Adewale Eniola Tawose v. Matthew L. Winton, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma strikes Plaintiff Adewale Eniola Tawose’s 111-page amended complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, leaving the original complaint operative. The court denies as moot a motion to strike the amended complaint and denies motions to dismiss based on insufficient service and personal jurisdiction, quashing the initial service attempt and allowing Defendants to challenge a second attempt. The court dismisses several claims against the Winton Defendants, including gross negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, concealment, slander of title, and portions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims.

Holdings

1. The 111-page amended complaint was needlessly prolix, repetitive, and evidentiary in detail, and failed to provide a short and plain statement of the claims required by Rule 8(a)(2). The court struck the amended complaint and left the original complaint operative.
2. The court quashed Plaintiff's initial service attempt rather than dismissing the action and denied the related motions to dismiss. The defendants were permitted to show cause why Plaintiff's second service attempt was deficient.
3. Plaintiff failed to state gross-negligence claims against attorneys acting on behalf of an opposing client because he did not establish that the attorneys owed him a legal duty.
4. The fraud, constructive-fraud, fraudulent-misrepresentation, and concealment or suppression claims were dismissed because the allegations lacked Rule 9(b) particularity, Plaintiff failed to establish a duty to disclose, and Oklahoma law provides no independent civil remedy for the alleged litigation misconduct.
5. Plaintiff's slander-of-title claims against the Winton Defendants were dismissed because the allegedly false statements of judgment were privileged publications made in connection with judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
6. Plaintiff's FDCPA claims were dismissed. The court found the § 1692f allegations did not identify unfair collection means, the timely § 1692e allegation was inadequately substantiated under Rule 8, and the court could not determine on the pleadings whether the bankruptcy proof-of-claim theory was cognizable under the FDCPA.
7. Plaintiff failed to state an abuse-of-process claim because he alleged that defendants filed and pursued litigation for improper motives but did not identify an improper use of process or a definite act or threat unauthorized by the process.
8. Plaintiff's civil-conspiracy claims were dismissed because the allegations were conclusory and because civil conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort, which Plaintiff had not pleaded.
9. Plaintiff failed to state an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the complaint contained conclusory allegations and the alleged litigation and collection conduct was not plausibly extreme and outrageous.
10. The court denied Defendant Welch's claim-preclusion motion. Although the prior OCPA dismissal became a final judgment on the merits after Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, Plaintiff plausibly alleged that a pending judicial-disqualification proceeding deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to litigate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's amended complaint should be stricken for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
2. Whether the initial service on the Silverhawk Defendants was insufficient and whether the service should be quashed rather than the action dismissed.
3. Whether the complaint stated claims against the Winton Defendants for gross negligence, constructive fraud, fraudulent or false misrepresentation, concealment or suppression, slander of title, FDCPA violations, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4. Whether claim preclusion barred Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Andrew Welch based on the prior Tawose II action.

Disposition

other