© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works. 1 Sheridan, Sarah 11/11/2014 for Educational Use Only

Sheridan, Sarah 11/11/2014 For Educational Use Only

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1357 (3d ed.)

Federal Practice & Procedure Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Database updated September 2014 The Late Charles Alan Wright a55 , Arthur R. Miller a56 , Mary Kay Kane a57 , Richard L. Marcus a58 , Adam N. Steinman a59 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Chapter 4. Pleadings and Motions Arthur R. Miller a409 and Mary Kay Kane a410 Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing C. Presentation of Defenses and Objections

Link to Monthly Supplemental Service

§ 1357 Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6)

Primary Authority Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Forms West's Federal Forms §§ 2450, 2525 to 2535

In determining whether to grant a Federal Rule 12(b)(6) motion, district courts primarily consider the allegations in the complaint. The court is not limited to the four corners of the complaint, however. Numerous cases, as the note below reflects, have allowed consideration of matters incorporated by reference or integral to the claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned; these items may be considered by the district judge without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. 1 These matters are deemed to be a part of every complaint by implication. A motion made under Rule 12(b)(6) that raises the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted must be made before the service of a responsive pleading, but according to Rule 12(h)(2) the defense is preserved and may be raised as late as trial. 2 Technically therefore, a post-answer Rule 12(b)(6) motion is untimely and the cases indicate that some other vehicle, such as a motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment, must be used to challenge the plaintiff's failure to state a claim for relief. 3 Even if a party does not make a formal motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the district judge on his or her own initiative may note the inadequacy of the complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim as long as the procedure employed is fair to the parties. 4 Since the motion to dismiss under subdivision (6) raises only an issue of law, 5 the court has no discretion as to whether to dismiss a complaint that it determines is formally or substantively insufficient. 6 However, as will be discussed later in this section, the court has considerable leeway under the liberal pleading standards of the federal rules in deciding when a complaint is formally insufficient and whether to permit leave to replead. 7 Federal law governs whether a complaint in a federal court action states a claim for relief with the requisite particularity. 8 In the Tenth Circuit, a court may not grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim only because the nonmoving party failed to respond to the motion. The court still is required to conduct the standard Rule 12(b)(6) inquiry to determine if the complaint states a valid claim for relief. 8.50

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

An interesting problem involves the question whether a district judge may assign a case to a magistrate judge appointed under the 1968 United States Magistrates Act 9 for a ruling on a motion to dismiss. The Seventh Circuit in TPO, Incorporated v. McMillen, 10 held that the court has no power to delegate motions to dismiss to magistrates. It based its decision on the fact that motions to dismiss involve ultimate decision-making under Article III of the Constitution and that under the Act, magistrates have no power to engage in such decision-making in civil cases; they only may aid the court in managing the pretrial and discovery proceedings. A proposition that is at the heart of the application of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and one that is of universal acceptance, as evidenced by the myriad of illustrative cases cited in the note below—drawn from throughout the federal court system, including the Supreme Court—is that for purposes of the motion to dismiss, (1) the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, (2) its allegations are taken as true, and (3) all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the pleading are drawn in favor of the pleader. 11 Although Rule 12(b)(6) also has been used to enforce the special heightened pleading requirements for fraud and mistake prescribed by Rule 9(b), 12 the district court's inquiry typically is directed simply to the question whether the allegations constitute a statement of a claim for relief under Rule 8(a). The numerous cases in the note below illustrate the way the federal courts treat that rule's statement of claim requirement. 13 All federal courts are in agreement that the burden is on the moving party to prove that no legally cognizable claim for relief exists. 14 However, it is clear that the district judge does not have to accept each and every allegation in the complaint as true in considering its sufficiency. Courts have used varying language to draw the line between what is admitted for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and what is not considered admitted. For example, federal courts have said that they accept the truth of a pleading's “facts,” 15 “factual allegations,” 16 “material facts,” 17 “material allegations,” 18 “well-pleaded facts,” 19 “well-pleaded factual allegations,” 20 and “well-pleaded allegations.” 21 Nothing appears to turn on the differences in these semantic formulations of the standard. In 2007, the Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 21.1 in which the Court concluded that the “no set of facts” language from Conley “has earned its retirement.” 21.2 Instead, the Court stated that the “accepted pleading standard” is: “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” 21.3 For a lengthy discussion of this important case, see the Pocket Part for Volume 5, § 1216. Most importantly, the Court in Twombly created a new factual plausibility standard by requiring facts that "raise the right to relief above the speculative level" to the plausible level in order for the claim to survive the motion to dismiss. 21.4 Lower courts have interpreted the Twombly case to create a factual plausibility standard for complaints. 21.5 In 2009, the Supreme Court clarified the Twombly standard and made the standard applicable to all federal civil cases in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. 21.6 In the wake of the 2007 decision in Twombly and the 2009 decision in Iqbal, district judges are now permitted to consider "judicial experience" and "common sense" when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 21.7 It is important to note that the mere existence of an alternative explanation does not entitle a defendant to dismissal necessarily. However, the Court in Iqbal reiterated the statement in Twombly that "[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of "entitlement to relief."'" 21.8 A Sixth Circuit opinion stated, "[I]f a plaintiff's claim is plausible, the availability of other explanations-even more likely explanations-does not bar the door to discovery. But you can't assess the plausibility of an inference in a vacuum. The reasonableness of one explanation for an incident depends, in part, on the strength of competing explanations. * * * Where, as here, the complaint alleges facts that are merely consistent with liability * * * as opposed to facts that demonstrate discriminatory intent * * *, the existence of obvious alternative explanations simply illustrates the unreasonableness of the inference sought and the implausibility of the claims made." 21.9 Compare that passage with the Seventh Circuit, which stated, "'Plausibility' in this context does not imply that the district court should decide whose version to believe, or which version is more likely than not. * * * In other words the court will ask itself could these things have happened, not did they

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

happen. For cases governed by Rule 8, it is not necessary to stack up inferences side by side and allow the case to go forward only if the plaintiff's inferences seem more compelling than the opposing inferences." 21.10 See also a decision of the Second Circuit, which stated that "[a] court * * * may not properly dismiss a complaint that states a plausible version of the events merely because the court finds a different version more plausible." 21.11 Conversely, a number of federal courts also have said that there are other types of allegations that need not be accepted as true on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Various phrases have been used by the federal courts to express this point. Among these are that the district court is not bound by a pleading's “legal conclusions,” 22 or its “unsupported conclusions,” 23 or its “unwarranted inferences,” 24 or its “unwarranted deductions,” 25 or its “footless conclusions of law,” 26 or its "mere conclusory statements," 26.5 and its “sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” 27 Once again, these different verbalizations can be considered more or less synonymous in terms of the judicial application of Rule 12(b)(6). This occasional judicial reliance on some of the nomenclature of the code pleading regime, 28 such as “facts” and “conclusions,” reflects the difficulty of phrasing in abstract terms a rule of construction of pleadings that is relatively simple in actual operation. Although the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) are very liberal and easily satisfied, many federal courts have made it clear that more detail often is required than the bald statement by the plaintiff that she has a valid claim of some legally recognizable type against the defendant. 29 Moreover, if the allegations in the complaint, taken as true, do not effectively state a claim for relief, the added assertion by the plaintiff that they do state a claim will not save the complaint. Basically what this means, and it clearly is borne out by the case law is that the district judge will accept the pleader's description of what happened to him or her along with any conclusions that can reasonably be drawn therefrom. 30 However, the court will not accept conclusory allegations concerning the legal effect of the events the plaintiff has set out if these allegations do not reasonably follow from the pleader's description of what happened, or if these allegations are contradicted by the description itself. 31 Thus one plaintiff's conclusory allegation that he had been deprived of his “property and personal rights and professional status, contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States,” and therefore had a right of action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was not accepted as true, since the plaintiff's more specific allegations that the defendant had uttered a derogatory word in reference to him indicated that at best he had an action for slander under state law. 32 In another case, the plaintiff's allegation that there was a conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act was not accepted, inasmuch as the complaint itself indicated that only one business entity was involved and a conspiracy claim requires at least two parties. 33 For many years after the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was viewed with disfavor and was rarely granted; in many cases and in many courts, that restrained approach to the use of the motion continues to be the norm. 34 In more recent years, however, a number of federal courts, as has been true with summary judgment motion practice, have been more willing to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), particularly in certain substantive contexts such as securities litigation. There probably are several contributing factors that have motivated this development. These are discussed in connection with Rule 8. 35 What is troublesome is that in certain cases the federal court seems to have exceeded the “limited” judicial function that is appropriate on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Perhaps this tendency will be restrained somewhat by the recent Supreme Court decisions relating to simplified pleading under Rule 8 discussed later in this section. 36 The basic principles underlying practice on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion are relatively straightforward and have been well established over the years by the case law. Rule 8 indicates that a complaint need only set out a short and plain generalized statement of the claim from which the defendant will be able to frame a responsive pleading. 37 As the many illustrative cases drawn from all parts of the federal court system cited in the note below amply demonstrate, relatively few complaints fail to meet this liberal standard and thereby become subject to dismissal under subdivision (6) of Rule 12(b). 38 Moreover, district courts are reluctant to dispose of the complaint on technical grounds in view of the policy of the federal rules to

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

determine actions on their factual and legal merits. 39 Courts also hesitate to dismiss because of the possible waste of judicial and litigant time if on appeal the dismissal is reversed and remanded. 40 As the court stated in Rennie & Laughlin, Inc. v. Chrysler Corporation: 41 [A] motion to dismiss [is not] the only effective procedural implement for the expeditious handling of legal controversies. Pretrial conference; the discovery procedures; and motions for a more definite statement, judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, all provide useful tools for the sifting of allegations and the determination of the legal sufficiency of an asserted claim. The salvaged minutes that may accrue from circumventing these procedures can turn to wasted hours if the appellate court feels constrained to reverse the dismissal of the action. That is one of the reasons why a motion to dismiss is viewed with disfavor in the federal courts. Another is the basic precept that the primary objective of the law is to obtain a determination of the merits of any claim; and that a case should be tried on the proofs rather than the pleadings. … This is not to say or imply that a motion to dismiss should never be granted. It is obvious that there are cases which justify and indeed compel the granting of such motion. The line between the totally unmeritorious claims and the others cannot be drawn by scientific instruments but must be carved out case by case by the sound judgment of trial judges. That judgment should be exercised cautiously on such a motion. 42 Caution to Reader: The following two paragraphs should be read with awareness that the Twombly and Iqbal decisions have significantly altered the pleading and motion-to-dismiss standards after Conley. However, some courts continue to apply principles from the Conley decision, as well as language from the decision, which can be seen in the accompanying footnotes. The test most often applied to determine the sufficiency of the complaint was set out in the leading case of Conley v. Gibson, 43 decided in the formative years of the federal rules, in which the Supreme Court stated that: [I]n appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that 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. 44 The straight-forward principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Conley has been reaffirmed and applied in innumerable cases decided by courts in every quadrant of the federal judicial system. An extensive sample of illustrative—but hardly an exhaustive citation of—cases drawn from this rich jurisprudence is set out in the note below. 45 As a result of these principles, so firmly established by several decisions of the Supreme Court rendered over many years, it is now catechism, frequently recited by all federal courts, as reflected in the citation of a plethora of cases in the notes below, that the question on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, 46 and with every doubt resolved in the pleader's behalf, 47 the complaint states any legally cognizable claim for relief. 48 If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the motion to dismiss must be denied and the action should be permitted to continue. Many federal courts have concluded that the complaint should not be dismissed merely because the plaintiff's allegations do not support the legal theory he or she intends to proceed on, since the district court is under a duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible legal theory. 49 Similarly, it need not appear that the plaintiff can obtain the particular relief prayed for in the complaint, as long as the district judge can ascertain from what has been alleged that some relief may be granted by the court. 50 However, one court of appeals concluded that a motion to dismiss may be granted if the relief sought is impractical. In Bano v. Union Carbide Company, 50.1 the Second Circuit upheld a district court's dismissal of a claim seeking an injunction for environmental remediation of the defendant's former plant site in Bhopal, India. The court determined that an injunction might interfere with another nation's sovereignty since the Indian government had not joined the lawsuit, and it might be difficult to enforce and oversee since it required a United States court to control events in India. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief as impracticable. Nonetheless, as is discussed more fully in the analysis of Rule 8, elsewhere in this

