Meyer v. Harris

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
NICHOLAS MEYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DUSTIN D. HARRIS,
Defendant.
Adv. No. 26-01008-T
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) & (Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012) (the “Motion”), 1 filed by Dustin D. Harris
(“Defendant”). Plaintiff did not file a response. Defendant seeks dismissal of the First Amended
Complaint, 2 filed by Plaintiff on June 10, 2026.
Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), 3 and venue is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. Reference to the Court of this matter is proper pursuant to
1 ECF No. 20.
2 ECF No. 19.
3 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to sections of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
T
Filed/Docketed
Jul 22, 2026
Case 26-01008-T Document 21 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/22/26 Page 1 of 8

2
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
On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding to except debts from
discharge pursuant to § 523. 4 Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) on March 27, 2026, 5 which the Court denied and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. 6
Plaintiff then filed his First Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) on June 10, 2026,
asserting a claim pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A). 7
The Amended Complaint alleges Plaintiff is a creditor of Defendant “with claims in excess
of $130,000 evidenced by two (2) judgments entered in the District Court of Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma[.]” 8 Plaintiff claims he obtained the first judgment against Defendant in the principal
amount of $65,000.00 on April 12, 2023. 9 Plaintiff then obtained the second judgment against
Defendant on August 15, 2024. The second judgment was the result of a lawsuit filed by Marc
Miller Buick GMC, Inc. (“Miller”) against Plaintiff, f/d/b/a Sand Springs Collision Repair, LLC,
to recover payment for certain goods, wares, and merchandise it supplied to the LLC. In response
to Miller’s suit, Plaintiff asserted third-party claims against Defendant and Harrison Collision,
LLC, alleging Defendant fraudulently obtained the goods from Miller in an attempt to operate
Sand Springs Collision Repair, LLC without Plaintiff’s authority. Because Defendant failed to
4 ECF No. 1.
5 ECF No. 12.
6 ECF No. 17.
7 ECF No. 19. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint appears to have abandoned his § 523(a)(4)
and (a)(6) claims.
8 Id. at 2.
9 Plaintiff does not provide any further detail regarding said judgment in the Amended
Complaint, and the connection between the judgment and Plaintiff’s § 523(a)(2)(A) claim remains
unclear.
Case 26-01008-T Document 21 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/22/26 Page 2 of 8

3
respond to Plaintiff’s third-party petition, the court entered a Journal Entry of Partial Default
Judgment, awarding Plaintiff the principal amount of $45,943.14, in addition to $9,825.00 in
attorney fees, plus $10,000.00 in punitive and exemplary damages.
According to the Amended Complaint, on or about December 9, 2020, Plaintiff and Sand
Springs Collision Repair, LLC agreed to sell certain assets to Defendant. Importantly, the
agreement was not a sale of Sand Springs Collision Repair, LLC itself. However, Defendant
allegedly reinstated the LLC, without Plaintiff’s knowledge or authority, with the Oklahoma
Secretary of State on March 17, 2021, and again on January 11, 2022. Defendant then, after
purchasing the LLC, and over an unknown period of time, charged goods, wares, and merchandise
sold by Miller to Sand Springs Collision Repair, LLC’s open account, which was personally
guaranteed by Plaintiff. Miller then sued Plaintiff to recover the unpaid balance existing on the
open account.
Discussion
Defendant filed the Motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which provides that a complaint may
be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” 10 Rule 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.” 11 In addition, if a complaint alleges fraud or mistake, “a party must state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” 12 Thus, a party alleging fraud or
mistake must plead facts establishing the “who, what, when, and where” of the allegedly fraudulent
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012.
11 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).
12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7009.
Case 26-01008-T Document 21 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/22/26 Page 3 of 8

4
conduct. 13 Furthermore, “[t]o 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.” 14 While the Court is
required to accept all factual allegations as true, the same does not apply to legal conclusions. 15
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.” 16 A complaint cannot simply assert a legal conclusion that a plaintiff 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. 17 “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.” 18
A. 	Section 523(a)(2)(A): False Pretenses, False Representation, or Actual Fraud
Exceptions to discharge pursuant to § 523 are to be construed narrowly with any doubts
resolved in the debtor’s favor. 19 Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt “for money,
property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by—
13 Fusion Indus., LLC v. Friday (In re Friday), No. 24-1076, 2025 WL 892618, at *7
(Bankr. W.D. Okla. Mar. 21, 2025) (quoting New Century Bank v. Carmell (In re Carmell), 424
B.R. 401, 412 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010) (“[T]he who, what, when, and where aspects of the fraud
need not be related with exact details in the complaint as a journalist would hope to relate them to
general public. That is, it is only necessary to set forth a basic outline of fraud in order to alert the
defendant of the purported fraud he is defending against.”).
14 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556, 570 (2007)).
15 Id. at 678.
16 Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
17 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563.
18 Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1247 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
19 See Glencove Holdings, LLC v. Bloom (In re Bloom), No. 22-1005, 2022 WL 2679049,
at *5 (10th Cir. July 12, 2022); DSC Nat’l Props., LLC v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 477 B.R. 156,
168 (10th Cir. BAP 2012).
Case 26-01008-T Document 21 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/22/26 Page 4 of 8

5
false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud[.]” Thus, a claim pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A)
may rest on any of the three aforementioned types of fraud, each of which must be analyzed
separately depending on the facts of the specific case. 20 However, each type of fraud must involve
“moral turpitude or intentional wrong, and does not extend to fraud implied in law which may arise
in the absence of bad faith or immorality.” 21 In other words, the debtor must have acted with
subjective intent to deceive. 22
A false representation is an explicit, definable statement resulting in a misrepresentation. 23
A false pretense, on the other hand, is an implied misrepresentation, which includes a material
omission or conduct intended to create and foster a false impression. 24 To establish a claim under
§ 523(a)(2)(A) for false pretenses or false representation, a plaintiff must prove the following: “1)
the debtor made a false representation; 2) the debtor made the representation with the intent to
deceive the creditor; 3) the creditor relied on the representation; 4) the creditor’s reliance was
justifiable; and 5) the debtor’s representation caused the creditor to sustain a loss.” 25
Actual fraud encompasses a broader range of conduct and does not require a false
representation. 26 Instead, the term “actual fraud” entails “any deceit, artifice, trick, or design
20 Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, 578 U.S. 355, 360 (2016) (“It is therefore sensible to start
with the presumption that Congress did not intend ‘actual fraud’ to mean the same thing as ‘a false
representation[.]’”).
21 In re Van De Water, 180 B.R. 283, 288 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1995) (citation omitted); see
also Ritz, 578 U.S. at 360.
22 In re Johnson, 477 B.R. at 169; Skyline Air Ops, Inc. v. Conkle (In re Conkle), No. 23-
01053, 2024 WL 1460286, at *6 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. Apr. 3, 2024).
23 Argento v. Cahill (In re Cahill), No. 15-72418, 2017 WL 713565, at *6 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 22, 2017).
24 William W. Barney, M.D. P.C. Ret. Fund v. Perkins (In re Perkins), 298 B.R. 778, 788
(Bankr. D. Utah 2003).
25 Okla. Heritage Bank v. Ward (In re Ward), 589 B.R. 424, 428 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2018)
(citing Johnson v. Riebesell (In re Riebesell), 586 F.3d 782, 789 (10th Cir. 2009)). See Scheideler
v. Berken, No. 16-cv-02310, 2017 WL 3315550, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 3, 2017).
26 Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, 578 U.S. 355, 359 (2016).
Case 26-01008-T Document 21 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/22/26 Page 5 of 8

