Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00133/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00133-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 

JOHN L. HENDRIX,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DANNY S. DAVIS, ESCOPETA OIL & 

GAS CORPORATION, and ALLEN 

LAWRENCE BERRY, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:24-cv-00103-SLG 

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS 

Before the Court at Docket 7 is Defendant Allen Lawrence Berry’s Rule 

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff John L. Hendrix filed an opposition to the 

motion at Docket 8, and Mr. Berry replied at Docket 12. Oral argument was not 

requested and was not necessary to the Court’s determination. 

BACKGROUND 

Mr. Hendrix alleges that on or about March 20, 2024, Defendant Danny S. 

Davis emailed a letter on Escopeta Oil letterhead to Alaska State Senator Cathy 

Giessel.1 The Complaint alleges that the letter contained statements intended to 

injure Mr. Hendrix’s reputation,2 and describes the contents of the letter as follows: 

14. In paragraph three of the letter, Davis states “all criminals are 

predictable”. 

1 Docket 1-1 (Compl.) at ¶ 12.

2 Docket 1-1 at ¶ 12.

Case 3:24-cv-00133-SLG Document 18 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 8
Case No. 3:24-cv-00133-SLG, Hendrix v. Davis et al.

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Page 2 of 8 

15. In paragraph four of the letter, Davis states, referring to Hendrix, 

that “[h]e has stolen over $45,000,000.00”. 

16. Also in paragraph four of the letter, Davis states “[h]e thinks he is 

above the law and will get away with his blatant theft”. 

17. Also in paragraph four of the letter, Davis states “his theft, fraud 

and breach of contracts”. 

18. In paragraph five of the letter, Davis states “due to his fraud, theft 

and poor overall performance as a prudent operator”. 

19. In paragraph six of the letter, Davis states “Mr. Hendrix and his 

crime syndicate... are extorting and blackmailing the State of Alaska”. 

20. In paragraph seven of the letter, Davis states “his word is no 

good”, referring to Hendrix. 

27. Also in paragraph seven, Davis states “he is a criminal that has 

stolen $45,000,000.00”. 

22. Also in paragraph seven, Davis states “[h]e has no respect for a 

written contract, whatsoever”. 

23. Also in paragraph seven, Davis states Hendrix is “stealing 

millions”. 

24. In paragraph ten, Davis states “the Crook Inlet crime boss”, 

referring to Hendrix.3

The Complaint also alleges that, in the week of February 26, 2024, the 

Alaska Landmine published an article referencing another letter provided to it by 

Mr. Davis.4 The allegations regarding the article published in the Alaska Landmine 

3 Docket 1-1 at ¶¶ 14–24.

4 Docket 1-1 at ¶ 27.

Case 3:24-cv-00133-SLG Document 18 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 8
Case No. 3:24-cv-00133-SLG, Hendrix v. Davis et al.

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Page 3 of 8 

include the following: 

28. “In the letter, Davis says Hendrix is a ‘liar and a thief’ and says the 

matter will be resolved in the Texas courts, where a lawsuit was filed 

in May of 2023.” 

29. “Davis says Hendrix owes him $11 million personally and asks 

what Hendrix has done with $100 million in tax credits he has 

received. ‘Criminals steal with a pen and a gun, either way they are 

criminals. We will prove you have stolen $30,000,000.00 from the 

working interest owners, and prevail in court. Out of the $100 million 

in tax credits you received, you should be reworking all wells now, but 

you lie to the State of Alaska, and you say you cannot afford the 

workovers, when I have already paid my way,’ Davis wrote.” 

30. “Davis told the Landmine, ‘Everything in the letter is true and we 

will prove it in the courts in Texas, and hopefully in the State of Alaska 

as well.’”5

The Complaint further alleges that Mr. Berry is one of the “working interest 

owners,”6 and that counsel for Mr. Hendrix’s company sent a letter “to Texas 

counsel for Davis, Berry and Taylor[,] demanding that they retract within 30 days 

the defamatory statements they had made . . . . ”7 Mr. Berry did not respond to 

the letter.8

Mr. Hendrix filed his Complaint in state court on May 23, 2024. Mr. Hendrix 

alleges one count of defamation. A separate count seeks punitive damages from 

all Defendants. Defendants removed this action to federal court—and this Court 

5 Docket 1-1 at ¶¶ 28–30.

6 Docket 1-1 at ¶ 11. 

7 Docket 1-1 at ¶ 33.

8 Docket 1-1 at ¶ 35.

Case 3:24-cv-00133-SLG Document 18 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 8
Case No. 3:24-cv-00133-SLG, Hendrix v. Davis et al.

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Page 4 of 8 

has jurisdiction—because there is complete diversity of citizenship between 

Plaintiff and Defendants and more than $75,000 is in controversy, exclusive of 

interest and costs.9 

On July 1, 2024, Mr. Berry filed the instant motion to dismiss the claims 

against him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting that 

the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable claim against 

him.

10

LEGAL STANDARD 

A party may seek dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 

for a complaint’s “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” “To 

survive a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6)], a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.’”11 A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant 

is liable for the misconduct alleged.”12 The Court must accept all well-pled 

allegations in the Complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable 

9 See Docket 1 (Notice of Removal); 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

10 Docket 7. 

11 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007)).

12 Id. at 678 (citation omitted).

Case 3:24-cv-00133-SLG Document 18 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 8
Case No. 3:24-cv-00133-SLG, Hendrix v. Davis et al.

