The 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