6
involving direct or indirect operation of the mind, used to circumvent or cheat another.” 27 To assert
a claim for actual fraud, “a creditor must establish that (1) a fraud occurred, (2) the debtor intended
to defraud, and (3) the fraud created the debt that is the subject of the dispute.” 28
A. 	False Pretenses and False Representation
According to Defendant, the Amended Complaint lacks the particularity required by Rule
9(b) in that it fails to identify: the representation made, whether implied or explicit; to whom the
representation was made; when it was made; or how the representation was communicated. 29
Additionally, Defendant complains there are no allegations claiming that any representation was
made to Plaintiff, or that Plaintiff relied upon said representation. Rather, the Amended Complaint
asserts Miller relied on Defendant’s representation and there are no facts indicating Miller assigned
any fraud-based claim to Plaintiff such that he may seek recovery here.
Even interpreting the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court
finds 	it 	does 	not 	provide 	sufficient 	factual 	allegations 	establishing 	a 	claim 	pursuant 	to
§ 523(a)(2)(A) for false representation or false pretenses. Critical facts remain absent from the
Amended Complaint. At most, the Amended Complaint provides that Defendant intentionally
represented that he possessed the authority to use the Sand Springs Collision Repair, LLC account
and did so with the intent of deceiving Miller. The Amended Complaint does not provide that a
representation, express or implied, was made to Plaintiff, the creditor, or that Plaintiff relied on
said representation. Thus, the Court finds the Amended Complaint does not meet the pleading
standards of Rules 8(a) or 9(b) and the applicable case law interpreting the application of those
27 Bank of Cordell v. Sturgeon (In re Sturgeon), 496 B.R. 215, 223 n.14 (10th Cir. BAP
2013) (quoting McClellan v. Cantrell, 217 F.3d 890, 893 (7th Cir. 2000)).
28 In re Ward, 589 B.R. at 428 (quoting Fifth Third Mortg. Co. v. Kaufman, 2017 WL
4021230, at *14 (N.D. Ill. July 25, 2017)).
29 ECF No. 20 at 7.
Case 26-01008-T Document 21 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/22/26 Page 6 of 8

7
Rules. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to state a claim pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) for
false representation and false pretenses.
B. 	Actual Fraud
Although Plaintiff failed to state a claim based upon false representation and false
pretenses, the Court finds he has stated a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim for actual fraud. The term “fraud”
is generic in the sense that it “embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can
devise and which are resorted to by one individual to gain an advantage over another by false
suggestions or by the suppression of truth.” 30 Thus, there is “[n]o definite and invariable rule . . .
defining fraud, and it includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by
which another is cheated.” 31 Here, Plaintiff has provided factual allegations that Defendant
purchased goods, wares, and merchandise from Miller by charging the goods to an open account
for which he knew he did not have the authority to use and with the intent not to pay Miller for
said goods, all while knowing Plaintiff had personally guaranteed the account. Thus, Plaintiff
alleged facts that Defendant committed fraud; Defendant intended to defraud; and said fraudulent
conduct created Plaintiff’s debt. The Amended Complaint has sufficiently alleged facts informing
Defendant of the claims asserted against him, 32 and allows the Court “to believe plaintiff has a
reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for the stated claims.” 33 Therefore, the Court
finds Plaintiff has stated a claim pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) for actual fraud.
30 McClellan, 217 F.3d at 893 (quoting Stapleton v. Holt, 250 P.2d 451, 453-54 (Okla.
1952)). 31 Id. (quoting Holt, 250 P.2d at 453-54).
32 See Clinton v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 63 F.4th 1264, 1277 (10th Cir. 2023) (“Rule
9(b)’s purpose is ‘to afford [a] defendant fair notice’ of a plaintiff’s claims and the factual grounds
supporting those claims.”) (citation omitted).
33 Myers Operations, Inc. v. Noles (In re Noles), 22-01058, 2023 WL 2636311, at *8
(Bankr. W.D. Okla. Mar. 24, 2023) (citing Higginbottom v. Mid-Del Sch. Dist., No. CIV-15-1091,
2016 WL 951691, at *2 (W.D. Okla. 2016)).
Case 26-01008-T Document 21 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/22/26 Page 7 of 8

8
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) & (Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012), filed by
Dustin D. Harris, Defendant herein, at ECF No. 20, is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED IN
PART as to Plaintiff’s claim for false representation and false pretenses pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED as to
Plaintiff’s claim for actual fraud pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before Wednesday, August 5, 2026, Defendant
shall file an answer to the First Amended Complaint.
DATED this 22nd day of July, 2026.
Case 26-01008-T Document 21 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 07/22/26 Page 8 of 8