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Treatise, the pleader must set forth sufficient information to outline the legal elements of a viable claim for relief or to permit inferences to be drawn from the complaint that indicate that these elements exist. 51 Nor should the complaint be dismissed merely because the district court believes that the case is legally or factually doubtful or that it is unlikely that the plaintiff will prevail in the action on the merits. 52 Whether the plaintiff ultimately can prevail on the merits is a matter properly determined on the basis of proof, which means on a summary judgment motion or at trial by the judge or a jury, and not merely on the face of the pleadings. 53 Likewise, courts have refused to consider presumptions in favor of the defendant on a motion to dismiss since presumptions are evidentiary standards that are inappropriate for evaluation at the pleadings stage. 53.1 For example, the Sixth Circuit has held that the "presumption of prudence" to which fiduciaries of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) who invest in employer stock are entitled, established in Moench v. Robertson, 53.2 does not apply at the motion-to-dismiss stage because the presumption is evidentiary and not a pleading requirement. 53.3 The Fifth Circuit, however, joined the Second, Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the presumption of prudence does apply at the motion-to-dismiss stage. 53.4 The Fifth Circuit stated, "There is no reason to permit a case to proceed to discovery where the facts, even if proven true, would not establish that defendants abused their discretion in failing to divest employer stock." 53.5 The district court should be especially reluctant to dismiss on the basis of the pleadings when the asserted theory of liability is novel or even “extreme,” since it is important that new legal theories be explored and assayed in the light of actual facts rather than a pleader's suppositions. 54 A significant number of federal courts have adopted a more lenient attitude towards pro se plaintiffs on a Rule 12 motion than is accorded other plaintiffs, although this does not mean that they have granted such litigants complete amnesty from the requirement of the rules. 55 In the same vein, some courts appear to have adopted a stricter stance against defendants trying to dismiss civil rights claims. 56 In any event, in many contexts the motion for summary judgment provides a more expeditious and effective procedure than the Rule 12(b) (6) motion for quickly terminating an action that does not appear to entitle the plaintiff to relief on its substantive merits. 57 As a practical matter, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is likely to be granted by the district court only in the relatively unusual case in which the plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to securing relief; the cases in the note below illustrate that proposition. 58 In other words, dismissal is justified only when the allegations of the complaint itself clearly demonstrate that whatever interpretation is given to the facts the plaintiff does not have a claim that is legally redressible; in a real sense, the plaintiff has pleaded himself or herself out of federal court. 59 A good example of these propositions is Case v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 60 in which the plaintiff claimed damages for the defendant's wrongful termination of a contract. However, the terms of the contract, which was attached to the complaint as an exhibit, showed that the employment was at will and the defendant had the right to terminate the agreement with or without cause. Since it was clear on the face of the pleading and the attached document that the plaintiff had not stated an actionable claim, the district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Similarly, when the complaint in an action for negligence contained allegations indicating that the sole proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of the plaintiff and not that of the defendant, the complaint was dismissed for insufficiency. 61 As the case law makes clear, the complaint also is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when its allegations indicate the existence of an affirmative defense that will bar the award of any remedy; 62 but for this to occur, the applicability of the defense has to be clearly indicated and must appear on the face of the pleading to be used as the basis for the motion. 63 This situation should be distinguished from that described in the examples in the preceding paragraphs. Those cases involve instances in which the statement of the claim itself was defective as a matter of the applicable substantive law. In a situation involving the barring effect of an affirmative defense, the claim is stated adequately from that perspective, but in addition to the claim the contents of the complaint includes matters of avoidance that effectively vitiate the pleader's ability to recover on the claim. In both situations the complaint is said to have a built-in defense and is essentially self-defeating. 64 Thus, the problem is not that the plaintiff merely has anticipated the defendant's answer and tried to negate a defense he believes

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

his opponent will attempt to use against him; rather, the plaintiff's own allegations show that a defense exists that legally defeats the claim for relief. A particularly illustrative case regarding the pleading requirements for an affirmative defense is Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC., which resolved a split among district courts over the legal standard to apply in deciding a motion to compel arbitration. 64.25 The Third Circuit held that a motion to compel arbitration should be resolved under the Rule 12(b) (6) standard when the affirmative defense of arbitrability of claims is "apparent" on the face of the complaint. 64.50 If the complaint does not establish on its face that the parties agreed to arbitrate and the opposing party has not presented reliable evidence that it did not intend to be bound by an arbitration agreement, a motion to compel arbitration should be decided under the Rule 56 summary-judgment standard. 64.75 A number of early cases held that a complaint containing a built-in affirmative defense could not be attacked by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 65 These decisions allowed the complaint to stand and required the defendant to raise the affirmative defense in the answer. This view was based on the language of Rule 8(c), which states that “a party shall set forth affirmatively … matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” 66 Inasmuch as Rule 8(c) provides a specific means of pleading affirmative defenses, these courts apparently believed that this was the appropriate method of raising them. This view, however, soon gave way to the idea that a complaint showing that relief was barred by an affirmative defense could be dismissed under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 67 No doubt the controversy was resolved in this fashion because of the obvious advantage of raising a potentially dispositive issue by preliminary motion instead of requiring a responsive pleading before the issue was crystallized and prepared for decision. Moreover, the plaintiff is not seriously prejudiced by having the complaint dismissed at a relatively early stage, since he generally will be permitted to amend the pleading if the defect can be cured. Of course, the district court in its discretion may decide that a motion for summary judgment, which provides an opportunity for an investigation of the facts surrounding the bare allegations in the pleading, is a more appropriate procedural device to deal with the built-in defense than a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 68 A complaint showing that the governing statute of limitations has run on the plaintiff's claim for relief is the most common situation in which the affirmative defense appears on the face of the pleading and provides a basis for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), as the many illustrative cases cited in the note below attest. 69 Since Rule 9(f) makes averments of time material, the inclusion of dates in the complaint indicating that the action is untimely renders it subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. 70 This particularly is true if the action sued on is statutory in origin, because the bar of the statute of limitations then is said to extinguish not only the remedy but the underlying substantive right as well. 71 Other affirmative defenses that have been considered on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) include the plaintiff's assumption of the risk, 72 the presence of contributory negligence, 73 various types of estoppel, 74 an assertion of illegality, 75 a wide range of forms of legal immunity from suit, 76 the equitable doctrine of laches, 77 a claim of privilege, 78 the plaintiff's execution of a release, 79 the barring effect of res judicata and related preclusion principles, 80 a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 80.30 a claim of improper joinder, 80.70 and the applicability of the statute of frauds. 81 Rule 12(b) (6) motions also have been used to raise capacity 82 standing, 82.50 and real party in interest defenses. 83 In addition, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion has been used to raise the defense of ripeness. 83.25 Additionally, a court may dispose of a Rule 12(b)(1) issue of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. 83.50 Courts also have applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard to motions to compel arbitration, albeit not consistently. 83.55 In 2007, in Jones v. Bock, 83.65 the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requiring that prisoner complaints subject to the Act “specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion.” 83.75 Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, “conclude[d] that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA, and that inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.” In doing so, the Court dismissed the notion “that Congress implicitly meant to transform exhaustion from an affirmative defense to a

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

pleading requirement by the curiously indirect route of specifying that courts should screen PLRA complaints and dismiss those that fail to state a claim.” However, “that is not to say that failure to exhaust cannot be a basis for dismissal for failure to state a claim.” 83.85 One district court has suggested that it may be appropriate to deny a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in order to allow the defendants to consolidate several similar actions that were pending against them before pursuing a summary procedure. 84 The case simply illustrates the flexibility of Rule 12(b)(6) procedure and the wide discretion of the district court under it. For example, the district court has discretion to postpone deciding a motion to dismiss until some later stage in the proceedings, such as summary judgment or even trial. 85 Over the years one significant exception to the general rule that the complaint will be construed liberally on a Rule 12(b) (6) motion has been employed by a number of federal courts. When the claim alleged is a traditionally disfavored “cause of action,” such as malicious prosecution, libel, or slander, courts have tended to construe the complaint by a somewhat stricter standard and have been more inclined to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 86 For example, in National Bowl-O-Mat Corporation v. Brunswick Corporation, 87 the district court dismissed the third count of the defendant's counterclaim for failing to state a claim for defamation. Two of the “pleading deficiencies” noted by the court were the defendant's failure to set out the alleged defamatory statements with sufficient particularity to allow the court to determine if they would support the action, and the defendant's failure to plead dates indicating that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations. If the court had applied the usual liberal standard for construing a complaint prescribed by Rule 8(a) and Rule 8(f), it probably would have assumed, for purposes of the motion, that the statements were defamatory and that the action was timely. A complaint setting out a disfavored action is particularly vulnerable to a motion to dismiss when it contains a built-in defense. 88 More specifically, the court may refuse to assume the existence of facts that would avoid a partial or conditional defense. 89 In the relatively early case of Leggett v. Montgomery Ward & Company, 90 for example, a complaint for malicious prosecution raised the partial defense of probable cause under the applicable substantive law by indicating that the plaintiff had waived a preliminary examination. Although the defense could have been avoided at trial by a showing that the defendant had caused the plaintiff to be bound over through false testimony, fraud, or other improper means, the court refused to consider these possibilities on the motion to dismiss because they were not alleged in the complaint. Thus, it appears that the court construed the complaint in Leggett more strictly than is the general practice on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 91 Judicial antipathy toward malicious prosecution actions is the likely explanation since there is no basis for the court's action in the federal rules. The notion that a federal court can use a stricter pleading standard on a motion to dismiss a disfavored action has been cast in serious doubt–—indeed, it may well have been rendered invalid by the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 92 which struck down a stringent pleading standard in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under Section 1983 of Title 42, and its 2002 decision in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 93 which struck down another special pleading rule applied in some employment discrimination cases. In both cases the Court makes it clear that Rule 8 announces a pleading standard that is applicable to all cases except those governed by Rule 9(b) or a heightened pleading requirement in a federal statute. 93.1 Thus, the notion that a federal court can demand more than a short statement of a claim for relief and enforce that standard by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is antithetical to the Leatherman and Swierkiewicz philosophy, although it is possible that a federal court can be convinced that the pleading burden is an element of the governing substantive law or that the long-standing pleading requirements in disfavored actions have somehow been incorporated into the federal rule pleading practice. 93.2 Although these arguments have a superficial plausibility, their success seems quite dubious given the relative clarity and breadth of the Supreme Court's language in both the Leatherman and Swierkiewicz opinions. Alston v. Parker 93.3 is a good example of the impact of the Leatherman and Swierkiewicz philosophy on stricter pleading requirements for disfavored actions. In Alston, the district court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for failing to comply with

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

what it saw as the “well settled” Third Circuit rule that civil rights claims must be pled with particularity. However, the Third Circuit reversed. Although the court acknowledged that civil rights claims used to be subjected to higher pleading standards in the Third Circuit, it concluded that “a heightened pleading requirement for civil rights complaints no longer retains vitality under the Federal Rules” in light of Leatherman and Swierkiewicz and that previous rulings applying the heightened standard could not be reconciled with Leatherman and Swierkiewicz. Pleading practice, however, has been impacted by the Court's most recent important pronouncements on Rules 8(a) and 12(b) (6) in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly 93.4 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. 93.5 See the Pocket Part for Volume 5 at § 1216 for an extensive discussion of those cases. In Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Inc., 93.6 the Supreme Court interpreted the special pleading requirements for determining whether a plaintiff's allegations are sufficient as to scienter in securities-fraud claims under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The proper inquiry is "whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any individual allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that standard." 93.7 The Court held that an allegation of scienter will survive "only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged." 93.8 As the numerous case citations in the note below make clear, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) generally is not immediately final or on the merits because the district court normally will give the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to see if the shortcomings of the original document can be corrected. 94 The federal rule policy of deciding cases on the basis of the substantive rights involved rather than on technicalities requires that the plaintiff be given every opportunity to cure a formal defect in the pleading. This is true even when the district judge doubts that the plaintiff will be able to overcome the shortcomings in the initial pleading. 95 Thus, the cases make it clear that leave to amend the complaint should be refused only if it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff cannot state a claim. 96 A district court's refusal to allow leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion by the court of appeals. 97 A wise judicial practice (and one that is commonly followed) would be to allow at least one amendment regardless of how unpromising the initial pleading appears because except in unusual circumstances it is unlikely that the district court will be able to determine conclusively on the face of a defective pleading whether the plaintiff actually can state a claim for relief. 98 In Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 99 the Supreme Court in 1981 noted in a footnote that a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is a judgment on the merits. 100 A number of courts have taken this to indicate that a judgment entered after a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) permits invoking the principles of res judicata to bar any further attempt to present the same claim, especially when the putative amended complaint is substantially identical to the original. 101 The rationale for this conclusion seems to be that since plaintiffs have liberal opportunities to amend their complaints, an inability to do so that results in a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal leading to an entry of a final judgment indicates the absence of a valid claim for relief. 102 On the other hand, the denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not a final determination on the merits for purposes of res judicata. 102.50 Notwithstanding the liberal amendment policy of the federal rules, it seems dubious that a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal should dispose of more than the question whether a particular statement constitutes a claim for relief, 103 especially in courts other than the original forum, given the federal courts' lack of uniformity in dealing with pleading amendments and Rule 12(b) (6) dismissals and the discretionary character of Rule 15 amendments. The situation is further complicated by the Supreme Court's ruling in 2001, in Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, 104 in which the Court held that in diversity of citizenship cases, the claim preclusive effect of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be determined based on the preclusion law of the state in which the federal diversity court sits. 105 The Court noted that the language in Rule 41(b) 106 about judgment on the merits does not pertain to claim preclusion and that it is a question of federal common law whether a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal has that effect. 107

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Thus, reading the Semtek and Moitie decisions together, it appears that federal common law, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dictates the claim preclusive effect of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and that at this point in time, the federal rule of decision is that in diversity of citizenship actions, the law of the forum state governs. However, in federal question actions, many courts unfortunately have concluded that a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal carries claim preclusive effect, presumably with regard to the transaction and occurrence embraced by the allegations in the dismissed complaint. But in light of Semtek, it is doubtful that this result is mandated by Rule 41(b) and that decision may lead federal courts to reconsider the subject and to establish a federal common law rule regarding Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of federal question claims. A court that thinks it convenient to test the merits of the plaintiff's case by a preliminary motion should do so by converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, a subject discussed in a later section, since this is the procedural device specifically designed to test the merits of the claim in advance of trial. 108 Unless this conversion has been done in accordance with the dictates of Rule 12(b), the motion to dismiss retains its original character and the application of res judicata would be a dubious path to follow, as discussed above. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the plaintiff may not realize that more than his formal statement of the claim is being contested on a given Rule 12(b)(6) motion and may not prepare himself to defend the substantive merits of his claim. Thus, the court must be especially sensitive to assure the pleader adequate notice of the possible consequences of the challenge being successful. 109 Moreover, application of the policy of freely granting leave to amend will avoid prejudice to unwary or unprepared pleaders. 110 Several technical problems arise with regard to the amendment of the complaint following a successful motion under Rule 12(b)(6). First, there is a split of authority as to whether the plaintiff can amend once as a matter of right under Rule 15(a) despite the dismissal if no responsive pleading has been served or whether the plaintiff must obtain the court's permission for any amendment when the dismissal order does not expressly grant leave to replead or expressly negates any right to amend. 111 Once there has been an entry of judgment, of course, any ability to amend as of right ends. 112 To avoid the problems that arise when the plaintiff attempts to exercise the automatic right of amendment after the trial court has entered the dismissal, those courts that consider amendment to be a matter of right should be careful to ascertain whether the plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint and should prescribe a reasonable time period in the order within which the plaintiff may exercise that right to amend the complaint. A related problem arises when a plaintiff who has lost an appeal from a judgment following the dismissal of his complaint returns to the trial court and asks for permission to file an amended pleading. Some authority indicates that under certain circumstances only the appellate court can grant leave to amend at this stage of the proceedings. 113 These problems are analyzed in greater detail in the discussion under Rule 15 concerning the amendment of pleadings, the discussion under Rule 59 on the amendment of judgments, and the discussion under Rule 60 relating to relief from a judgment or order. 114 A proposition of universal application and frequent repetition, making comprehensive case citation for the entire period the federal rules have been in effect impossible and probably of little or no value, is that a district court's ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is reviewed de novo by the court of appeals. 115 Since the motion raises a question of law and the lower court's decision has been based only on the sufficiency of the complaint, any documents attached thereto or incorporated by reference, and the doctrine of judicial notice, that standard is entirely appropriate. Inasmuch as a denial of a motion to dismiss does not produce a final judgment, appellate review most frequently involves a grant of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 115.50 The court of appeals will evaluate the complaint in much the same way as did the district court, which means that the principles of construction discussed earlier in this section will apply. Thus, for example, the appellate court will accept the facts pleaded as true and read the complaint in the light most favorable to the pleader 116 but has no obligation to conjure up unpleaded allegations. 117 Although some courts of appeal will not accept arguments raised, or consider facts presented, for the first time on appeal, 118 the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held to the contrary with regard to factual allegations that are consistent with the complaint. 119

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

One court of appeals has held that a transferee court under Section 1407 has the power to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). 120 This is not surprising inasmuch as Section 1407(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, which establishes the procedure for consolidation of multidistrict litigation, gives the transferee court plenary power over the pretrial process of the cases before it including the ability to terminate one or more of the transferred cases. 121

Footnotes a55 Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts, The University of Texas. a56 University Professor, New York University. Formerly Bruce Bromley Professor of Law, Harvard University. a57 John F. Digardi Distinguished Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. a58 Horace O. Coil (’57) Chair in Litigation, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. a59 Professor of Law and Michael J. Zimmer Fellow Seton Hall Law School. a409 University Professor, New York University. Formerly Bruce Bromley Professor of Law, Harvard University. Professor Miller revised §§ 1181 to 1400 for the publication of Chapter 1 in its Third Edition. a410 John F. Digardi Distinguished Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Professor Kane revised §§ 1401 to 1540 for the publication of Chapter 4 in its Third Edition. 1 Matters considered

Supreme Court In discussing the standard by which courts should evaluate whether a complaint has stated a “strong inference” of scienter with the requisite particularity, the Court stated: “[C]ourts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 2007, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2509, 551 U.S. 308, 168 L.Ed.2d 179, citing Wright & Miller.

First Circuit Rivera v. Centro Medico de Turabo, Inc., 575 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2009). Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 56, 172 L. Ed. 2d 24 (2008) (courts have made narrow exceptions for documents of unchallenged authenticity, official records, documents central to plaintiffs' claims, and documents sufficiently referred to in plaintiff's complaint). Arturet Velez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., C.A.1st, 2005, 429 F.3d 10 (although allegations of complaint generally are taken as true, court may consider facts subject to judicial notice, implications from documents incorporated into complaint, and concessions in complainant's response to motion to dismiss). Ordinarily, on a motion to dismiss, a court may not consider any documents that are outside the complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein, unless the motion is converted into one for summary judgment; however, when a complaint's factual allegations are expressly linked to an unchallenged document, then the court can review it upon a motion to dismiss. Diva's, Inc. v. City of Bangor, C.A.1st, 2005, 411 F.3d 30 (not to be cited per First Circuit Rule 32.3) (settlement agreement). Greene v. Rhode Island, C.A.1st, 2005, 398 F.3d 45. Boateng v. InterAmerican Univ., Inc., C.A.1st, 2000, 210 F.3d 56, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 245, 531 U.S. 904, 148 L.Ed.2d 176 (court may look to matters of public record, including documents from prior state court adjudications). Cruz v. Melecio, C.A.1st, 2000, 204 F.3d 14 (court must consider complaint, as well as matters fairly incorporated within it and matters susceptible to judicial notice). El Dia, Inc. v. Governor Rossello, C.A.1st, 1999, 165 F.3d 106 (Rule 12(b)(6) analysis is confined to pleadings). The district court did not err by considering the agreement at issue, which the complaint discussed at considerable length and a copy of which was attached to the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs neither challenged the authenticity of the agreement nor moved to strike it from the record, and thus the agreement effectively merged into the pleadings. The court of appeals noted that this conclusion made eminent sense and was in line with the policy of weeding out unmeritorious claims. A court's inquiry into the viability of the

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

complaint should not be hamstrung simply because the plaintiff has failed to append to the complaint the very document upon which, by his own admission, the allegations rest. Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 137 F.3d 12. The court may review documents “the authenticity of which [is] not disputed by the parties” without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Watterson v. Page, C.A.1st, 1993, 987 F.2d 1 (reviewing public documents plaintiffs attached to opposition to motion to dismiss).

Maine Hamilton v. U.S., 107 A.F.T.R.2d 2011-1815, 2011 WL 1298578 (D. Me. 2011). Frontier Communications Corp. v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., 2010 WL 2651356, *1 (D. Me. 2010), aff'd, 2010 WL 3342201 (D. Me. 2010) ("With regard to the record for decision, the court is not always restricted to reviewing just the plaintiff's allegations. Where, as here, the complaint incorporates, relies upon, or attaches exhibits that inform the factual allegations, the court is free to consider the exhibits for purposes of addressing a motion to dismiss."). United Transportation Union v. Springfield Terminal Co., D.C.Me.1994, 869 F.Supp. 42.

Massachusetts Canales v. Gatzunis, 2013 WL 5781285, *8 (D. Mass. 2013), citing Nollet v. Justices of Trial Court of Com. of Mass., 83 F. Supp. 2d 204, 208 (D. Mass. 2000). George v. National Water Main Cleaning Co., 2011 WL 841226 (D. Mass. 2011). Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union v. Clarke, 2010 WL 2900430, *2 (D. Mass. 2010) ("The Court may take into consideration the facts set out in public documents attached to the complaint or opposition, or expressly incorporated therein. Consideration of any documents not incorporated or attached to the complaint is forbidden, unless the proceeding is properly converted into one for summary judgment.") (internal citations omitted). U.S. ex rel. Gagne v. City of Worcester, 2008 WL 2510143 (D. Mass. 2008). Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., D.C.Mass.2006, 447 F.Supp.2d 23. U.S. ex rel. Health Outcomes Technologies v. Hallmark Health Sys, Inc., D.C.Mass.2006, 409 F.Supp.2d 43. Christensen v. Kingston School Committee, D.C.Mass.2005, 360 F.Supp.2d 212. Estate of Castucci ex rel. Castucci v. U.S., D.C.Mass.2004, 311 F.Supp.2d 184 (since parties did not dispute authenticity of newspaper attached to motion, court considered it without conversion to summary judgment). Horney v. Westfield Gage Co., D.C.Mass.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 29 (exceptions to conversion requirement exist for documents of undisputed authenticity, official public records, documents central to plaintiff's claim, and documents sufficiently referred to in complaint). Shabazz v. Cole, D.C.Mass.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 177 (it is improper to consider documents not attached to complaint or expressly incorporated therein). When a complaint's factual allegations are expressly linked—and admittedly dependent upon—document (the authenticity of which is not challenged), that document effectively merges into the pleadings and the trial court can review it in deciding a motion to dismiss. Edwin v. Blenwood Associates, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 70. Citicorp No. America, Inc. v. Ogden Martin Sys. of Haverhill, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 72 (documents whose authenticity is not questioned and on which allegations of complaint are expressly based). Integrated Technologies Ltd. v. Biochem Immunosystems, (U.S.) Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 97 (considering pleadings filed and orders entered in earlier action between parties because defendant contended that instant action was impermissible attempt to assert claim plaintiff had not been allowed to add in amended complaint in earlier action). Paredes v. Princess Cruises, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 87. Deisenroth v. Numonics Corp., D.C.Mass.1998, 997 F.Supp. 153 (exhibits attached to complaint). Honeywell Consumer Prods., Inc. v. Windmere Corp., D.C.Mass.1998, 993 F.Supp. 22. Goodrich v. CML Fiberoptics, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 990 F.Supp. 48. Chatman v. Gentle Dental Center of Waltham, D.C.Mass.1997, 973 F.Supp. 228. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. IMR Capital Corp., D.C.Mass.1995, 888 F.Supp. 221. McGrath v. MacDonald, D.C.Mass.1994, 853 F.Supp. 1 (document not cited in complaint was not proper subject for consideration on Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). A court may take judicial notice of other court proceedings, but only if they are submitted into the record by the parties. American Glue & Resin, Inc. v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., D.C.Mass.1993, 835 F.Supp. 36.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

New Hampshire Sutliffe v. Epping School Dist., 2008 WL 939183 (D.N.H. 2008). Christian v. Anderson, D.C.N.H.2006, 2006 WL 2924926. Optical Alignment Sys. & Inspection Servs., Inc. v. Alignment Servs. of No. America, Inc., D.C.N.H.1995, 909 F.Supp. 58.

