Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 7: Line 7:
 
In U.S. federal courts, the defense is set forth at [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]], Rule 12(b)(6).
 
In U.S. federal courts, the defense is set forth at [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]], Rule 12(b)(6).
   
To defeat a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."<ref>Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18057384228100022643&q=550+U.S.+544&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]); Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738, 742 (5th Cir. 2008) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3477372452848510752&q=517+F.3d+738&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]); Guidry v. American Pub. Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17344359826341613927&q=512+F.3d+177&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]).</ref> A claim meets the "plausibility test"
+
To defeat a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."<ref>Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738, 742 (5th Cir. 2008); Guidry v. American Pub. Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir.2007).</ref> A claim meets the "plausibility test"
   
{{Quote|when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."<ref>Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10490065676294220138&q=556+U.S.+662&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]) (internal citations omitted).</ref>}}
+
{{Quote|when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."<ref>Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations omitted).</ref>}}
   
 
While a [[complaint]] need not contain detailed [[fact]]ual allegations, it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."<ref>''Twombly,'' 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).</ref> The “[f]actual allegations of [a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the [[complaint]] are true (even if doubtful in fact)."<ref>''Id.'' (quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted).</ref> When the allegations of the [[pleading]] do not allow the court to infer more than the mere possibility of wrongdoing, they fall short of showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.<ref>''Iqbal,'' 556 U.S. at 679.</ref>
 
While a [[complaint]] need not contain detailed [[fact]]ual allegations, it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."<ref>''Twombly,'' 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).</ref> The “[f]actual allegations of [a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the [[complaint]] are true (even if doubtful in fact)."<ref>''Id.'' (quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted).</ref> When the allegations of the [[pleading]] do not allow the court to infer more than the mere possibility of wrongdoing, they fall short of showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.<ref>''Iqbal,'' 556 U.S. at 679.</ref>
   
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded [[fact]]s in the [[complaint]] as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.<ref>Sonnier v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1425181946671349198&q=509+F.3d+673&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]); Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12829286466722943108&q=369+F.3d+464&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11564617156341420528&q=75+F.3d+190&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]).</ref> In ruling on such a motion, the court cannot look beyond the [[pleading]]s.<ref>''Id.''; Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7820669168537939041&q=197+F.3d+772&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]), ''cert. denied,'' 530 U.S. 1229 (2000).</ref> The [[pleading]]s include the [[complaint]] and any [[document]]s attached to it.<ref>Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir. 2000) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12568689459818059166&q=224+F.3d+496&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]).</ref> Likewise, "'[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to [the plaintiff's] claims.'"<ref>''Id.'' (''quoting'' Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993)).</ref>
+
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded [[fact]]s in the [[complaint]] as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.<ref>Sonnier v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007); Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996).</ref> In ruling on such a motion, the court cannot look beyond the [[pleading]]s.<ref>''Id.''; Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999), ''cert. denied,'' 530 U.S. 1229 (2000).</ref> The [[pleading]]s include the [[complaint]] and any [[document]]s attached to it.<ref>Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir. 2000).</ref> Likewise, "'[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to [the plaintiff's] claims.'"<ref>''Id.'' (''quoting'' Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993)).</ref>
   
The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the [[complaint]] states a valid claim when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.<ref>Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2144162310656827568&q=313+F.3d+305&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]).</ref> While well-pleaded facts of a [[complaint]] are to be accepted as true, legal conclusions are not "entitled to the assumption of truth."<ref>''Iqbal,'' 556 U.S. at 679 (citation omitted).</ref> Further, a court is not to strain to find inferences favorable to the plaintiff and is not to accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, or [[legal conclusion]]s.<ref>R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2005) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7433211155601789449&q=401+F.3d+638%27&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]) (citations omitted).</ref> The court does not evaluate the plaintiff's [[likelihood of success]]; instead, it only determines whether the plaintiff has pleaded a legally cognizable claim.<ref>United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 355 F.3d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 2004) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14803564719513682602&q=355+F.3d+370&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]).</ref> Stated another way, when a court deals with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, its task is to test the sufficiency of the allegations contained in the [[pleading]]s to determine whether they are adequate enough to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.<ref>Mann v. Adams Realty Co., 556 F.2d 288, 293 (5th Cir. 1977) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4057181817471054285&q=556+F.2d+288&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]); Doe v. Hillsboro Indep. Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 1395, 1401 (5th Cir. 1996) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6522694242417809931&q=81+F.3d+1395&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]), ''rev'd on other grounds,'' 113 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1997) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13550882009395652027&q=113+F.3d+1412&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 full-text]) (en banc).</ref> Accordingly, denial of a 12(b)(6) motion has no bearing on whether a plaintiff ultimately establishes the necessary proof to prevail on a claim that withstands a 12(b)(6) challenge.<ref>''Adams,'' 556 F.2d at 293.</ref>
+
The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the [[complaint]] states a valid claim when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.<ref>Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002).</ref> While well-pleaded facts of a [[complaint]] are to be accepted as true, legal conclusions are not "entitled to the assumption of truth."<ref>''Iqbal,'' 556 U.S. at 679 (citation omitted).</ref> Further, a court is not to strain to find inferences favorable to the plaintiff and is not to accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, or [[legal conclusion]]s.<ref>R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).</ref> The court does not evaluate the plaintiff's [[likelihood of success]]; instead, it only determines whether the plaintiff has pleaded a legally cognizable claim.<ref>United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 355 F.3d 370, 376 (5th Cir. 2004).</ref> Stated another way, when a court deals with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, its task is to test the sufficiency of the allegations contained in the [[pleading]]s to determine whether they are adequate enough to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.<ref>Mann v. Adams Realty Co., 556 F.2d 288, 293 (5th Cir. 1977); Doe v. Hillsboro Indep. Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 1395, 1401 (5th Cir. 1996), ''rev'd on other grounds,'' 113 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc).</ref> Accordingly, denial of a 12(b)(6) motion has no bearing on whether a plaintiff ultimately establishes the necessary proof to prevail on a claim that withstands a 12(b)(6) challenge.<ref>''Adams,'' 556 F.2d at 293.</ref>
   
 
== References ==
 
== References ==

Please note that all contributions to the The IT Law Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: