Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07070/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

r 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT MARO 71991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

GENE MEYERS; ALDO T. EBERLE; ) Clerk 

DONALD NORTHCUTT, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

WALTER J. KRUGER, III; ) 

FISHER & PHILLIPS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 90-7070 

(D.C. No. 90-121-S) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court dismissing 

plaintiffs' amended complaint asserting claims for malicious 

prosecution and abuse of process. Plaintiffs allege the district 

court erred in finding the voluntary dismissal of a prior action 

was not a resolution in favor of plaintiffs and thus concluding 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-7070 Document: 010110031078 Date Filed: 03/07/1991 Page: 1 
, • 

.. they could not state a claim for malicious prosecution. 

Plaintiffs also contend the court erred in finding that the 

complaint stated no claim for abuse of process. We affirm. 

This lawsuit charges attorney Walter J. Kruger and the law 

firm of Fisher & Phillips ("defendants") with _malicious 

prosecution and abuse of process. These allegations stem from a 

1988 lawsuit between Ideal Basic Industries, Inc. and four of its 

employees and their union. Defendants are the attorney and law 

firm who represented Ideal in that litigation. Three of the 

employees who were defendants in the 1988 lawsuit are plaintiffs 

in this action. 

The 1988 lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by consent order 

entered June 2, 1989. This order reflected Ideal's agreement that 

it would not challenge the dismissal of the 1988 lawsuit as a 

resolution "in favor of" the employees. Following this dismissal, 

plaintiffs pursued a malicious prosecution action against Ideal 

which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. This 

verdict, however, was set aside by the trial court. 

Plaintiffs then filed this action against defendants based on 

their participation in the 1988 lawsuit. Defendants filed a 

motion to dismiss on both counts, which the court granted. We 

review the district court's dismissal of this action de novo. See 

Morgan Y..!.. City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1986). We 

will uphold the dismissal only if plaintiffs can prove no set of 

facts in support of their claim entitling them to relief. See 

Meade Y..!.. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir. 1988). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7070 Document: 010110031078 Date Filed: 03/07/1991 Page: 2 
.. Malicious prosecution actions are not favored and courts 

interpret the elements of this cause of action narrowly. See 

Glasgow Y..:.. Fox, 757 P.2d 836, 838-39 (Okla. 1988). The district 

court correctly determined the "favorable determination" element 

was not satisfied in this case. Young Y..:.. First State Bank, 628 

P.2d 707, 709 (Okla. 1981). Ideal's promise not to challenge the 

dismissal of the 1988 lawsuit as a resolution "in favor of" 

plaintiffs does not bind these defendants with respect to this 

malicious prosecution claim. See Firefighters Local No. 93 Y..:.. 

City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529 (1986). 

The district court also correctly concluded the complaint in 

this action fails to state a claim for abuse of process. 

Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove an essential element of this 

cause of action: a willful misuse of process. See Tulsa Radiology 

Associates, Inc. Y..:.. Hickman, 683 P.2d 537, 539 (Okla. Ct. App. 

1984). We agree with the district court's conclusion that 

plaintiffs' contention that the 1988 lawsuit was intended to cause 

the abandonment of lawful and valid workers' compensation claims 

was legally insufficient. The filing of a lawsuit for an improper 

purpose or motive alone is not an abuse of process. See Gore Y..:.. 

Taylor, 792 P.2d 432, 435 (Okla. Ct. App. 1990). The order of the 

district court dismissing this action is AFFIRMED for 

substantially the reasons given by that court. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-7070 Document: 010110031078 Date Filed: 03/07/1991 Page: 3