Puerto Rico Rishell v. Medical Card System, Inc., 2013 WL 6019212, *4 (D.P.R. 2013). Hoff v. Popular, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 77, 87 (D.P.R. 2010) ("[T]he court must consider the complaint in its entirety, including documents which are integral to the complaint or are incorporated by reference in the pleadings."), citing Wright & Miller. MARPOR Corp. v. DFO, LLC, 2010 WL 4922693 (D.P.R. 2010) (court only may consider matters that are part of or incorporated into complaint). Marti Navarro v. U.S., D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 104 F.Supp.2d 96 (when complaint's factual allegations are expressly linked to and admittedly dependent on document authenticity of which is not challenged, document effectively merges into pleadings and court can review it in deciding motion to dismiss for failure to state claim). Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Warehouse, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 256 (court may consider documents that are referred to in nonmovant's pleadings and are central to his or her claim). Kmart Corp. v. Rivera-Alejandro Architects & Engineers, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 174 F.R.D. 242 (contract attached to motion to dismiss). Fumero-Vidal v. First Fed. Savs. Bank, D.C.Puerto Rico 1992, 788 F.Supp. 1275, 1281, quoting Wright & Miller.

Second Circuit "We do not consider matters outside the pleadings in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Rather, where matter outside the pleadings is offered and not excluded by the trial court, the motion to dismiss should be converted to a motion for summary judgment." Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc., 723 F.3d 192, 202 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted), citing Global Network Communications, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 154-155 (2d Cir. 2006). Building Industry Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. City of New York, 678 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 2012). Lapierre v. County of Nassau, 459 Fed. Appx. 28, 30 (2d Cir. 2012). Goodrich v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 654 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2011) (allegations brought forward in pretrial conference should not be considered when they are not attached to complaint). Halebian v. Berv, 644 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2011). The court will consider matters within the four corners of the complaint, attached to the complaint, or incorporated into the complaint by reference. There is also an exception that allows a court to consider documents that are integral to the complaint and upon which the complaint solely relies. A passing reference or references to an outside document is not sufficient by itself. Williams v. Time Warner Inc., 440 Fed. Appx. 7 (2d Cir. 2011). DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) ("In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint."). “[W]e may consider any written instrument attached to the complaint, statements or documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, legally required public disclosure documents filed with the SEC, and documents possessed by or known to the plaintiff and upon which it relied in bringing the suit.” ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., C.A.2d, 2007, 493 F.3d 87, 98 (complaint alleges violations under Securities Exchange Act). “In certain circumstances, the court may permissibly consider documents other than the complaint in ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). … And whatever documents may properly be considered in connection with the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the bottom- line principle is that ‘once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.’” Roth v. Jennings, C.A.2d, 2007, 489 F.3d 499, 509, quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 2007, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 550 U.S. 544, 167 L.Ed.2d 929. Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, C.A.2d, 2006, 464 F.3d 328. Global Network Communications, Inc. v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 2006, 458 F.3d 150 (reversing district court for considering matters outside the pleadings). Subaru Distributors Corp. v. Subaru of America, Inc., C.A.2d, 2005, 425 F.3d 119.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

For purposes of the rule requiring conversion of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment when material outside the complaint is considered by the court, the complaint is deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference. Even when a document is not incorporated by reference, the court may consider it if the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect, rendering the document “integral” to the complaint. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., C.A.2d, 2002, 282 F.3d 147. Schnall v. Marine Midland Bank, C.A.2d, 2000, 225 F.3d 263 (court could consider plaintiff's cardholder agreement, account history, and monthly statements, because they were integral to his claims). Rothman v. Gregor, C.A.2d, 2000, 220 F.3d 81 (court will consider any written instrument attached to complaint or incorporated by reference, public disclosure documents filed with SEC, and documents that plaintiffs either possessed or knew about and upon which they relied in bringing suit). Tarshis v. Riese Organization, C.A.2d, 2000, 211 F.3d 30 (court must confine its consideration to facts on face of complaint, documents appended to complaint or incorporated in complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken). EEOC v. Staten Island Savs. Bank, C.A.2d, 2000, 207 F.3d 144 (documents attached to complaint may be considered on motion to dismiss). Strom v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., C.A.2d, 1999, 202 F.3d 138 (court ruling on motion to dismiss for failure to state claim correctly considered group insurance policy on theory that it was incorporated by reference in complaint). Leonard F. v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, C.A.2d, 1999, 199 F.3d 99 (court must confine consideration to facts stated on face of complaint, documents appended to complaint or incorporated in complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Hayden v. County of Nassau, C.A.2d, 1999, 180 F.3d 42 (court may refer to supplementary materials without converting motion if materials not relied upon). Automated Salvage Transp., Inc. v. Wheelabrator Environmental Sys., Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 155 F.3d 59 (facts stated on fact of complaint, documents appended to complaint or incorporated by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 67, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 868, 525 U.S. 1103, 142 L.Ed.2d 770 (matters of public record and documents integral to plaintiff's complaint but not incorporated by reference). Austin v. Ford Models, Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 149 F.3d 148 (amended complaint ordinarily supersedes original complaint and renders it of no legal effect). Chance v. Armstrong, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 698, appeal after remand C.A.2d, 1998, 159 F.3d 1345 (facts set forth in exhibits attached as part of complaint as well as those in formal complaint itself). Cooper v. Parsky, C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 433, on remand D.C.N.Y.2000, 2000 WL 1277593 (documents attached to or incorporated by reference in complaint). Newman & Schwartz v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., C.A.2d, 1996, 102 F.3d 660, on remand D.C.N.Y.2000, 2000 WL 1364364. Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., C.A.2d, 1995, 72 F.3d 1085. Hertz Corp. v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1993, 1 F.3d 121, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 1054, 510 U.S. 1111, 127 L.Ed.2d 375, and 114 S.Ct. 1055, 510 U.S. 1111, 127 L.Ed.2d 375, on remand D.C.N.Y.2002, 212 F.Supp.2d 275. Allen v. WestPoint-Pepperell, Inc., C.A.2d, 1991, 945 F.2d 40.

Connecticut Consolmagno v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 44292, 2011 WL 4804774 (D. Conn. 2011). Macedonia Church v. Lancaster Hotel Ltd. Partnership, 560 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Conn. 2008). Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, D.C.Conn.2005, 358 F.Supp.2d 6. Desardouin v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 153. MM Global Servs., Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., D.C.Conn.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 689. Ericson v. City of Meriden, D.C.Conn.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 276, affirmed C.A.2d, 2002, 55 Fed.Appx. 11 (court refused to consider newspaper article reporting alleged sexual harassment incident or attorney's report prepared after incident in deciding motion to dismiss). In re SmithKline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc. Lab. Test Billing Practices Litigation, D.C.Conn.1999, 108 F.Supp.2d 84 (consideration is limited to factual allegations in complaint, documents attached as exhibit or incorporated by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiffs had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Latella v. National Passenger R.R. Corp., D.C.Conn.1999, 94 F.Supp.2d 186 (consideration is limited to facts stated in complaint and documents attached as exhibits). Subsolutions, Inc. v. Doctor's Associates, Inc., D.C.Conn.1999, 62 F.Supp.2d 616 (statements made in original complaint not to be considered when deciding motion to dismiss amended complaint). Ganino v. Citizens Utils. Co., D.C.Conn.1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 222, reversed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 2000, 228 F.3d 154 (documents attached to securities fraud complaint control when they contradict allegations in complaint). BRM Industries, Inc. v. Mazak Corp., D.C.Conn.1999, 42 F.Supp.2d 176 (complaint, for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) motion, includes any document or exhibit attached or incorporated by reference). Ziemba v. Slater, D.C.Conn.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 81 (documents attached to complaint and exhibits incorporated by reference may be considered). Meeker v. Regional School Dist. No. 6, D.C.Conn.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 193 (facts on face, documents appended, documents referenced, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Feiner v. SS & C Technologies, D.C.Conn.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 204. Sanchez v. City of Hartford, D.C.Conn.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 162 (facts stated in complaint and documents attached thereto as exhibits or incorporated therein by reference). Huff v. West Haven Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 117 (facts on face of complaint). Catalano v. Bedford Associates, Inc., D.C.Conn.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 133. Alba v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.1998, 999 F.Supp. 687 (document mentioned in complaint and exhibits). Beggs v. Rossi, D.C.Conn.1997, 994 F.Supp. 114, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 145 F.3d 511 (only facts alleged). Raybestos Prods. Co. v. Coni-Seal, Inc., D.C.Conn.1997, 989 F.Supp. 166. In re Hunter Environmental Servs., Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Conn.1996, 921 F.Supp. 914. In re Colonial Ltd. Partnership Litigation, D.C.Conn.1994, 854 F.Supp. 64, 79 (court can consider document that plaintiffs had possession or knowledge of and upon which they relied in bringing their action). A court has discretion to consider outside documents if there was notice to plaintiff of their contents and they are integral to the plaintiff's claim. Degrooth v. General Dynamics Corp., D.C.Conn.1993, 837 F.Supp. 485. Aguilar v. United Nat. Ins. Co., D.C.Conn.1993, 825 F.Supp. 456, 457 (“A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) must be decided solely on the facts alleged.”) (Dorsey, J.). Steiner v. Shawmut Nat. Corp., D.C.Conn.1991, 766 F.Supp. 1236.

New York Meng-Lin Liu v. Siemens A.G., 2013 WL 5692504, *2 (S.D. N.Y. 2013), citing Allen v. WestPoint-Pepperell, Inc., 945 F.2d 40, 44 (2d Cir. 1991). Daniels v. Wesley Gardens Corp., 2011 WL 1598962 (W.D. N.Y. 2011). Graham Hanson Design LLC v. 511 9th LLC, 2011 WL 744801 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). Fleurimond v. New York University, 722 F. Supp. 2d 352, 354 (E.D. N.Y. 2010). "The Court must limit itself to the facts alleged in the complaint, which are accepted as true; to any documents attached to the complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference therein; to matters of which judicial notice may be taken; or to documents upon the terms and effect of which the complaint relies heavily and which are, thus, rendered integral to the complaint." Levista, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2010 WL 5067843, *3 (E.D. N.Y. 2010), judgment aff'd, 2011 WL 6117276 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Oldham v. Universal Music Group, 2010 WL 4967923, *1 (S.D. N.Y. 2010). Arias ex rel. Almonte v. Com'r of Social Sec., 2010 WL 4724263, *1 (E.D. N.Y. 2010) ("In addition to considering the pleadings, the court may consider 'statements or documents incorporated by reference in the pleadings … and documents possessed by or known to the plaintiff and upon which it relied in bringing the suit.'"), quoting ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007). Bowman v. Waterside Plaza, L.L.C., 2010 WL 2873051, *4 (S.D. N.Y. 2010) ("[A] complaint is now subject to dismissal unless its well-pled factual allegations, if credited, make the claim 'plausible.'"). Berman v. Sugo LLC, 580 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D. N.Y. 2008). “The court may consider the facts stated on the face of the complaint, as well as in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. This includes, in securities fraud actions, ‘public disclosure documents required by law to be filed, and actually filed, with the SEC ….’” Transit Rail, LLC v. Marsala,

