The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2022

In reviewing a petition upon a motion to dismiss, the court con siders the legal sufficiency of the petition, taking all allegations as true. 29 A dismissal is appropriate for lack of any cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. 30 If the petition asserts a fraud claim, the pleading standard is higher, and a motion to dismiss can be more effective. In Oklahoma, all claims of fraud must be pled in accordance with the particu larity requirements of Okla. Stat. Tit. 12 §2009(B). 31 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has recognized this particularity requirement extends to all claims of fraud, and when an action involves more than one defendant, the plaintiff “must plead facts from which fraud may be reasonably inferred as to each defendant.” 32 A fraud claim must set forth facts sufficient to show the time, place and content of the alleged false representation and must show more than circum stances from which fraudulent intent could be inferred. 33 Thus, while a petition may set forth allegations sufficient to withstand Oklahoma’s notice pleadings stan dard, a petition may not withstand the higher pleading standard for fraud claims. When the petition fails to fulfill the particularity requirement under Okla. Stat. Tit. 12 §2009, there is a procedure for obtaining this information instead of pressing for dismissal. Under Oklahoma case law, a defendant can file a request that the plaintiff provide a more definite statement with the neces sary particulars that would support the allegation of fraud – i.e., time, place and content of the alleged false representation. 34 This may be asserted in the alternative rather than a request for dismissal.

“is the authority by which courts take cognizance of and decide cases, and that the three elements necessary to the validity of a court order are jurisdiction of the person, jurisdiction of the subject matter and the power of the court to decide the particular matter and render the particular judgement at issue.” 16 Subject-matter jurisdiction. For a court to have authority to adjudicate a dispute, it must have jurisdiction over the type of legal issues in dispute. Subject-matter jurisdiction “is the power and authority of a court to hear and determine causes of the kind in question.” 17 Subject-matter juris diction cannot be waived by the parties or conferred upon the court through consent, and it can be challenged at any time during the proceedings. 18 Subject-matter juris diction is generally challenged at the beginning of litigation by filing a motion to dismiss under Okla. Stat. Tit. 12 §2012(B)(1). When filing a motion to dismiss for lack of sub ject-matter jurisdiction, a party is allowed to submit evidence outside the pleadings. While a court faced with a motion to dismiss attaching evidence outside of the pleadings will typically treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment, when attaching evidence to a motion to dismiss to challenge subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is not required to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. 19 To avoid having the motion to dismiss con verted to a motion for summary judgment, however, the evidence submitted must only relate to the issue of jurisdiction. “When this additional disputed evidence relates to an element of the cause of action pled by a party, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is converted to one for summary judgment.” 20

Personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is a protection granted by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Oklahoma Constitution. 21 It is the power of the court to deal with a person as a defendant and issue a binding judgment against that defendant. 22 “When in personam jurisdiction is challenged, the jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant cannot be inferred, but instead must affirmatively appear from the trial court record, and the burden of proof in the trial court is upon the party asserting that jurisdiction exists.” 23 When deciding whether personal jurisdiction exists, the court will exercise the minimum contacts test to determine whether the defendant has certain mini mum contacts with Oklahoma, such that the exercise of jurisdic tion over the defendant does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” 24 To exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the minimum contacts between the defendant and the state of Oklahoma must be sufficient to show the defen dant reasonably anticipated being hauled into court in Oklahoma. 25 Under the Oklahoma Pleading Code, a petition that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is subject to dismissal. 26 A court may dismiss a party’s claim as a matter of law for two reasons: 1) lack of any cognizable legal theory or 2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. 27 A petition must set forth sufficient facts in support of each element of the claim being asserted. A motion brought under Okla. Stat. Tit. 12 §2012(B)(6) will be granted where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove a set of facts that support the requested relief. 28 Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted

24 | AUGUST 2022

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL