Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion Digests / Man’s suit against ex-wife’s attorney dismissed

Man’s suit against ex-wife’s attorney dismissed

Where a man sued the attorney representing his ex-wife, alleging that she had him arrested and incarcerated without trial, without bail and against his will, but the record showed the man was arrested as a result of his ex-wife’s complaint, after an alleged violation of a protective order, the suit against the attorney was dismissed.


Richard M. Simpson’s complaint is devoid of any real factual allegations. As best as this court can construe, plaintiff’s only real factual assertion is as follows, “City of Fredericksburg, at the direction of lawyer Yvonne Nageotte, arrested and incarcerated Plaintiff without trial, without bail, without due process, against his will, negligently, maliciously, fraudulently, and in an abuse of power, violating Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights.” The rest of plaintiff’s complaint is a laundry list of 23 “Causes of Action” essentially stating that “the acts and omissions of Defendant(s)” constitute violations of either state or federal law.

Defendants City of Fredericksburg; Yvonne J. Nageotte and Nageotte, Nageotte, Nageotte, PC have filed motions to dismiss. Although not provided in the complaint, defendants allege that plaintiff’s lawsuit stems from an ongoing Virginia state court custody and visitation dispute in which attorney Yvonne Nageotte and her law firm represent plaintiff’s wife. Plaintiff’s purported false arrest stems from an alleged violation of a protective order that was entered against him as a part of the Virginia state court litigation.


Plaintiff simply provides no factual content whatsoever to support any of his causes of action. As a licensed attorney in Washington State, plaintiff is not entitled to the liberal construction ordinarily afforded to pro se litigants. Notwithstanding, even assessed under the normal liberal pro se standard and construed under Rule 8(e), plaintiff’s complaint still does not state facts sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants’ motions are based on “both blatantly false testimony and contradictory statements.” However, plaintiff points to no evidence whatsoever of false testimony or contradictory statements made by defendants. Blanket assertions of illegal conduct and false accusations with no factual supplementation will not suffice to save the complaint from dismissal.

As evidenced by defendants’ exhibits, there was a valid protective order in place against plaintiff, he was found in violation of that order and arrested and held without bond by the state magistrate judge. Based on this evidence, there was a basis for any alleged arrest by the City of Fredericksburg, and the face of the incident reports plainly states that plaintiff’s wife, not Yvonne Nageotte, sought the arrest warrants on her own. Therefore, there is no factual basis alleged at all to support plaintiff’s claims against defendants.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss granted.

Simpson v. City of Fredericksburg, Case No. 3:22-cv-745, March 9, 2023. EDVA at Richmond (Hudson). VLW 023-3-111. 6 pp.

VLW 023-3-111