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

D.C.N.Y.2007, 2007 WL 2089273, *4 (internal citations omitted), quoting Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., C.A.2d, 1991, 937 F.2d 767, 774. “With certain limited exceptions, the record on a motion to dismiss is limited to the complaint itself. One such exception is that the Court may consider, on a motion to dismiss, items attached to the complaint, incorporated therein by reference, or which were relied upon in the drafting of the complaint.” Savino v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, D.C.N.Y.2007, 2007 WL 1726468, *3 (internal citations omitted). Watts v. Services for the Underserved, D.C.N.Y.2007, 2007 WL 1651852, *3 (court “may consider the facts set forth in a pro se plaintiff's opposition papers to a motion to dismiss as part of the pleadings when making [] decision” on motion to dismiss). Lonegan v. Hasty, D.C.N.Y.2006, 436 F.Supp.2d 419. Salamea v. Macy's East, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2006, 426 F.Supp.2d 149. Aguilera v. County of Nassau, D.C.N.Y.2006, 425 F.Supp.2d 320. Streit v. Bushnell, D.C.N.Y.2006, 424 F.Supp.2d 633 (court may consider documents integral to complaint, documents attached as exhibits, or documents incorporated by reference). Doron Precision Sys., Inc. v. FAAC, Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.2006, 423 F.Supp.2d 173. Locicero v. O'Connell, D.C.N.Y.2006, 419 F.Supp.2d 521 (court will consider documents integral to complaint, attached to it, or incorporated by reference). Lincoln v. Potter, D.C.N.Y.2006, 418 F.Supp.2d 443. A court may consider documents not incorporated by reference into a complaint on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if the complaint relies heavily upon the document's terms and effect, rendering the document integral to the complaint. In re Parmalat Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2005, 376 F.Supp.2d 472. The defendants submitted evidence outside the complaint, and the district court exercised its discretion not to convert their motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment because the plaintiff had not had an opportunity to present evidence in response. Fernandez v. M & L Milevoi Management, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2005, 357 F.Supp.2d 644. Mitchell v. Home, D.C.N.Y.2005, 2005 WL 1655074 (press release referenced in amended complaint and divorce decree not incorporated by reference). Dorsett–Felicelli, Inc. v. County of Clinton, D.C.N.Y.2005, 2005 WL 1307693. In re Philip Servs. Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2004, 383 F.Supp.2d 463 (for purposes of motion to dismiss in securities actions, complaint includes all publicly disclosed documents that must be filed with SEC, and actually have been filed with SEC, as well as documents plaintiffs either possessed or knew about and upon which they relied in bringing suit). Condit v. Dunne, D.C.N.Y.2004, 317 F.Supp.2d 344 (recordings and transcripts of television and radio shows and articles from newspapers and magazines may be considered on motion to dismiss because plaintiff relied on them in complaint). Verizon Directories Corp. v. Yellow Book USA, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2004, 309 F.Supp.2d 401 (court may consider videotape referred to in complaint when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider exhibits, statements, or documents that the complaint incorporates or on which it relies. However, the court may not consider affidavits or exhibits offered by the defendant. SEC v. McDermott, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 385197. Pena v. Guzman, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 253331. Hoffenberg v. Hoffman & Pollok, D.C.N.Y.2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 527. Ainbinder v. Potter, D.C.N.Y.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 180. McDowall v. Leschack & Grodensky, P.C., D.C.N.Y.2003, 279 F.Supp.2d 197. 1210 Colvin Ave., Inc. v. Tops Markets, LLC, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22383566. Globecon Group, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22144316. Bernstein v. The MONY Group, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2002, 228 F.Supp.2d 415. Sanzo v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., D.C.N.Y.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 266. Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. v. American Rock Salt Co., D.C.N.Y.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 520. On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must confine its consideration to facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken. T.S. Haulers, Inc. v. Town of Riverhead, D.C.N.Y.2002, 190 F.Supp.2d 455. American Medical Ass'n v. United Healthcare Corp., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 31413668. Evans v. New York Botanical Garden, D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 31002814.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider documents attached to the complaint as an exhibit or incorporated in the complaint by reference. Bolanos v. Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1465907 (magistrate judge). Wayland Inv. Fund, LLC v. Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 450 (court may consider any written instrument that is incorporated by reference in complaint or is integral to complaint without converting motion). Polar Int'l Brokerage Corp. v. Reeve, D.C.N.Y.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 225 (in securities fraud action, court may review and consider public disclosure documents required by law to be and actually filed with SEC). Berg v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, D.C.N.Y.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 121 (court may consider documents outside pleadings that are integral to complaint if plaintiff sues primarily on basis of document and either only attaches part of document or fails to attach document at all). Newman v. Holder, D.C.N.Y.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 103 (when plaintiff does not attach to complaint or incorporate by reference document upon which it solely relies and which is integral to complaint, court may consider document on motion to dismiss without converting). Zdziebloski v. Town of East Greenbush, New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 70 (consideration is limited to factual allegations in complaint, documents attached to complaint or incorporated by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiffs had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit). Antonios A. Alevizopoulos & Associates, Inc. v. Comcast Int'l Holdings, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 100 F.Supp.2d 178 (court must limit its consideration to facts stated in complaint and documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference). John Gil Constr., Inc. v. Riverso, D.C.N.Y.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 345, affirmed C.A.2d, 2001, 7 Fed.Appx. 134. Kalnit v. Eichler, D.C.N.Y.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 327 (in securities fraud action, court may review public disclosure documents required by law to be filed with SEC). Perks v. Town of Huntington, D.C.N.Y.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 222 (court may consider factfinder's report because its attachment to complaint afforded defendant notice and opportunity to respond, but court cannot consider defendant's affidavit submitted in support of her motion to dismiss). Bruker v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 257 (consideration is limited to factual allegations in plaintiff's complaint, documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated in it by reference, and to documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiff had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit). Steinberg v. PRT Group, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 294 (in securities cases, court may consider documents, such as prospectus, that are incorporated by reference, even if not attached to complaint). Vertical Broadcasting, Inc. v. Town of Southampton, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 379 (court considers facts in complaint, documents attached to complaint and incorporated by reference, and matters of public record). Herbil Holding Co. v. Brook, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 369 (court is to look only to allegations of complaint and any documents attached to or incorporated by reference in complaint). Dibble v. Fenimore, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 315, reversed on other grounds C.A.2d, 2003, 339 F.3d 120 (court considers allegations in complaint, documents attached or incorporated by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiffs had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit). In re N2K, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 204, affirmed C.A.2d, 2000, 202 F.3d 81 (on motion to dismiss complaint brought under securities laws, court may properly consider documents such as prospectus that are incorporated into complaint by reference). Resource N.E. of Long Island, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, D.C.N.Y.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 52. Arizona Premium Fin., Inc. v. Bielli, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 341 (court must limit itself to facts stated in complaint or in documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated in complaint by reference). Dietrich v. Bauer, D.C.N.Y.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 312 (court may consider factual allegations in complaint, documents attached to complaint or incorporated by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiff had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit). Ressler v. Liz Claiborne, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 43 (when cause of action is based on fraud, court also may consider documents that form basis of plaintiffs' allegations if documents are integral to complaint, documents filed with SEC, and documents plaintiffs had either possession or knowledge of and upon which they relied in bringing suit). Arduini/Messina Partnership v. National Medical Financial Servs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 352 (in motion to dismiss securities fraud action, district court may consider documents required to be publicly filed with SEC that bear on adequacy of disclosure).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Laramee v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 357 (court may consider documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated in it by reference). Milman v. Box Hill Sys. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 220 (in securities fraud actions, court may review and consider public disclosure documents required by law to be filed with SEC that actually were filed). East Hampton Airport Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Town Bd. of the Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 139 (district court is limited to facts stated in complaint or in documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated in complaint by reference). New York Islanders Hockey Club, LLP v. Comerica Bank-Texas, D.C.N.Y.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 108 (court is to look only to allegations of complaint and any documents attached to or incorporated by reference in complaint). Tufano v. One Toms Point Lane Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 119, affirmed C.A.2d, 2000, 229 F.3d 1136 (court may only consider facts alleged in pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in pleadings, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Hill v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 254 (court may consider allegations in complaint, all papers and exhibits appended to complaint, and any matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Reisner v. Stoller, D.C.N.Y.1999, 51 F.Supp.2d 430 (court can consider documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference and may take judicial notice of matters of public record). Jenkins v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1999, 46 F.Supp.2d 271 (court may consider documents attached or incorporated by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and documents in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiff has knowledge, that plaintiff relied on in bringing suit). Coddington v. Adelphi Univ., D.C.N.Y.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 211 (facts alleged in complaint and documents attached thereto). Black Radio Network, Inc. v. NYNEX Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 565 (documents attached or incorporated by reference and matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Continental Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 109. Warren v. Fischl, D.C.N.Y.1999, 33 F.Supp.2d 171 (court may consider pleadings, documents attached or incorporated by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Thanning v. Nassau County Medical Examiners Office, D.C.N.Y.1999, 187 F.R.D. 69 (documents attached and allegations in complaint). Kaible v. U.S. Computer Group, D.C.N.Y.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 373 (court will not consider extra-pleading material not attached or incorporated by reference) Magee v. Nassau County Medical Center, D.C.N.Y.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 154 (court to consider four corners of complaint, documents appended or incorporated by reference, and matters of which court takes judicial notice, such as case law and statutes). Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 348 (defendant not permitted to challenge truth of complaint's allegations unless proffered evidence is already before court). O'Hearn v. Bodyonics, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1998, 22 F.Supp.2d 7 (facts stated in complaint and documents attached to complaint and answer as exhibits or incorporated by reference). In a defamation case, the court may consider documents beyond the pleadings provided that the parties have received notice of the documents. Cytyc Corp. v. Neuromedical Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 296, citing Bio-Technology Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 886 F.Supp. 377, affirmed C.A.Fed., 2001, 267 F.3d 1325. In deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court may consider the pleadings and exhibits attached thereto, statements or documents incorporated by reference in the pleadings, matters subject to judicial notice, and documents submitted by the moving party, so long as such documents either are in the possession of the party opposing the motion or were relied upon by that party in its pleadings. Prentice v. Apfel, D.C.N.Y.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 420. Cetenich v. Alden, D.C.N.Y.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 238 (allegations in complaint). Marbi Corp. of New York v. Puhekker, D.C.N.Y.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 425 (nothing showed that plaintiffs relied upon or even knew about document to which defendant referred in motion to dismiss, and thus court refused to consider it). Universal Marine Medical Supply, Inc. v. Lovecchio, D.C.N.Y.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 214 (face of pleadings). Cahill v. O'Donnell, D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 341 (factual allegations of complaint, documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiff had knowledge and relied upon in bringing suit).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Lucas v. Planning Bd. of Town of LaGrange, D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 310 (facts underlying consent judgment, of which plaintiffs obviously were familiar). Although the factual inquiry generally is restricted to the allegations in the complaint, a court can and will consider, as part of the pleadings, a plaintiff's administrative charge. Cable v. New York State Thruway Authority, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 120. Ives v. Guilford Mills, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 191 (complaint, documents attached to complaint, undisputed documents alleged or referenced in complaint, and public records). Harrington v. Hudson Sheraton Corp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 475 (facts stated in complaint or in documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference). Rodriguez v. McGinnis, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 244 (factual allegations in complaint, documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiff had knowledge and relied upon in bringing suit). Harris v. American Protective Servs. of New York, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 191 (factual allegations in complaint, documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiff had knowledge and relied upon in bringing suit). De Jesus-Keolamphu v. Village of Pelham Manor, D.C.N.Y.1998, 999 F.Supp. 556, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 166 F.3d 1199 (facts stated on face of complaint, documents appended to complaint, documents incorporated in complaint by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 340 (facts stated in complaint or in documents attached to complaint or incorporated by reference, but not affirmations or attachments to affirmations that are not part of challenged pleading). The court may consider only (1) the facts stated on the face of the complaint, (2) documents appended to the complaint, (3) documents incorporated in the complaint by reference, and (4) matters of which judicial notice may be taken. ESI, Incorporated v. Coastal Power Production Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 419. Parisi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 298, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 38 (facts stated in complaint, or in documents attached as exhibits or incorporated in complaint by reference). Davis v. Goode, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 82 (facts stated on face of complaint, documents appended to complaint or incorporated by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken). When a plaintiff chooses not to attach to the complaint or incorporate by reference a document upon which it solely relies and that is integral to the complaint, the defendant may produce the document when attacking the complaint for failure to state a claim, because the plaintiff should not so easily be allowed to escape the consequences of its own failure. McNight v. Dormitory Authority of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 70 (considering documents relied upon but not incorporated into complaint, which were matters of public record anyway, but refusing to consider affidavits). Tucker v. Kenney, D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 412 (facts stated in complaint or in documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference). Status Int'l S.A. v. M & D Maritime Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 182 (facts stated in complaint and documents attached to complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference). Continental Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 133 (facts alleged in pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in pleadings, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Barcher v. New York Univ. School of Law, D.C.N.Y.1998, 993 F.Supp. 177, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 37 (factual allegations in complaint, documents attached to complaint or incorporated by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, and documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiff had knowledge and relied upon in bringing suit). Maltz v. Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 286 (documents incorporated by reference into, or attached as exhibits to, complaint, information that can be judicially noticed, and documents either in plaintiff's possession or of which plaintiff had knowledge and relied upon in bringing suit). Cerasani v. Sony Corp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 991 F.Supp. 343 (matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Fed.R.Evid. 201). Harrison v. NBD Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 179 (facts alleged in pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken). Phillips v. Merchants Ins. Group, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 99 (facts asserted on face of complaint). Adair v. Bristol Technology Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 179 F.R.D. 126 (disregarding matter not within four corners of complaint).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Barth v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1998, 178 F.R.D. 371 (facts asserted on face of complaint). Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Dep't Stores, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 26 F.Supp.2d 577, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 171 F.3d 754 (court may consider documents in plaintiff's possession and relied on in bringing suit). On a motion to dismiss in a securities fraud or RICO action, the Second Circuit permits consideration of: 1) documents attached as exhibits do, or incorporated by reference into, the complaint; 2) documents “integral” to the complaint, even if the complaint contains only limited quotations from those documents; and 3) documents filed with the SEC of which the plaintiff has notice in responding to the motion to dismiss. When a plaintiff is given notice that the defendant wishes the court to consider such documents and argues their contents, this weighs in favor of consideration. In re Merrill Lynch Ltd. Partnerships Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1997, 7 F.Supp.2d 256, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 154 F.3d 56 (considering prospectuses and annual reports). Press v. Chemical Inv. Servs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 375 (front side of form attached as exhibit to complaint as well as back side of same form that was not attached to complaint but was integral to complaint and discussed at length by both parties). Daniel v. American Bd. of Emergency Medicine, D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 112 (four corners of complaint). Halas v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 987 F.Supp. 227. Anonymous v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1997, 987 F.Supp. 131 (facts asserted on face of complaint). Schoenhaut v. American Sensors, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 785. Casaburro v. Giuliani, D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 176. Jones v. Albany County Civil Serv. Comm'n, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 280. Yucyco, Ltd. v. Republic of Slovenia, D.C.N.Y.1997, 984 F.Supp. 209 (integral document upon which plaintiff solely relied but chose not to attach to complaint). Rohrer v. FSI Futures, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 270 (text of brochures incorporated by reference). Madanes v. Madanes, D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 241 (facts stated on face of complaint and in documents appended to or incorporated in complaint). Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 956 F.Supp. 509, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 136 F.3d 313. Hili v. Sciarotta, D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 177, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 210. Ramirez v. Brooklyn Aids Task Force, D.C.N.Y.1997, 175 F.R.D. 423, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 164 F.3d 619. LaSalle Nat. Bank v. Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co., D.C.N.Y.1996, 951 F.Supp. 1071. Quinones v. Howard, D.C.N.Y.1996, 948 F.Supp. 251. ABC Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 635. Zigman v. Giacobbe, D.C.N.Y.1996, 944 F.Supp. 147. Morales v. New Valley Corp., D.C.N.Y.1996, 936 F.Supp. 119, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 163 F.3d 763. Campbell v. Grayline Air Shuttle, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 930 F.Supp. 794. Mincone v. Nassau County Community College, D.C.N.Y.1996, 923 F.Supp. 398. McCarthy v. Board of Trustees of Erie Community College, D.C.N.Y.1996, 914 F.Supp. 937. Centre-Point Merchant Bank Ltd. v. American Express Bank Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1996, 913 F.Supp. 202. Odom v. Columbia Univ., D.C.N.Y.1995, 906 F.Supp. 188. Protter v. Nathan's Famous Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 904 F.Supp. 101. Martin v. Coughlin, D.C.N.Y.1995, 895 F.Supp. 39. Lomaglio Associates, Inc. v. LBK Marketing Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 892 F.Supp. 89. Gelb v. Board of Elections in City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1995, 888 F.Supp. 509. Bio-Technology Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 886 F.Supp. 377, affirmed C.A.Fed., 2001, 267 F.3d 1325. D'Orange v. Feely, D.C.N.Y.1995, 877 F.Supp. 152 (court may consider documents incorporated in complaint by reference). Mathon v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 986. International Audiotext Network, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., D.C.N.Y.1994, 893 F.Supp. 1207. Nelson v. Paramount Communications, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 872 F.Supp. 1242. Philippeaux v. North Cent. Bronx Hosp., D.C.N.Y.1994, 871 F.Supp. 640. MTV Networks v. Curry, D.C.N.Y.1994, 867 F.Supp. 202. The court may consider documents that form the basis of the allegations of fraud if those documents are integral in the complaint. Barsam v. Pure Tech Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1440. Sazerac Co. v. Falk, D.C.N.Y.1994, 861 F.Supp. 253 (court may consider written instrument on Rule 12(b)(6) motion if it is basis of plaintiff's claim).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Heine v. Newman, Tannenbaum, Helpern, Syracuse & Hirschtritt, D.C.N.Y.1994, 856 F.Supp. 190. Mezo v. Elmergawi, D.C.N.Y.1994, 855 F.Supp. 59. Messina v. Mazzeo, D.C.N.Y.1994, 854 F.Supp. 116. If the plaintiff alleges a complaint based on a document, the court may consider the document on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion even if it was not attached to the complaint. Barnum v. Millbrook Care Ltd. Partnership, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1227. Gluckman v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 844 F.Supp. 151. Alie v. NYNEX Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 239. Nivram Corp. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 840 F.Supp. 243 (public disclosure documents filed with SEC). Westwood v. Cohen, D.C.N.Y.1993, 838 F.Supp. 126, 130 n. 8 (court looked at Wall Street Journal article without converting because it was “available to and clearly known of” by the plaintiff), quoting Robbins v. Moore Medical Corp., D.C.N.Y.1992, 788 F.Supp. 179, 185, n. 3. In the Second Circuit, a court can consider documents publicly filed with the SEC and documents upon which the plaintiff relies in framing his complaint in addition to those documents attached as exhibits to or incorporated by reference in the complaint. Furman v. Sherwood, D.C.N.Y.1993, 833 F.Supp. 408. Cuccolo v. Lipsky, Goodkin & Co., D.C.N.Y.1993, 826 F.Supp. 763. Amalgamated Bank of New York v. Marsh, D.C.N.Y.1993, 823 F.Supp. 209. Warwick Administrative Group v. Avon Prods., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 820 F.Supp. 116. In the Second Circuit, the court may consider documents without converting motion to motion for summary judgment when “(1) plaintiffs have undisputed notice of contents of such documents; and (2) such documents are integral to the plaintiffs' claim.” R.H. Damon & Co. v. Softkey Software Prods., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 811 F.Supp. 986, 989 (Duffy, J.), citing Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., C.A.2d, 1991, 949 F.2d 42, 48, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 1561, 503 U.S. 960, 118 L.Ed.2d 208. Ballachino v. Anders, D.C.N.Y.1993, 811 F.Supp. 121, 123 (court “has no authority to consider matters outside the pleadings”) (Curtin, J.). Guzman v. Bevona, D.C.N.Y.1992, 810 F.Supp. 509 (court may consider the complaint, any attached document or incorporated exhibit, and “any documents not attached to or incorporated in the complaint but integral to it”), citing I. Meyer Pincus & Associates v. Oppenheimer & Co., C.A.2d, 1991, 936 F.2d 759, 762. Sunshine Cellular v. Vanguard Cellular Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1992, 810 F.Supp. 486. Trautz v. Weisman, D.C.N.Y.1992, 809 F.Supp. 239. Koal Indus. Corp. v. Asland, S.A., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1143 (complaint includes any documents incorporated by reference). Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1037 (court may consider prospectus even though not attached to the complaint when the plaintiff alleges a claim based on that prospectus). Bilick v. Eagle Elec. Mfg. Co., D.C.N.Y.1992, 807 F.Supp. 243. Church of Scientology Int'l v. Time Warner, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1157. Ballan v. Wilfred Am. Educational Corp., D.C.N.Y.1989, 720 F.Supp. 241. Feder v. MacFadden Holdings, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1988, 698 F.Supp. 47. Bower v. Weisman, D.C.N.Y.1986, 639 F.Supp. 532, 539, citing Wright & Miller. A document annexed to the complaint and labeled “Information Statement” would be considered in ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under the anti-fraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act and the related Securities Exchange Commission rule. Joyce v. Joyce Beverages, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1977, 430 F.Supp. 676, 677, citing Wright & Miller, reversed on the merits C.A.2d, 1978, 571 F.2d 703, certiorari denied 98 S.Ct. 3092, 437 U.S. 905, 57 L.Ed.2d 1135. In re 9281 Shore Road Owners Corp., Bkrtcy.N.Y.1997, 214 B.R. 676 (all documents part of record before court, as well as documents contained in record before state court). In re Natale, Bkrtcy.D.C.N.Y.1992, 136 B.R. 344, 349, citing Wright & Miller. “Furthermore, on a motion to dismiss, a court may consider certain documents in addition to the complaint, including the contents of any documents attached to the complaint or incorporated by reference; matters as to which the court can take judicial notice; and documents in the possession of the non-moving party (the Creditors' Committee here) or documents which the non-moving party knew of or relied on in connection with its complaint.” In re Adelphia Communications Corp., Bkrtcy.D.C.N.Y.2007, 365 B.R. 24, 34.

Third Circuit Siwulec v. J.M. Adjustment Services, LLC, 465 Fed. Appx. 200, 202 (3d Cir. 2012). Ruddy v. U.S. Postal Service, 455 Fed. Appx. 279, 283 (3d Cir. 2011), citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Management, 641 F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir. 2011) (court will consider documents attached to complaint). City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Horizon Lines, Inc., 442 Fed. Appx. 672, 674 (3d Cir. 2011) (court will consider complaint and other sources normally considered by courts in motion to dismiss context) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Enigwe v. U.S. Airways/U.S. Airways Express, 438 Fed. Appx. 80 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). American Corporate Soc. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 424 Fed. Appx. 86 (3d Cir. 2011) (court may consider undisputedly authentic document attached to motion to dismiss as exhibit if plaintiff's claims are based on document) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Grewal v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 409 Fed. Appx. 598, 600 n.1 (3d Cir. 2011) (not error for district court to consider documents appended to or relied on explicitly by complaint) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). DiFronzo v. Chiovero, 406 Fed. Appx. 605, 607 (3d Cir. 2011) (document integral to or specifically relied on by complaint may be considered) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) ("In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents."). Institutional Investors Group v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d 242, 252 (3d Cir. 2009). Buck v. Hampton Tp. School Dist., C.A.3d, 2006, 452 F.3d 256. Brown v. Daniels, C.A.3d, 2005, 128 Fed.Appx. 910 (not to be cited per Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 28.3(a) and Internal Operating Procedure 5.3). Angstadt ex rel. Angstadt v. Mid-West School Dist., C.A.3d, 2004, 377 F.3d 338 (since complaint challenged reasonableness of school regulations, complaint necessarily relied on those regulations and court could consider them on motion to dismiss even though they were not incorporated into complaint). Estate of Gleiberman v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., C.A.3d, 2004, 94 Fed.Appx. 944 (not precedential) (considering application, contract, reminder notice, and correspondence that were incorporated into complaint). Although the court is not permitted to consider matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it may consider documents attached to or submitted with the complaint without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. This includes documents referenced in and essential to the complaint, the authenticity of which is unchallenged. Pryor v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, C.A.3d, 2002, 288 F.3d 548. Maio v. Aetna, Inc., C.A.3d, 2000, 221 F.3d 472 (court may consider statements made by counsel at oral argument to clarify allegations in complaint that were unclear on review of dismissal for failure to state claim). Children's Seashore House v. Waldman, C.A.3d, 1999, 197 F.3d 654, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2742, 530 U.S. 1275, 147 L.Ed.2d 1006 (court can consider matters of public record). Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group, Ltd., C.A.3d, 1999, 181 F.3d 410 (court may consider decisions of other courts). City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co., C.A.3d, 1998, 147 F.3d 256, citing Wright & Miller (considering undisputedly authentic document that plaintiff's claims were based upon yet was not included with complaint). Hudson United Bank v. LiTenda Mortgage Corp., C.A.3d, 1998, 142 F.3d 151 (document attached by defendant and relied upon by both parties). Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, C.A.3d, 1994, 38 F.3d 1380, citing Wright & Miller. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, C.A.3d, 1994, 20 F.3d 1250 on remand D.C.Pa.1995, 1995 WL 141465 (court looks at complaint and its attachments, and nothing more). In re Donald J. Trump Casino Secs. Litigation—Taj Mahal Litigation, C.A.3d, 1993, 7 F.3d 357, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 1219, 510 U.S. 1178, 127 L.Ed.2d 565 (copy of prospectus in securities fraud case). Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. White Consolidated Indus., Inc., C.A.3d, 1993, 998 F.2d 1192, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 687, 510 U.S. 1042, 126 L.Ed.2d 655 (matters of public record may be considered without converting motion to one for summary judgment; however, information to which the public may have access under Freedom of Information Act is not public record since such access is not unqualified). Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. White Consolidated Indus., Inc., C.A.3d, 1993, 998 F.2d 1192, 1195, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 687, 510 U.S. 1042, 126 L.Ed.2d 655, citing Wright & Miller (“We now hold that a court may consider an undisputably authentic

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document.”) (Cowen, J.). Chester County Intermediate Unit v. Pennsylvania Blue Shield, C.A.3d, 1990, 896 F.2d 808. The court took judicial notice of prior state proceedings concerning the fraud alleged in the complaint and dismissed on the basis of res judicata. Iacaponi v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., C.A.3d, 1967, 379 F.2d 311, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 802, 389 U.S. 1054, 19 L.Ed.2d 849. Melo-Sonics Corp. v. Cropp, C.A.3d, 1965, 342 F.2d 856.

Delaware King v. Doe, 2011 WL 2669221 (D. Del. 2011), subsequent determination, 2011 WL 4351797 (D. Del. 2011) (submissions to court that were not attached or referred to in complaint may not be considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Warren v. New Castle County, 2008 WL 2566947 (D. Del. 2008). Brookins v. Williams, D.C.Del.2005, 402 F.Supp.2d 508 (motion to dismiss for failure to state claim treated as one for summary judgment when parties referred to matters outside pleadings). Cunningham v. Becker, D.C.Del.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 369 (court may consider allegations in complaint, matters of public record, orders, items in record of case, as well as exhibits attached to complaint). Parker v. Delaware, Dep't of Public Safety, D.C.Del.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 467 (facts alleged in complaint and attachments to complaint). DeWitt v. Penn-Del Directory Corp., D.C.Del.1994, 872 F.Supp. 126.

New Jersey NJSR Surgical Center, L.L.C. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc., 2013 WL 5781496, *7 (D.N.J. 2013). DiMare v. Metlife Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2276007 (D.N.J. 2008) (mem. op.). “This Court's review of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is limited to the contents of the complaint, including any attached exhibits.” Kirtley v. Wadekar, D.C.N.J.2007, 2007 WL 1963018, *2 (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Onyiuke v. New Jersey State Supreme Court, D.C.N.J.2006, 435 F.Supp.2d 394. Kelley v. Edison Tp., D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 1084217. Boerger v. Commerce Ins. Servs., D.C.N.J.2005, 2005 WL 3440632 (not reported in federal reporter, for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Syncsort Inc. v. Innovative Routines Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.J.2005, 2005 WL 1076043, citing Wright & Miller. Garlanger v. Verbeke, D.C.N.J.2002, 223 F.Supp.2d 596. In re Milestone Scientific Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 425 (court may refer to factual allegations contained in other documents, such as those referred to in complaint and matters of public record, if claims in complaint are based on those documents). Poling v. K. Hovnanian Enterprises, D.C.N.J.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 502 (court may consider only complaint, exhibits attached to complaint, matters of public record, and undisputedly authentic documents if plaintiff's claims are based upon those documents). N.A.M.I. v. Essex County Bd. of Freeholders, D.C.N.J.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 781 (court may consider only complaint, exhibits attached to complaint, matters of public record, and undisputedly authentic documents if plaintiff's claims are based on those documents). In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 550, citing Wright & Miller. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. IVAX Corporation, D.C.N.J.2000, 77 F.Supp.2d 606, citing Wright & Miller. Concern Sojuzvneshtrans v. Buyanovski, D.C.N.J.1999, 80 F.Supp.2d 273 (court considers allegations of complaint, documents attached to or specifically referenced in complaint, and matters of public record). Oh v. AT & T Corporation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 551, citing Wright & Miller. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 539, citing Wright & Miller. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 498, citing Wright & Miller (court may consider allegations of complaint, as well as documents attached to or specifically referenced in complaint, and matters of public record). In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 645, citing Wright & Miller (court may consider allegations of complaint, documents attached to or referenced in complaint, and matters of public record). In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 354 (court could not consider independent investigator's report to S.E.C.). Rowe v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, D.C.N.J.1999, 191 F.R.D. 398 (documents expressly relied on or integral to complaint and matters of public record may be considered if claims of plaintiff are based upon such documents, and plaintiff's failure to attach or cite documents in complaint does not preclude court from reviewing text of extrinsic documents).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 190 F.R.D. 331 (court may consider allegations of complaint, as well as documents attached to or specifically referenced in complaint, and matters of public record). In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 189 F.R.D. 117, citing Wright & Miller. Slater v. Skyhawk Transportation, Inc., D.C.N.J.1999, 187 F.R.D. 185 (documents attached may be considered without conversion). CSR Limited v. Federal Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1998, 40 F.Supp.2d 559 (court to consider face of complaint and documents attached or incorporated pursuant to Rule 10(c)). Although the court normally cannot consider materials outside the pleadings in conjunction with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, documents expressly relied upon or integral to the complaint can be considered and failure by the plaintiff to attach or cite such a document will not preclude its consideration. EP Medsystems, Inc. v. Echocath, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 726, reversed on other grounds C.A.3d, 2000, 235 F.3d 865. In re MobileMedia Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 901 (court can consider documents in public record and those referenced in complaint). Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 517 (undisputedly authentic document attached to motion and upon which plaintiff's claims are based). Mruz v. Caring, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 991 F.Supp. 701. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841 (undisputedly authentic documents attached as exhibits to motion to dismiss and upon which plaintiff's claims are based). Leslie v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1997, 986 F.Supp. 900 (undisputedly authentic documents attached to motion papers of either party). Caldwell Trucking PRP Group v. Spaulding Composites Co., D.C.N.J.1995, 890 F.Supp. 1247. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Graphnet, Inc., D.C.N.J.1995, 881 F.Supp. 126. Johnson v. New Jersey, D.C.N.J.1994, 869 F.Supp. 289. A court can consider documents of undisputed authenticity attached to the motion papers of either party. Bishop v. Okidata, Inc., D.C.N.J.1994, 864 F.Supp. 416. Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, D.C.N.J.1993, 845 F.Supp. 182 (authentic documents attached to defendant's motion to dismiss and relied upon by plaintiff). Renz v. Schreiber, D.C.N.J.1993, 832 F.Supp. 766.

Pennsylvania Benner v. Bank of America, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 2d 338, 345 n.6 (E.D. Pa. 2013), quoting Wright & Miller. McAndrew v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 2013 WL 5551453, *3 (M.D. Pa. 2013) ("In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint the court may also consider 'matters of public record, orders, exhibits attached to the complaint and items appearing in the record of the case.'"), quoting Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994). "The Court may also consider the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record and records of which the Court may take judicial notice." Stanton v. City of Philadelphia, 2011 WL 710481, *2 (E.D. Pa. 2011). Wilson v. Board of Control of City of Harrisburg School Dist., 2010 WL 4977056 (M.D. Pa. 2010). Blackston v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 2010 WL 4259603, *1 (E.D. Pa. 2010). Simmons v. Bernardi, 2010 WL 2804868, *2 (M.D. Pa. 2010). Walker v. Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, 2008 WL 2433091 (W.D. Pa. 2008). Brown v. Hendershot, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 2707432. Boone v. Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, D.C.Pa.2005, 2005 WL 1363469. Burkhart v. Knepper, D.C.Pa.2004, 310 F.Supp.2d 734 (court may consider matters in public record without conversion to summary judgment). “[A] motion to dismiss under Rule 12 is not converted to a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 if the defendant attaches an ‘undisputedly authentic document … if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document.’ Moreover, the court may always accept matters of public record.” Fortier v. U.S. Steel Corp., D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 1797796, 1 (Ambrose, J.), quoting Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., C.A.3d, 1993, 998 F.2d 1192, 1196, citing Wright & Miller. Sullivan v. Equifax, Inc., D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 799856, citing Wright & Miller (in contract action, it was inappropriate to consider consumer dispute verification form attached by defendant to Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Rogan v. Giant Eagle, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 777, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Util. Comm'n, D.C.Pa.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 653, affirmed in part, appeal dismissed in part on other grounds and remanded C.A.3d, 2001, 273 F.3d 337 (court considers only allegations in pleadings, matters of public record, orders, and exhibits attached to complaint). Kwan v. U.S., D.C.Pa.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 613, affirmed C.A.Fed., 2001, 272 F.3d 1360 (court also may consider matters of public record, orders, exhibits attached to complaint, and items appearing in record of case). Saxe v. State College Area School Dist., D.C.Pa.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 621, reversed on other grounds C.A.3d, 2001, 240 F.3d 200. Bellas v. CBS, Incorporated, D.C.Pa.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 493 (on motion to dismiss, court is limited in consideration to complaint, documents attached to complaint, undisputed documents alleged or referenced in complaint, and public records). Halstead v. Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 464 (court primarily considers allegations in complaint, but may take into account matters of public record, orders, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint). Jordan v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 638 (matters of public record, orders, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint may also be considered). Walsh v. Strenz, D.C.Pa.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 548 (court considers facts alleged in complaint and any attachments, without reference to any other parts of record). Sunquest Information Sys., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 644 (court may consider document integral to or relied on in complaint). Walsingham v. Biocontrol Technology, Inc., D.C.Pa.1998, 66 F.Supp.2d 669 (court may consider matters of public record, orders, exhibits attached to complaint, and items appearing in record of case). Township of So. Fayette v. Allegheny County Housing Authority, D.C.Pa.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 582 (matters of public record and exhibits attached to pleadings can be considered). Breyer v. Meissner, D.C.Pa.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 540, affirmed C.A.3d, 2000, 214 F.3d 416 (court can consider exhibits attached to complaints, matters of public record, and any matter that can be judicially noticed). Breyer v. Meissner, D.C.Pa.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 521, reversed on other grounds C.A.3d, 2000, 214 F.3d 416 (court can take judicial notice of prior proceedings in other courts or before administrative boards and can consider undisputedly authentic document attached to defendant's motion). Malone v. Specialty Prods. & Insulation Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 15 F.Supp.2d 769, reversed on other grounds C.A.3d, 2000, 214 F.3d 416 (court primarily must consider allegations contained in complaint, although matters of public record, orders, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint also may be taken into account). Popovice v. Milides, D.C.Pa.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 638 (allegations in complaint, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint). Jean Anderson Hierarchy of Agents v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 688 (allegations in complaint, matters of public record, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint). Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Trump, D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 489, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.3d, 1999, 182 F.3d 183 (allegations contained in complaint, exhibits attached to complaint, matters of public record, and irrefutably authentic documents upon which plaintiff's claim is based in whole or in part). McLaughlin v. Rose Tree Media School Dist., D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 476 (allegations in complaint, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint). Stewart v. Associates Consumer Discount Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 469 (allegations in complaint, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint). Kuhns v. CoreStates Financial Corp., D.C.Pa.1998, 998 F.Supp. 573 (allegations in complaint, matters of public record, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint). Compton v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, D.C.Pa.1998, 995 F.Supp. 554 (exhibits attached to complaint). Tyler v. O'Neill, D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 603 (allegations in complaint, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint). Giusto v. Ashland Chem. Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 587, quoting Wright & Miller. Avellino v. Herron, D.C.Pa.1997, 991 F.Supp. 722. Pearson v. Miller, D.C.Pa.1997, 988 F.Supp. 848 (facts alleged in complaint and its attachments). Andrea L. by Judith B. v. Children & Youth Servs. of Lawrence County, D.C.Pa.1997, 987 F.Supp. 418 (matters of public record, orders, exhibits attached to complaint, and items appearing in record). Dinicola v. DiPaolo, D.C.Pa.1996, 945 F.Supp. 848.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Rashid v. Kite, D.C.Pa.1996, 934 F.Supp. 144. Bryan v. Acorn Hotel, Inc., D.C.Pa.1996, 931 F.Supp. 394. Williams v. Discovery Day School, D.C.Pa.1996, 924 F.Supp. 41. Williams v. Stone, D.C.Pa.1996, 923 F.Supp. 689, affirmed C.A.3d, 1997, 109 F.3d 890. Logue v. Logano Trucking Co., D.C.Pa.1996, 921 F.Supp. 1425. Esfahani v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1996, 919 F.Supp. 832. Slater v. Marshall, D.C.Pa.1996, 915 F.Supp. 721. Arizmendi v. Lawson, D.C.Pa.1996, 914 F.Supp. 1157. Johnson v. Hill, D.C.Pa.1996, 910 F.Supp. 218. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Arch Associates Corp., D.C.Pa.1995, 908 F.Supp. 265. Clarke v. Whitney, D.C.Pa.1995, 907 F.Supp. 893. Trauma Serv. Group v. Keating, D.C.Pa.1995, 907 F.Supp. 110 (allowing consideration only of pleadings and matters of public record on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Slater v. Marshall, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 256. Shoemaker v. City of Lock Haven, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 230 (considering complaint and its attachments only). J/H Real Estate Inc. v. Abramson, D.C.Pa.1995, 901 F.Supp. 952. Bennett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1995, 890 F.Supp. 440. Arber v. Equitable Beneficial Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1995, 889 F.Supp. 194. Allied Fire & Safety Equip. Co. v. Dick Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 886 F.Supp. 491. Pierce v. Montgomery County Opportunity Bd., Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 884 F.Supp. 965. Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey, D.C.Pa.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1529. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 764 v. Greenawalt, D.C.Pa.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1076. Doe v. Methacton School Dist., D.C.Pa.1995, 880 F.Supp. 380. School Dist. of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Bd., D.C.Pa.1995, 877 F.Supp. 245. Leach v. Quality Health Servs., Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 869 F.Supp. 315. Pittman v. Correctional Healthcare Solutions, Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 105. Youse v. Carlucci, D.C.Pa.1994, 867 F.Supp. 317. Vosgerichian v. Commodore Int'l, D.C.Pa.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1371, quoting Wright & Miller. Total Care Sys., Inc. v. Coons, D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 236, citing Wright & Miller. Bieros v. Nicola, D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 226. Johnson v. Resources for Human Dev., Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 218. Corrigan v. Methodist Hosp., D.C.Pa.1994, 853 F.Supp. 832. U.S. v. Witco Corp., D.C.Pa.1994, 853 F.Supp. 139. Bieros v. Nicola, D.C.Pa.1994, 851 F.Supp. 683. Brennan v. National Telephone Directory Corp., D.C.Pa.1994, 850 F.Supp. 331. Raines v. Haverford College, D.C.Pa.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1009. Arber v. Equitable Beneficial Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1204. Hunt v. U.S. Air Force, D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1190. Jones v. Hinton, D.C.Pa.1994, 847 F.Supp. 41. Smith v. City of Chester, D.C.Pa.1994, 842 F.Supp. 147. In re Fidelity Bank Trust Fee Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 839 F.Supp. 318. Palace v. Deaver, D.C.Pa.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1016. Great West Life Assur. Co. v. Levithan, D.C.Pa.1993, 834 F.Supp. 858. “Where the allegations of the complaint rest on the construction placed on a document, it is proper to refer to that document at the pleading stage to determine whether the document can bear the construction placed on it.” In re Westinghouse Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 832 F.Supp. 948, 964, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.3d, 1996, 90 F.3d 696 (Smith, J.). Riddle v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., D.C.Pa.1993, 831 F.Supp. 442. Taha v. INS, D.C.Pa.1993, 828 F.Supp. 362, citing Wright & Miller. Clark v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.Pa.1993, 816 F.Supp. 1064, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

