THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
THR33SIX8, an individual,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ALBERTWELLESLEY, in his official capacity
as associate director of the Ridgeway State Bar,
RASHHYYYY, and COMPLAINAINTS, who
are defendants under a pseudonym.
Defendants.
RSC-CV-8427
DEFENDANT RASHHYYYY'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Presiding Judge: Hon. N/A
Defendant rashhyyyy ('Defendant') respectfully moves this Court to dismiss all claims asserted against
him in the Complaint — Tort #3 (Abuse of Process), Tort #4 (Tortious Interference), and Tort #5
(Fraud) — with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In support,
Defendant states as follows:
I. LEGAL STANDARD
1. A complaint must be dismissed where, taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, the plaintiff
can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Bare legal conclusions — such as an allegation that
conduct was "vexatious" or "fraudulent" — are not entitled to a presumption of truth and must be
supported by well-pled facts.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Tort #5 (Fraud) Fails Because the Complaint Pleads Opinion, Not a False Statement of Fact.
2. Fraud requires a knowingly false statement of material fact. Plaintiff's own Complaint quotes
Defendant's statement as beginning "In my opinion..." Compl. Statement of Facts ¶ 20. An opinion,
expressly labeled as such, cannot form the basis of a fraud claim as a matter of law.
3. Moreover, the factual predicate underlying that opinion — that Defendant arrested Plaintiff for
attempted murder and unlawful firearm possession — is nowhere alleged to be false. Compl. Statement
of Facts ¶ 19. Nor could it be: Plaintiff's own conduct, as depicted in the video evidence already before
the Bar (Disclosures Ex. 3; Suppl. Decl. Ex. 14), independently corroborates the arrest. Truth is a
complete defense to fraud, and the Complaint pleads no facts to overcome it.
4. The Complaint also fails to plead reasonable reliance or resulting damage flowing specifically from
any false statement of fact, as opposed to the Bar's own independent legal analysis under a
separately-issued ethics letter. Compl. Statement of Facts ¶¶ 29–34. Fraud cannot rest on a defendant's
opinion where an independent government body performed its own review before acting.
B. Tort #3 (Abuse of Process) Fails Because the Complaint Pleads a Report Made for Its Intended
Purpose.
5. Abuse of process requires use of legal process for a purpose other than that for which it was
designed. A bar complaint process exists precisely to allow reports of suspected disqualifying conduct.
Plaintiff's own pleading establishes that Defendant reported an arrest he personally participated in for a
serious offense. Compl. Statement of Facts ¶ 19. That is the paradigm case of a complaint used for its
intended purpose, not an abuse of it.
6. The Bar Integrity Act's "active criminal" definition — which disqualifies a person "participating in
continuing criminal conduct" without regard to when charges were filed or whether they resulted in
conviction — independently supports that Defendant's complaint was directed at conduct the
Legislature itself chose to make disqualifying. A complaint aligned with the governing statute cannot,
as a matter of law, be "vexatious."
7. Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant "worried about the class action" (Compl. Tort #3 ¶ 5) is, at most,
evidence of motive, not of an improper use of process. Motive alone, without an allegation that the
process was used to achieve some collateral objective outside the scope of the process itself, is
insufficient to state a claim.
C. Tort #4 (Tortious Interference) Fails for Lack of Proximate Cause.
8. Plaintiff's own Complaint establishes that his license was suspended and his career interrupted only
after (a) the Bar independently opened an investigation, (b) the Bar interviewed Plaintiff, and (c) the
Board of Legal Ethics issued a separate letter raising five distinct charges under 3 R. Stat. § 411.101
and Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.1, 1.4, and 1.6 — none of which are alleged to have originated
with Defendant. Compl. Statement of Facts ¶¶ 15–34.
9. These intervening, independent acts of a government body exercising its own discretion break the
chain of proximate causation between Defendant's single complaint and Plaintiff's alleged injury. A
defendant cannot be liable for tortious interference where the plaintiff's own pleading shows that a third
party's independent judgment, not the defendant's report, caused the harm.
10. The Complaint also fails to plead facts isolating what portion, if any, of Plaintiff's alleged loss of
"around six clients" (Compl. Tort #4 ¶ 2) is attributable to Defendant's complaint specifically, as
opposed to the Board's separate ethics letter. Undifferentiated, aggregate damages cannot support a
claim against a single alleged tortfeasor among several independent causes.
III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant rashhyyyy respectfully requests that this Court:
1. DISMISS with prejudice all claims asserted against Defendant, including Tort #3 (Abuse of
Process), Tort #4 (Tortious Interference), and Tort #5 (Fraud);
2. DENY Plaintiff's request for $18,000 in punitive damages against Defendant;
3. AWARD Defendant his costs incurred in defending this action; and
4. GRANT such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ rashhyyyy
Defendant, pro se
