This rule continues U. Subdivision a. Various minor alterations in language have been made to improve the statement of the rule. All references to bills of particulars have been stricken in accordance with changes made in subdivision e. Subdivision b. Rules Serv. In one case, United States v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Rule 12 b 6 , permitting a motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a claim on which relief can be granted, is substantially the same as the old demurrer for failure of a pleading to state a cause of action.
Some courts have held that as the rule by its terms refers to statements in the complaint, extraneous matter on affidavits, depositions or otherwise, may not be introduced in support of the motion, or to resist it. On the other hand, in many cases the district courts have permitted the introduction of such material.
When these cases have reached circuit courts of appeals in situations where the extraneous material so received shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material question of fact and that on the undisputed facts as disclosed by the affidavits or depositions, one party or the other is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the circuit courts, properly enough, have been reluctant to dispose of the case merely on the face of the pleading, and in the interest of prompt disposition of the action have made a final disposition of it.
In dealing with such situations the Second Circuit has made the sound suggestion that whatever its label or original basis, the motion may be treated as a motion for summary judgment and disposed of as such. Samara v.
United States C. General Motors Corp. See also Kithcart v. The Committee entertains the view that on motion under Rule 12 b 6 to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a good claim, the trial court should have authority to permit the introduction of extraneous matter, such as may be offered on a motion for summary judgment, and if it does not exclude such matter the motion should then be treated as a motion for summary judgment and disposed of in the manner and on the conditions stated in Rule 56 relating to summary judgments, and, of course, in such a situation, when the case reaches the circuit court of appeals, that court should treat the motion in the same way.
The Committee believes that such practice, however, should be tied to the summary judgment rule. Where extraneous matter is received, by tying further proceedings to the summary judgment rule the courts have a definite basis in the rules for disposing of the motion. The Committee emphasizes particularly the fact that the summary judgment rule does not permit a case to be disposed of by judgment on the merits on affidavits, which disclose a conflict on a material issue of fact, and unless this practice is tied to the summary judgment rule, the extent to which a court, on the introduction of such extraneous matter, may resolve questions of fact on conflicting proof would be left uncertain.
The decisions dealing with this general situation may be generally grouped as follows: 1 cases dealing with the use of affidavits and other extraneous material on motions; 2 cases reversing judgments to prevent final determination on mere pleading allegations alone. Under group 1 are: Boro Hall Corp. Caldwell C. Munch C. American-La France Foamite Corp.
American Window Glass Co. Association of American Railroads C. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western R. Bareco Oil Co. Morrison Hotel Corp. Manning C. Southern Pacific Co.
Delano C. Forrestal N. Export Equipment Corp. Gould Pumps, Inc. Kohler v. Jacobs C. Under group 2 are: Sparks v. England C. Shober C. Palmer C. Crowley's Inc. State Mutual Life Assurance Co.
Vogel C. United States Bottlers Machinery Co. Edward Katzinger Co. Realty Corp. Hannegan C. Durning C. Sealright Co. Glenn L. Martin Co. The addition at the end of subdivision b makes it clear that on a motion under Rule 12 b 6 extraneous material may not be considered if the court excludes it, but that if the court does not exclude such material the motion shall be treated as a motion for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule It will also be observed that if a motion under Rule 12 b 6 is thus converted into a summary judgment motion, the amendment insures that both parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to submit affidavits and extraneous proofs to avoid taking a party by surprise through the conversion of the motion into a motion for summary judgment.
In this manner and to this extent the amendment regularizes the practice above described. Edit source History Talk 0. Definition [ ] Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a defense to a legal claim. Overview [ ] In U. 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.
Twombly, U. Earle, F. American Pub. Life Ins. Iqbal, U. The service of a motion permitted under this rule alters these periods of time as follows, unless a different time is fixed by order of the court. A If the court denies the motion or postpones its disposition until the trial on the merits, the responsive pleading shall be served within 10 days after notice of the courts action. B If the court grants a motion for a more definite statement, the responsive pleading shall be served within 10 days after the service of the more definite statement.
Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: 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 rule A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted.
The next day, George filed a motion under Rule 12 b 3 to dismiss for improper venue. Has George waived his venue defense? On Day 4, prior to his answer, George filed a motion under Rule 12 b 2 to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The next day, George filed a motion under Rule 12 b 1 to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Has George waived his subject matter jurisdiction defense? Subject matter jurisdiction is granted by constitution and statutes, not by action of the parties. The federal subject matter jurisdiction defense is considered to be particularly consequential, since erroneous assertion of federal jurisdiction would be usurpation of state power.
Hence, the defense is not waivable; the interests of speed and economy must yield to federalism. On Day 19, prior to his answer, George filed a motion under Rule 12 f to strike impertinent matter from the complaint. The next day, George filed a motion under Rule 12 b 2 to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Has George waived his personal jurisdiction defense? Does George have the right to raise all of these defenses in his answer without making any prior motions? Since George made no preliminary motion, he did not waive any defenses by failing to join them with other defenses.
They may all be consolidated in the answer, along with admissions, denials, and affirmative defenses. On Day 10, George filed a Rule 12 b 1 motion raising the defense of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On Day 40, the trial court held a hearing on the Rule 12 b 1 motion and ruled in favor of Sally. Q—7 a. Has George waived the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted? The defense of failure to state a claim has not been waived. Rule 12 h 2 preserves the defense and allows it to be asserted in a pleading, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at trial.
The defense is considered too important to allow it to be waived by mistake. The defense of personal jurisdiction was waived by failure to join it in the Rule 12 motion. See Rule 12 h 1 A. The statute of limitations defense has not been waived because it is not a Rule 12 defense. This affirmative defense [ see Fed. P 8 c 1 ] could not have been raised in the Rule 12 motion, and therefore cannot be waived by omission from the motion. Sally filed and served a summons and complaint, and a set of interrogatories, on George on Day 1.
On Day 10, George made a Rule 26 c motion for a protective order, claiming that the interrogatories were burdensome and vexatious. Has George waived the defense of improper venue? Rule 12 h 1 A provides for waiver of a venue defense omitted from a Rule 12 motion in circumstances in which Rule 12 requires joinder.
The Rule 26 c motion for a protective order was not a Rule 12 motion, so omission of a venue defense did not trigger the waiver provisions of Rule 12 h 1. Sally filed and served a complaint against George on Day 1.
George did not file any preliminary motions. Neither the parties nor the court took any further action until Day 25, when George attempted to amend his answer to include the defense of improper venue.
Will this amendment save the venue defense? George may amend the answer and save the venue defense. Sally commenced an action alleging that George had defamed her by telling third persons that she is a drug addict. Process was served on Day 1. George did not make any preliminary motions. On Day 35, George attempted to amend his answer to assert the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.
Will this amendment save the personal jurisdiction defense? Here, the period during which the answer could be amended as a matter of course has elapsed, since no responsive pleading is normally permitted to an answer [ see Fed. Therefore, under Rule 12 h 1 B , the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction has been waived.
0コメント