Cox v. Board of County Commissioners of Kingfisher County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: July 2, 2020
• Docket: 5:20-cv-00104
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOE COX and MANDY COX, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-20-104-SLP ) BOARD OF COUNTY ) COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY ) OF KINGFISHER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

Before the Court is Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Supporting Brief [Doc. No. 19]. Defendants move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim for abuse of process brought against Defendant Banther. In response, Plaintiffs state that they “do not oppose” dismissal of this claim but ask that the claim be dismissed without prejudice. Pls.’ Resp. [Doc. No. 21] at 1. Defendants did not file a reply and the time for doing so has expired. See LCvR 7.1(i). Upon the Court’s own review, and further based on Plaintiffs’ concession, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action setting forth an abuse of process claim, see Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 15], ¶¶ 68-70, should be dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for abuse of process under applicable Oklahoma law. See, e.g., Allen v. Town of Colcord, Okla., 874 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1290-91 (N.D. Okla. 2012) (setting forth elements). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Supporting Brief [Doc. No. 19] is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ abuse of process claim is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2™ day of July, 2020.

L#tZ bbb SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE