Rich Triple Eight, LLC v. Dawson

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
In re:
JUSTUS WILLIAM DAWSON
Debtor
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-11904
Chapter 7
Judge Beth A. Buchanan
RICH TRIPLE EIGHT, LLC
Plaintiff
v.
JUSTUS WILLIAM DAWSON
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Adv. No. 25-1047
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [Docket Number 10]
CONTINGENT UPON PLAINTIFF AMENDING COMPLAINT TO SEPARATELY SET
FORTH NON-BANKRUPTCY LAW CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 8, 2026
Case 1:25-ap-01047 Doc 12 Filed 06/08/26 Entered 06/08/26 11:08:15 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 8

This matter is before this Court on Defendant’s Amended Answer and Motion to Dismiss
Complaint [Docket Number 10] (“Motion to Dismiss”)1 filed by Defendant-Debtor Justus William
Dawson (“Defendant”); and the Memorandum in Response [Docket Number 11] filed by Plaintiff
Rich Triple Eight, LLC (“Plaintiff”).
Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint to except a debt from discharge as a willful and
malicious injury. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the complaint
was filed out of time and that the Defendant does not owe Plaintiff a debt because Plaintiff’s state
law counterclaim against Defendant was denied in state court. Plaintiff responded that the debt it
requests to be excepted from discharge is not the same debt as that set forth in the state court
counterclaim.
For the reasons that follow, this Court concludes that the complaint was timely filed.
However, the complaint does not clearly set forth the non-bankruptcy law cause(s) of action on
which the Plaintiff bases the existence of a valid debt. Accordingly, this Court denies Defendant’s
motion to dismiss but directs Plaintiff to amend the complaint to clearly set forth the non-
bankruptcy law cause(s) of action that forms the basis for the debt that the Plaintiff requests to be
excepted from discharge.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this adversary proceeding with a document titled
“Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of a Debt Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6)” [Docket
Number 1]. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant filed a claim against it in a state court
1 Although the document is labeled as an “Amended Answer and Motion to Dismiss Complaint” the document is not
in the proper form of an answer because it does not admit or deny the allegations asserted in the complaint. See Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b) incorporated into adversary proceedings via Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008.
Accordingly, this Court will treat the Defendant’s filing as solely a motion to dismiss.
Case 1:25-ap-01047 Doc 12 Filed 06/08/26 Entered 06/08/26 11:08:15 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 8

and caused an Affidavit for a Mechanic’s Lien to be recorded in the Hamilton County, Ohio
Official Records against real property that the Plaintiff owned or in which it held an interest.
Plaintiff asserts that it obtained a judgment, a directed verdict, against the Defendant with respect
to the claim. However, a copy of the judgment is not attached to the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant has refused to release the lien. The Plaintiff requests declaratory judgment that
the mechanic’s lien is void, compensatory and punitive damages, and a determination that the
damages constitute a nondischargeable willful and malicious injury pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(a)(6).
In his Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant requests dismissal of the Plaintiff’s complaint for
two reasons. First, the Defendant asserts that the complaint was untimely because it was not filed
within the first sixty days after the first date set for the § 341(a) meeting of creditors. The first date
set for the § 341(a) meeting of creditors was September 9, 2025 and the complaint was not filed
until December 9, 2025. Second, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff lacks standing to file a
complaint requesting a debt be excepted from discharge for lack of a valid debt. He asserts that
Plaintiff pursued a state law counterclaim against the Defendant, but that the counterclaim was
denied in prepetition litigation between the parties.
In the response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff states that the debt requested to be
excepted from discharge is not the same debt as that set forth in the state court counterclaim but,
instead, is a separate claim for damages related to the filing of a false mechanic’s lien affidavit and
the refusal to release the lien.
Case 1:25-ap-01047 Doc 12 Filed 06/08/26 Entered 06/08/26 11:08:15 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 8

II. 	LEGAL ANALYIS
A. 	Legal Standard for Determining Motions to Dismiss
Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6).2 To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “either direct or inferential allegations respecting all
the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Varljen v. Cleveland
Gear Co., Inc., 250 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do
. . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (further citations omitted) (holding
that the factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level).
While the material elements must be asserted, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally do
not require a plaintiff to set out in detail the facts in support of each cause of action.3 Limor v.
Buerger (In re Del-Met Corp.), 322 B.R. 781, 793 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2005). See also Twombly,
550 U.S. at 563 (noting that the accepted pleading standard is that “once a claim has been stated
adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the
complaint”).
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this Court must “construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as
2 Rule 12(b)(6) is incorporated into bankruptcy adversary proceedings via Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure
7012(b).
3 The general standard for what allegations suffice in a complaint is set forth in Rule 8(a), incorporated in bankruptcy
adversary proceedings via Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008. Rule 8(a) requires a complaint to contain only
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to give the defendant
fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Case 1:25-ap-01047 Doc 12 Filed 06/08/26 Entered 06/08/26 11:08:15 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 8

true, and examine whether the complaint contains ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”’” Ohio Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Fed. Home
Loan Mort. Corp., 830 F.3d 376, 382-83 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009)). A court must further keep in mind that “[t]he purpose of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6)
is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the probability of success on the merits.”
Kennedy v. R.W.C., Inc., 359 F. Supp. 2d 636, 639 (E.D. Mich. 2005).
B. 	Plaintiff’s Adversary Complaint Was Timely Filed
In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s complaint was untimely
pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rule”) 4007. This rule requires
that a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt under certain provisions of § 523(a),
including § 523(a)(6), “must be filed within 60 days after the first date set for the § 341(a) meeting
of creditors.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c). Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s complaint was untimely
because it was filed on December 9, 2025, 91 days after the first date set for the § 341(a) meeting
of creditors.
While Defendant’s calculation of the timing of the filing of the complaint is correct,
Defendant does not take into account that Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c) permits a court to extend the
filing deadline for cause upon motion timely filed before the original deadline expires. Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 4007(c). In this instance, Plaintiff timely filed a motion requesting the deadline be
extended to December 10, 2025 [Case No. 25-11904, Docket Number 17]. No party objected to
the request and the extension was granted by court order [Id., Docket Number 23 (Order Granting
Motion to Extend Deadline for Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of Debt)]. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s filing of the adversary complaint on December 9, 2025 is timely.
Case 1:25-ap-01047 Doc 12 Filed 06/08/26 Entered 06/08/26 11:08:15 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 8

C. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint Must Be Amended to Separately Set Forth Non-
Bankruptcy Law Cause(s) of Action to Establish the Debt
Defendant next argues that Plaintiff cannot establish a claim to except a debt from
discharge because the Plaintiff cannot establish a debt. The Defendant asserts that, in prepetition
litigation between the parties, Plaintiff pursued a state court counterclaim against the Defendant,
but the counterclaim was denied. Plaintiff responds to the Defendant’s argument by asserting that
he is not basing the debt on the state law counterclaim but, instead, on a separate cause or multiple
causes of action under state law.
In order to except a debt from discharge, a plaintiff must establish that a valid debt exists.
See Lorentz v. Dick (In re Dick), Adv. No. 24-1015, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 1405, at *9-11, 2025 WL
1635507, at *4 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2025) (holding that, until a plaintiff establishes an
underlying debt owed by the Debtor, there can be no determination with respect to the debt’s
dischargeability); Lawson v. Conley (In re Conley), 482 B.R. 191, 207 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2012)
(“In order to establish the nondischargeability of a debt, the creditor must first show the existence
of a debt under state law.”). Consequently, if a plaintiff does not already have a prepetition
judgment, then the plaintiff must include non-bankruptcy law claim(s) in the adversary complaint
to establish a debtor’s liability and to quantify damages in order for this Court to determine the
debt’s dischargeability. See Lorentz, Adv. No. 24-1015, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 1405, at *9-11, 2025
WL 1635507, at *4.
The Plaintiff contends that non-bankruptcy law claims to establish damages were included
in the complaint. However, upon review of the Plaintiff’s complaint, this Court understands the
Defendant’s confusion about the nature of the complaint. The Plaintiff’s complaint is captioned a
“Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of a Debt Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6)” which, by
Case 1:25-ap-01047 Doc 12 Filed 06/08/26 Entered 06/08/26 11:08:15 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 8

title, does not indicate that the complaint also includes non-bankruptcy law causes of action
intended to establish the Debtor’s liability for, and quantify, a debt. Furthermore, the text of the
complaint does not clearly set forth what non-bankruptcy law causes of action the Plaintiff pursues.
In its response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff argues that the causes of action can be found in
various non-labeled paragraphs throughout the complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that
Paragraphs 11, 12, and 28-31 allege a claim for a factually false mechanic’s lien affidavit and that
Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Complaint are intended to allege a claim for damages related to a
failure to release the mechanic’s lien. However, those causes of action are neither clearly labeled
nor are the elements of each cause of action separately set forth from the paragraphs asserting a
cause of action to except a debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). See Lee v. Ohio Educ.
Assoc., 951 F.3d 386, 392-93 (6th Cir. 2020) (noting that causes of action or claims for relief
should be separately set forth and specific facts or events should be connected to each).
This Court concludes that, although the supportive facts may be present in various areas of
the complaint, the Plaintiff’s complaint does not clearly set forth the non-bankruptcy law causes
of action that the Plaintiff pursues against the Defendant to establish a debt. However, this Court
also recognizes the liberal standard for granting leave for parties to amend their pleadings. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (incorporated into bankruptcy adversary proceedings via Bankruptcy Rule
7015) (noting that a court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires);
see also Coffey v. Foamex L.P., 2 F.3d 157, 162 (6th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this Court will grant
Plaintiff time to amend its complaint to clearly label and separately set forth the non-bankruptcy
law causes of action it pursues to establish and quantify the alleged debt owed by Defendant.4
4 If Plaintiff asserts a claim sounding in fraud, Plaintiff must also comply with the heightened pleading standard of
Rule 9(b) requiring a party to plead the circumstances constituting fraud with sufficient particularity to give the
answering party notice of the misconduct that is being challenged and allow him or her to prepare an informed pleading
Case 1:25-ap-01047 Doc 12 Filed 06/08/26 Entered 06/08/26 11:08:15 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 8

III. 	CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket Number 10] is DENIED contingent upon Plaintiff
filing an amended complaint to clearly label and separately set forth the non-bankruptcy law causes
of action it pursues along with factual allegations supportive to the elements of each cause of
action. The amended complaint must be filed on or before July 8, 2026. Failure of the Plaintiff to
comply with this requirement may result in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss being granted without
further notice and hearing and the complaint being dismissed for failure to state a claim.
If an amended complaint is filed, Defendant must file an answer to the amended complaint
on or before August 7, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution List:
Cynthia S. Daugherty, Esq.
L. Joshua Davidson, Esq.
responsive to the specific allegations of fraud. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (incorporated into bankruptcy adversary
proceedings via Bankruptcy Rule 7009); Coffey v. Foamex L.P., 2 F.3d 157, 161-62 (6th Cir. 1993).
Case 1:25-ap-01047 Doc 12 Filed 06/08/26 Entered 06/08/26 11:08:15 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 8