DENVER (LN) — U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang on Thursday dismissed defendant Deborah O’Hara-Rusckowski’s abuse of process counterclaim in a defamation dispute involving Avodah Farms, a nonprofit that aids sex trafficking survivors, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Avodah Farms and its executive director, Keenan Fitzpatrick, sued O’Hara-Rusckowski, alleging she initiated a campaign to tarnish their reputations by falsely claiming the group was labor trafficking religious sisters and misappropriating grant funds. The plaintiffs allege these statements caused donors to withdraw support and triggered a federal criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts.
O’Hara-Rusckowski answered the complaint by asserting counterclaims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and abuse of process. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the abuse of process claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the counterclaim failed to state a plausible claim.
Judge Wang granted the motion to dismiss, finding that while O’Hara-Rusckowski plausibly alleged an "ulterior purpose" — specifically, that the lawsuit was filed to retaliate against her for cooperating with the federal criminal investigation — she failed to allege the second required element: an improper use of the legal process.
Under Colorado law, abuse of process requires proof of an ulterior purpose and a willful act using the process in a manner not proper course of proceedings. Wang noted that O’Hara-Rusckowski conflated improper motive with improper use, pointing out that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit sought standard relief, including damages, which is consistent with the legitimate function of a civil action.
"The Court applies an objective standard and looks to the nominal purpose for which the process is invoked," Wang wrote, quoting precedent. "If a party files claims that are colorable on their face, and requests relief consistent with the claims alleged, there is no abuse of process, even if the claims are factually baseless."
Wang rejected O’Hara-Rusckowski’s argument that the plaintiffs’ dissemination of the lawsuit to the Archdiocese of Denver and Catholic media constituted improper use. The judge cited the presumption that court records are public and noted that the defendant provided no legal authority establishing that publicizing a lawsuit amounts to an abuse of process.
The judge also addressed a separate motion by Avodah Farms and Fitzpatrick for leave to file a second amended complaint. The plaintiffs sought to refile intentional interference claims that had been dismissed without prejudice in a prior order. Wang denied the motion, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate "good cause" to amend the scheduling order nearly 16 months after the deadline had passed.
The court highlighted that the plaintiffs had previously requested an extension of the amendment deadline, which was denied by another judge in the district for lack of good cause. Wang noted that the plaintiffs did not explain why they waited eight months after the prior dismissal order to seek leave to amend, nor did they identify when in discovery they learned the specific information necessitating the new allegations.
"Plaintiffs are not entitled to a directive from the district court informing them of the deficiencies of the complaint and then an opportunity to cure those deficiencies," Wang wrote, citing Sixth Circuit precedent.
The abuse of process counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice, leaving O’Hara-Rusckowski’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation counterclaims intact. The plaintiffs’ defamation and intentional interference claims remain pending, subject to the denial of their request to amend.