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Page 5 of 8 

to the non-moving party.13 Nonetheless, “the trial court does not have to accept 

as true conclusory allegations in a complaint or legal claims asserted in the form 

of factual allegations.”14

When a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted, a court 

“should freely give leave [to amend the complaint] when justice so requires.”15

DISCUSSION 

Pursuant to Alaska state law, the elements of a defamation claim are: “(1) a 

false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) 

fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) the 

existence of either ‘per se’ action ability or special harm.”16 A complaint, therefore, 

must plead factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant bears some fault for the publication of the defamatory statement 

to a third party—either as the publisher or by directing or procuring another person 

to publish the defamatory matter.17 

Mr. Berry asserts that “the Complaint does not plausibly allege any false or 

defamatory statement made by Berry, any unprivileged publication to a third party 

13 Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). 

14 In re Tracht Gut, LLC, 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016).

15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

16 MacDonald v. Riggs, 166 P.3d 12, 15 (Alaska 2007) (citations omitted).

17 See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577 (1977) (“One is liable for the publication of defamation 

by a third person whom as his servant, agent or otherwise he directs or procures to publish 

defamatory matter.”). 

Case 3:24-cv-00133-SLG Document 18 Filed 12/05/24 Page 5 of 8
Case No. 3:24-cv-00133-SLG, Hendrix v. Davis et al.

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Page 6 of 8 

by Berry, or any fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of Berry.”18 Mr. 

Hendrix disagrees, asserting that both the Giessel letter and the letter referenced 

in the Landmine include defamatory statements expressly attributed to “we” and 

“the working interest owners,” and that those terms include Mr. Berry.19

The Court agrees with Mr. Berry that the Complaint does not plausibly allege 

that Mr. Berry published or caused to be published any of the allegedly defamatory 

remarks. On the contrary, the Complaint specifically attributes each statement to 

Mr. Davis.20

The references to “we” and the “working interest owners” do not, on the facts 

alleged, plausibly credit any of the allegedly defamatory statements to Mr. Berry. 

In his briefing, Mr. Hendrix points to two lines from Mr. Davis’s letter to the Alaska 

Landmine as demonstrating Mr. Berry’s responsibility for the statements therein: 

first, “[w]e will prove you have stolen $30,000,000.00 from the working interest 

owners, and prevail in court,” and second, “‘[e]verything in the letter is true and we 

will prove it in the courts in Texas, and hopefully in the State of Alaska as well.’” 21

These references to “we”—which the Complaint states Davis wrote to the 

Landmine—are not sufficient factual content to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

18 Docket 7 at 3 (emphasis added).

19 Docket 8 at 3.

20 Docket 1-1 at ¶¶ 14–24, 28–30 (each alleging “Davis states . . . ,” “Davis says . . . ,” or “Davis 

told . . .”).

21 Docket 8 at 3 (quoting Docket 1-1 ¶¶ 29–30).

Case 3:24-cv-00133-SLG Document 18 Filed 12/05/24 Page 6 of 8
Case No. 3:24-cv-00133-SLG, Hendrix v. Davis et al.

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Page 7 of 8 

that Mr. Berry is liable for their publication. Mr. Hendrix does not allege any facts 

that support the conclusion that Mr. Berry directed, endorsed, or even knew about

the publication of the letter to the Landmine. The phrase “stolen from the working 

interest owners,” read plainly and in context, refers to those that Mr. Davis 

contended had been harmed, not the publishers of the statement. Lastly, the Court 

cannot reasonably conclude, from the phrase “we will prove it in the courts in 

Texas” alone, that Mr. Berry was involved in any way with the publication of the 

allegedly defamatory statements.22 Based on the allegations in the Complaint, it 

is entirely speculative that Mr. Berry published or caused to be published any of 

the allegedly defamatory statements. 

Because Mr. Hendrix has not pleaded sufficient facts to support an inference 

that Mr. Berry is liable for defamation, Mr. Hendrix’s claims against Mr. Berry are

dismissed without prejudice.

23 Leave to amend will be accorded so as to permit 

Mr. Hendrix the opportunity to allege nonconclusory facts that address the 

deficiencies in the allegations against Mr. Berry identified in this order. 

22 Mr. Hendrix asserts in his briefing that “Mr. Berry is a party in the Texas litigation which also 

includes Mr. Davis and Mr. Taylor,” and that, therefore “Davis, Berry, and Taylor would all have 

similar motivation to make defamatory statements against Mr. Hendrix.” Docket 8 at 3. However, 

the Complaint does not explain Mr. Berry’s connection to the Texas litigation, and mere motivation, 

without more, is not sufficient to state a plausible claim for defamation. 

23 The Court need not address Mr. Hendrix’s claim for “punitive damages” because punitive 

damages are a remedy, not an independent cause of action. Doe v. Colligan, 753 P.2d 144, 145 

n.2 (Alaska 1988).

Case 3:24-cv-00133-SLG Document 18 Filed 12/05/24 Page 7 of 8
Case No. 3:24-cv-00133-SLG, Hendrix v. Davis et al.

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Page 8 of 8 

CONCLUSION 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Berry’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket 7 

is GRANTED with leave to amend. Mr. Hendrix may file an Amended Complaint

that remedies the deficiencies identified above within 21 days of the date of this 

Order. If Mr. Hendrix fails to file an Amended Complaint by that date, his claims 

against Mr. Berry may thereafter be dismissed without further notice to him. 

DATED this 5th day of December 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:24-cv-00133-SLG Document 18 Filed 12/05/24 Page 8 of 8