Opposing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

Opposing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post.

A Motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as used in the Federal Courts is analogous to a general demurrer as is used in California Courts. The motion seeks to have a Complaint dismissed on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action. The motion to dismiss can also be used in Bankruptcy Court litigation as well.

While motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are often filed they are rarely successful as numerous Appellate Courts have ruled that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is disfavored and is rarely granted.

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is disfavored and rarely granted.  Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 1986) ("It is axiomatic that '[t]he motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.'") (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 1357, at 598.

The issue is not whether the plaintiff will prevail or not. The issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of their claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated: "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence in support of the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely, but that is not the test." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Rather, "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

"In reviewing the allegations, this Court construes the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting all of the factual allegations as true and determines whether the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief." Arrow v. Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 358 F.3d 392, 393 (6th Cir. 2004).

Even a cause of action for fraud which must be specifically pleaded satisfies the particularity requirement for fraud if it identifies circumstances constituting fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations. Deutsch v. Flannery, 823 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir.1987).

And Courts rarely grant a dismissal of a complaint without leave to amend.

"Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment." Schneider v. California DOC, 151 F.3d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir. 1998).

"Amendment should be refused only if it appears to a certainty that plaintiff cannot state a claim." Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, vol 5A, 1357.

Attorneys or parties who wish to view a portion of a sample opposition to a motion to dismiss for sale by the author please use the link shown below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25605615/Sample-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-under-Rule-12-b-6


The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

Visit his website at http://www.legaldocspro.com

Subscribe to his weekly newsletter with legal tips and tricks for California and Federal litigation.  http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm