings
RESPONSE
DEFENDANT, by and through the undersigned counsel, does file this response to the
motion to dismiss the counterclaim.
ARGUMENT
The Plaintiff, or cross-defendant, contends in their motion to dismiss that the
Defendant, or cross-plaintiff, fails to plead facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of abuse of process. E.g., xLazerify v. StudsPerSecond, 1 Rid. __, __ (2023) (slip op. at
3). Their contention is that this, if proven true, warrants dismissal with prejudice. Yet
the Plaintiff is wrong at every step of their analysis.
I. THE STANDARD
xLazerify announced nothing new. In fact, Federal and Ridgeway courts have
recognized the need for a complaint to plead “factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,”
xLazerify, supra (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550U.s. 544. 556). For the sake
of analysis, courts are empowered to take the facts pleaded in the complaint as true. And
if a court finds that, on the highest ground, there are insufficient facts pleaded, the
complaint can be dismissed.
In this case, the Court is analyzing whether the counterclaim complaint pleads
factual content sufficient to justify an abuse of process claim. Having determined the
point of clash, and how to analyze it, the next step is to determine the elements of abuse
of process.
II. THE ELEMENTS AND THE ANALYSIS
When congress passed the Civil Claims Act, it delineated certain torts and the
elements thereof. Abuse of process, codified as 1 R. Stat. § 3112, is defined as:
Any individual who abuses a legal process such as a court proceeding or
administrative proceeding by means of providing vexatious, fraudulent, or
frivolous complaints to get another in trouble shall be liable for injunctive
relief and punitive damages up to $5,000.
In analyzing this statute, this court utilizes the plain text of the statute, ensuring that
words and phrases are taken within their proper context. Ridgeway Parks Service v.
SteKing2008, 1 Rid. __, __ (2022) (slip op. at 6). This analysis leads the court to three
elements. For liability a prospective plaintiff must prove:
1. That the defendant filed a complaint or suit against the Plaintiff;
2. That the defendant’s suit or complaint is vexatious, fraudulent, or frivolous; and,
3. That the defendant did so to get the Plaintiff in trouble.
First, the counter-defendant’s assertion that there are any more elements
unnecessarily obfuscates the simplicity of legislative enactment. In fact, it is a complete,
unequivocal departure from SteKing2008’s mandate that only the plain language
should be used. Consequently, this court should reject it wholesale.
Second, the counter-defendant’s other assertion that the counterclaimant fails to
meet their second, third, and fourth elements is false for two key reasons. First, refer to
and apply the argument made in the paragraph directly above this one. This Court
cannot trust the analysis of a motion that departs from the legislative mandate—to do so
would be manifest heresy. Next, the counterclaimant clearly pleads facts sufficient to
warrant an inference of liability.
On the first element, that the defendant filed suit against the plaintiff, this is
satisfied: even the counter-defendant says so. Motion to Dismiss at 3 (“Counter-Plaintiff
has shown that Cross-Plaintiff is party to a legal process”). This is clean conceded, and
no further analysis is warranted.
The next element requires that the filing be “vexatious, fraudulent, or frivolous.”
Before continuing, it is important to define terms. Merriam-Webster defines vexatious
as “lacking a sufficient ground and serving only to annoy or harass when viewed
objectively,”1 fraudulent as “characterized by, based on, or done by fraud”2 and frivolous
as “having no sound basis (as in fact or law).”3 Looking back to the counterclaim, it
would take only a blind man to view the counter-defendant’s assertion as factual, in fact,
this line of argumentation is vexatious and fraudulent. In paragraph five of the
counterclaim, sufficient factual basis is established as the counterclaimant very plainly
asserts that the basis for the initial suit is “clearly false,” Counterclaim, at 1. Accepting
this fact as true, it is clear to see that the initial suit–which spurred the
counterclaim–heras no sound basis, and is serving only to annoy or harass. In short: the
second element is met.
The final element is that it was the intention of the defendant to get the Plaintiff
in trouble. To get someone in trouble is to cause them trouble. And to cause them
trouble is to cause them difficulty or problems–something the counter-defendant’s suit
3 “Frivolous.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frivolous. Accessed 25 Jun. 2024.
2 “Fraudulent.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraudulent. Accessed 25 Jun. 2024.
1 ““Vexatious.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vexatious. Accessed 25 Jun. 2024.
clearly does. Some specific difficulties that arise from the filing of a suit can be boiled
down to cost. While filing a lawsuit is cheap, defending one is not: a given defendant
must retain a lawyer, file responses, and bear the costs thereof. Cognizant of this, the
legislature provided no requirement to prove mental state–except to prove that the
intention was to cause difficulty or problems; and the counterclaimant plainly argues
this. In line six of the counterclaim, the claimant asserts that the counter-defendant
negligently filed a suit against him, without taking time to verify the veracity of the
allegations. A summation of the allegation is found one line later, when asserted that the
counter-defendant “did file a vexatious and frivolous complaint to this Court,
irrespective of the true facts of the case,” Counterclaim, at 1. These two lines, when taken
as true, provide a clear factual basis that establishes at least an inference of liability on
behalf of the counter-defendant. In making this determination, the court ought to err on
the side of the claimant given the nature of abuse of process suits, as they are intended
to be a deterrent against frivolous claims like the counter-defendant’s. Consequently,
the third element is satisfied.
One final note, the counterclaimant does not need to prove special damages–only
the standard injury that is required of prospective litigants under the “case” or
“controversy” clause. These harms are very much present. While there is a low bar for
suits, this court does have a backbone: a Plaintiff cannot make a baseless claim and
expect to walk away unscathed, especially when the allegations made threaten the
defendant’s professional standing as an attorney.
III. WITH AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The counter defendant’s final assertion in their motion is that the counterclaim
ought to be dismissed with prejudice. This is erroneous
A dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits. Portillo v.
Cunningham, 872 F.3d 728; Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497,
505. While pre-Twombly, dismissal for failure to plead would be appropriate,
post-Twombly, it is not, as courts ought to grant litigants an opportunity to replead
liberally. It is only then, that if a complaint still fails to plead facts sufficient, then
dismissal is warranted. Barnhill v. Terrell, 616 F. App'x 23; Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav.
Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795-96 .
CONCLUSION
The fact of the matter is, the counter-defendant has filed a half-baked attempt at
dismissing a counterclaim that is stronger than the original claim. Their primary
contention–that the counterclaim fails to plead sufficient facts–is dismantled at every
avenue. Their secondary assertion that dismissal with prejudice is warranted also fails,
given the context of their motion.
These two reasons withstanding, the court ought to deny the motion to dismiss.
Respectfully Submitted, 06/25/24
HolyRomanRyan
Counsel of Record
Attorney at Law
Bar #17105
