Rule 12

RULE 12

Ashcroft v. Iqbal. –U.S.–, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009)

1) Concept that the court must accept all of the allegations in the complaint as true does not

apply to legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.

2) Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief will survive a Rul 12(b)(6)

motion. Whether a complaint states such a claim is a “context-specific task that requires the

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)

“. . .[W]e do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged their

claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.”

Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2003)

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) that is supported by extraneous materials cannot

be regarded as one for summary judgment until the court acts to convert the motion by indicating

that it will not exclude those materials from consideration; until the district court has so acted, a

plaintiff is free to file a proper notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(a)(1).

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,534 U.S. 506 (2002)

Plaintiff need not plead sufficient facts to prove a prima facie case. Court may dismiss a

case under Rule 12(b)(6) only if “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984)

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996)

The court of appeals affirmed a district court order. The court held that the dismissal of

complaint for failure to contain a short and plain statement of the plaintiffs’ claims and failure to

give the defendants fair opportunity to frame responsive pleadings is not an abuse of discretion

where the plaintiffs were given two opportunities to amend.

Costlaw v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986)

District court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte as untimely so long as the defendant has

not waived the defense.

In re Kubick, 171 B.R. 658 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1994)

A complaint that merely recites statutory language fails to state a claim

In re Aboukhater, 165 B.R. 904 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1994)

Standard for dismissal – 523 & 727 complaint

Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 938 (1992)

(Citing Jones v. Comm Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649, (9th Cir. 1984)