Flebbe v. Harris et al

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IN RE:
DUSTIN D. HARRIS and AMANDA J.
HARRIS,
Debtors.
Case No. 25-11822-T
Chapter 7
JOHN K. FLEBBE;
Plaintiff,
v.
DUSTIN D. HARRIS and AMANDA J.
HARRIS,
Defendants.
Adversary No. 25-01025-T
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
Before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) (Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012) (the “Motion”), 1 filed by Dustin D. Harris and Amanda J.
Harris (“Defendants”); the Response, 2 filed by John K. Flebbe (“Plaintiff”); and the Reply, 3 filed
by Defendants. Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint, 4 filed by Plaintiff on December 1,
2025.
1 ECF No. 11.
2 ECF No. 12.
3 ECF No. 13.
4 ECF No. 1.
Filed/Docketed
Feb 24, 2026
Case 25-01025-T Document 14 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/24/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), 5 and venue is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. Reference to the Court of this matter is proper pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Determination as to the dischargeability of a debt is a “core” proceeding as
that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).
Background
Plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding to except debts from discharge pursuant to § 523.
The Complaint alleges: 	1) 	Plaintiff holds a state court judgment (the “State Court Judgment”)
against Defendants; 	2) 	The State Court Judgment is “based upon a check from Plaintiff’s
insurance company to Plaintiff to pay for some repairs to Plaintiff’s truck”; 3) “Plaintiff engaged
[D]efendants to do the repairs, which Defendants promised that they would”; 4) “Plaintiff
constituted and appointed Defendants ‘as [his] true and lawful attorney’ to endorse the check to
pay for the repairs”; 5) “Defendants did endorse the check and spent the money, but did not make
the repairs”; and 6) “By endorsing the check as a true and lawful attorney with no intent to fulfill,
Defendants committed fraud and/or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement
or larceny and/or obtained the money by a false representation, and for wilful [sic] and malicious
injury on Plaintiff.” 6 The Complaint requests that this Court find the debt represented by the State
Court Judgment is excepted from discharge.
Discussion
Defendant filed the Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which
provides that a complaint may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
5 	Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to sections of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
6 ECF No. 1, at 1-2.
Case 25-01025-T Document 14 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/24/26 Page 2 of 5

3
granted.” 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 8 In addition, if a
complaint alleges fraud or mistake, “a party must state with particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake.” 9 	“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 10 While the Court
is required to accept all factual allegations as true, the same does not apply to legal conclusions. 11
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.” 12 A complaint cannot simply assert a legal conclusion that it has a claim for relief,
but must also plead facts that are more than consistent with the asserted liability, and that show (as
opposed to merely allege) that the pleader is entitled to relief. 13 “The burden is on the plaintiff to
frame a ‘complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest’ that he or she is entitled
to relief.” 14
Upon review, the Complaint does not comport with the pleading standards set forth above.
Plaintiff makes general assertions of nondischargeability without any factual detail to tie the
Defendants’ alleged actions to the elements of the separate causes of action raised in the
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. 7012.
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7008; Robbins
v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008).
9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7009.
10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556, 570 (2007)).
11 Id. at 678.
12 Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
13 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563.
14 Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d at 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555).
Case 25-01025-T Document 14 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/24/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Complaint. Plaintiff makes conclusory reference to various causes of action contained within § 523
without providing any factual support for these claims. 15 These bare legal conclusions do not refer
to the specific subsections of § 523 relied on, much less recite the elements to be proven. Such
conclusory and formulaic recitations are to be disregarded by the Court and are insufficient to
survive a motion to dismiss. 16
While the Rule 12(b)(6) standard does not require that Plaintiff establish a prima facie case
in his complaint, the elements of each alleged cause of action help to determine whether Plaintiff
has set forth a plausible claim. 17 The particular facts which support each element of each cause of
action should be set forth, and their relevance and applicability to the particular legal claim the
Plaintiff is attempting to plead should be expressly stated. 18 The Court finds the Complaint does
not meet the pleading standards of Rule 8(a) and the applicable case law interpreting that Rule.
To the extent Plaintiff makes allegations of fraud, those facts are not stated with particularity as
required by Rule 9(b). Although the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to state a claim pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6), he will be given leave to amend his Complaint to sufficiently plead causes of action
within thirty days. 19
15 Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 2 ¶ 6.
16 Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at
1949). 17 Id., 671 F.3d at 1192.
18 See In re Hunnicutt, 466 B.R. 797, 800 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2011).
19 Triplett v. LeFlore Cnty., Okl., 712 F.2d 444, 446 (10th Cir. 1983) (“In dismissing a
complaint for failure to state a claim, the court should grant leave to amend freely if it appears at
all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.”) (citations omitted).
Case 25-01025-T Document 14 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/24/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons stated
above, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint shall be denied. Plaintiff will be given thirty
days to file an amended complaint.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012), filed by Dustin D. Harris and Amanda J.
Harris, Defendants herein, at ECF No. 11, is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before Thursday, March 26, 2026, Plaintiff
shall file an amended complaint setting forth the relief he seeks in compliance with the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the absence of the timely filing of an amended
complaint, the Court shall enter an order dismissing this adversary proceeding by separate order.
DATED this 24th day of February, 2026.
7470.3
Case 25-01025-T Document 14 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/24/26 Page 5 of 5