The Oklahoma motion to dismiss: ten grounds, and capacity counts twice
Oklahoma procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
Oklahoma runs civil procedure by statute, and 12 O.S. § 2012 enumerates ten defenses that may be raised by motion. Only Missouri lists more.
Three of the ten have no federal counterpart, and two of those split a single idea in half: lack of capacity to be sued and lack of capacity to sue are separate grounds.
Twenty days, and twenty more
| Event | Time |
|---|---|
| Answer a petition | 20 days from service |
| After a denied motion, or a deferral to trial | 20 days |
Oklahoma is unusual in giving the same period after a denial as it does at the start. Most states cut the post-motion window to ten or fourteen days; Oklahoma leaves it at twenty.
The ten grounds
12 O.S. § 2012(B):
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2. Lack of jurisdiction over the person; 3. Improper venue; 4. Insufficiency of process; 5. Insufficiency of service of process; 6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 7. Failure to join a party under Section 2019 of this title; 8. Another action pending between the same parties for the same claim; 9. Lack of capacity of a party to be sued; and 10. Lack of capacity of a party to sue.
| Ground | |
|---|---|
| 1–7 | the familiar federal seven, with joinder pointing to § 2019 |
| 8 | another action pending between the same parties for the same claim |
| 9 | lack of capacity of a party to be sued |
| 10 | lack of capacity of a party to sue |
Grounds 9 and 10 are worth reading as a pair. Elsewhere capacity is a single negative averment or an affirmative defense; Oklahoma makes each direction its own motion ground, so a defect in either party's capacity can be raised at the threshold.
Ground 8 is the parallel-action ground that Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska and South Carolina also carry — a regional pattern worth checking in any case that may have been filed twice.
Then the usual protections:
A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion.
Conversion
The statute carries the standard conversion provision: if, on a motion asserting defense numbered 6, matters outside the pleading are presented and not excluded, the motion is treated as one for summary judgment under § 2056.
See Oklahoma summary judgment for what that regime requires.
Where this connects
Oklahoma's discovery sanctions statute makes an expense award mandatory in both directions — see the Oklahoma motion to compel.
If judgment has already gone against you, Oklahoma's post-trial route runs on its own clock — see the Oklahoma motion for new trial.
For the answer itself, see responding to an Oklahoma complaint.
How Oklahoma compares
| Oklahoma | Arkansas | Kansas | Federal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enumerated grounds | ten | eight | six | seven |
| Parallel action a ground | yes | yes | no | no |
| Capacity to sue a separate ground | yes | no | no | no |
| Capacity to be sued a separate ground | yes | no | no | no |
| Time to answer | 20 days | 30 days | 21 days | 21 days |
| After a denied motion | 20 days | 10 days | 14 days | 14 days |
A short checklist
- Diarise 20 days from service.
- Work through all ten grounds, not the federal seven.
- Check capacity in both directions — grounds 9 and 10 are separate.
- Check for a parallel action under ground 8.
- Move before you plead if a further pleading is permitted.
- Put every available ground in one motion. Joining waives nothing.
- Expect only ground 6 to convert on outside material.
Where these rules live
- Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008 — General rules of pleading
- Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2012 — Defenses and Objections
- Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2019 — Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication
- Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2056 — Motions For Summary Judgment
This page explains what the statutes say. It isn't legal advice, and the standard for dismissal under § 2012(B)(6) is developed in case law this site doesn't cover.