When the plaintiffs summarized in their complaint the representations made in certain documents and included one short quotation from them, those documents were not incorporated by reference in the complaint so that the defendant could have them considered on its motion to dismiss. Friedman v. Lansdale Parking Authority, D.C.Pa.1993, 151 F.R.D. 42. Unauthenticated document generally will not be considered by the court on a motion to dismiss but, if incorporated by reference into the complaint, it can be considered. Berk v. Ascott Inv. Corp., D.C.Pa.1991, 759 F.Supp. 245. Ambrogi v. Gould, Inc., D.C.Pa.1990, 750 F.Supp. 1233, 1241, citing Wright & Miller. If the complaint refers to an irrelevant statute, or if no statute is mentioned, the court need only take judicial notice of the relevant statute. U.S. v. Provident Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1966, 259 F.Supp. 373, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 778, 385 U.S. 1034, 17 L.Ed.2d 682.

Virgin Islands Illaraza v. Hovensa, L.L.C., 2010 WL 2342424, *2 (D.V.I. 2010). In re Tutu Wells Contamination Litigation, D.C.Virgin Islands 1993, 846 F.Supp. 1243, 1273, quoting Wright & Miller (court may consider documents relied on by plaintiff or incorporated by reference in its complaint).

See also "Although a court of appeals may take judicial notice of a matter of public record not presented to the district court when reviewing the disposition of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), we think that ordinarily a court of appeals should not take judicial notice of documents on an appeal which were available before the district court decided the case but nevertheless were not tendered to that court." U.S. ex rel. Wilkins v. United Health Group, Inc., 659 F.3d 295, 303 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted). "[A] document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment." However, review of all of the plaintiff's papers without notice was contrary to Rule 12(b)(6) and the plaintiff's intent. Cerome v. Moshannon Valley Correctional Center/Cornell Companies, Inc., 2010 WL 4948940 (3d Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts may consider undisputed documents relied upon by the claimant even if such documents are not attached to the claimant's pleading. Environmental Ass'n of St. Thomas & St. John v. Department of Planning & Natural Resources, Terr.Virgin Islands 2002, 2002 WL 655506.

Fourth Circuit Kensington Volunteer Fire Dept., Inc. v. Montgomery County, Md., 684 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2012). Bailey v. Virginia High School League, Inc., 488 Fed. Appx. 714 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Braun v. Maynard, 652 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 2011) (document not relied on explicitly by complaint should not be considered on motion to dismiss). Katyle v. Penn Nat. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 466 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 115, 181 L. Ed. 2d 39 (2011) (court may consider documents referenced by complaint and matters of which it may take judicial notice). "[S]tatements by counsel that raise new facts constitute matters beyond the pleadings and cannot be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion." E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 449 (4th Cir. 2011). Beasley v. Arcapita Inc., 436 Fed. Appx. 264 (4th Cir. 2011) (documents attached to motion to dismiss may be considered if integral to and explicitly relied on by complaint and if plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity)(for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)). Matrix Capital Management Fund, LP v. BearingPoint, Inc., 576 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2009). Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009) (court can accept matters of public record). Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Schmoke, C.A.4th, 1995, 63 F.3d 1305, citing Wright & Miller, on reconsideration C.A.4th, 1996, 101 F.3d 325 certiorari granted and judgment vacated on other grounds 1996, 116 S.Ct. 1821, 517 U.S. 1206, 134 L.Ed.2d 927 (legislative history of ordinance is not matter beyond pleadings). Republican Party of No. Carolina v. Martin, C.A.4th, 1992, 980 F.2d 943, citing Wright & Miller.

Maryland In re Human Genome Sciences Inc. Securities Litigation, 933 F. Supp. 2d 751, 757-758 (D. Md. 2013), citing Wright & Miller. Abbott v. Gordon, 2009 WL 2426052 (D. Md. 2009). In re Criimi Mae, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Md.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 652 (in securities fraud case, court may consider relevant press releases and public disclosure documents referenced and relied upon by plaintiffs without converting motion into one for summary judgment). HQM, Limited v. Hatfield, D.C.Md.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 500 (court may consider documents referred to and relied on in complaint).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc., D.C.Md.1997, 989 F.Supp. 748, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 151 F.3d 180 (photocopy of offending magazine article attached to motion and referred to by both parties).

North Carolina Alexander v. City of Greensboro, 2011 WL 13857, *4 (M.D. N.C. 2011) (extrinsic evidence only will be considered if integral to and explicitly relied on by complaint). Harty v. Denny's, Inc., 2010 WL 4791897, *2 n.4 (W.D. N.C. 2010) ("The Court may consider some matters outside the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, including public records.”), citing Wright & Miller. Henderson v. North Carolina State Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 2397696 (E.D. N.C. 2008). Bio–Medical Applications of NC, Inc. v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., D.C.N.C.2006, 412 F.Supp.2d 549. Lewis v. Microsoft Corp., D.C.N.C.2006, 410 F.Supp.2d 432. Clark v. BASF Salaried Employees' Pension Plan, D.C.N.C.2004, 329 F.Supp.2d 694 (court considered materials from previous court proceeding because it was part of public record). Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shulimson Bros. Co., D.C.N.C.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 553 (considering matter of public record). In re FAC Realty Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.C.1997, 990 F.Supp. 416 (written materials not attached to complaint or incorporated by reference but integral to allegations of complaint and known to nonmoving party).

South Carolina Sadighi v. Daghighfekr, D.C.S.C.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 279 (RICO case statement considered). Briggs v. Newberry County School Dist., D.C.S.C.1992, 838 F.Supp. 232, affirmed C.A.4th, 1993, 989 F.2d 491 (prior judicial proceeding).

Virginia Davis v. Rao, 2013 WL 5999643, *3 (E.D. Va. 2013) ("The Court may consider the complaint, its attachments, and documents 'attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.'"), quoting Secretary of State For Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). Hill v. John Foster Homes, Inc., 2010 WL 2696655, *3 (E.D. Va. 2010) ("A district court may consider documents 'attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.'"), quoting Secretary of State For Defence v. Trimble Nav. Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). Atkins v. Emram, 2010 WL 2490965, *3 (E.D. Va. 2010), aff'd, 2010 WL 5018524 (4th Cir. 2010), citing U.S. ex rel. Constructors, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 313 F. Supp. 2d 593, 596 (E.D. Va. 2004), citing Wright & Miller. Leggat v. Equifax Information Services, Inc., 2009 WL 2432371 (E.D. Va. 2009). Mansoor v. County of Albemarle, D.C.Va.2000, 124 F.Supp.2d 367, citing Wright & Miller. Volpone v. Caldera, D.C.Va.1999, 190 F.R.D. 177 (court should consider only allegations in complaint, along with matters of public record, orders, and exhibits attached to complaint). Williamson v. Virginia First Savs. Bank, D.C.Va.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 798 (documents incorporated by reference). Wise v. U.S., D.C.Va.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 535 (allegations in complaint and documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference). The plaintiff argued in his memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss that the exhibits attached to his complaint were untrue. However, a court may not consider additional allegations when ruling on a motion to dismiss. The facts asserted in the complaint, and any attached exhibits, are considered to be true. Davis v. Cole, D.C.Va.1998, 999 F.Supp. 809. Moore v. Flagstar Bank, D.C.Va.1997, 6 F.Supp.2d 496, quoting Wright & Miller. Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Rokke, D.C.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 982. White v. CMA Construction Co., D.C.Va.1996, 947 F.Supp. 231. Kline v. Nationsbank of Virginia, N.A., D.C.Va.1995, 886 F.Supp. 1285. Lane v. David P. Jacobson & Co., Ltd., D.C.Va.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1091. Wolford v. Budd Co., D.C.Va.1993, 149 F.R.D. 127.

West Virginia Corbett v. Duerring, 780 F. Supp. 2d 486, 491 (S.D. W. Va. 2011) (court may consider matters of public record and documents attached to complaint that are integral to it, without converting to motion to dismiss). Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc. v. Hobet Min., LLC, 723 F. Supp. 2d 886, 904 (S.D. W. Va. 2010).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

See also In determining whether an insurance policy covers alleged claims, Virginia applies the "Eight Corners Rule" in which the court examines the complaint and the insurance policy. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. 1400 Hampton Blvd., LLC, 2010 WL 5559719 (E.D. Va. 2010).

Fifth Circuit "Because the district court considered matters outside the pleadings, presented in defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the motion was properly 'treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.'" Bonnet v. Ward County, Tex., 539 Fed. Appx. 481, 482-483 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rules 28.7, 47.5.3, 47.5.4), quoting Rule 12(d). Meyers v. Textron, Inc., 2013 WL 5461840, *1 (5th Cir. 2013), citing Wright & Miller. Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 498 (5th Cir. 2011) (analysis confined to complaint and proper attachments). Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2011). Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 782 (5th Cir. 2011) (incorporation of matters outside complaint by judicial notice did not convert motion to summary judgment when no facts were in dispute and matters were in public record). C.H., II ex rel. L.H. v. Rankin County School Dist., 415 Fed. Appx. 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Public Health Equipment & Supply Co., Inc. v. Clarke Mosquito Control Products, Inc., 410 Fed. Appx. 738, 740 (5th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). A2D Technologies Inc. v. MJ Systems, Inc., 269 Fed. Appx. 537 (5th Cir. 2008) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rules 28 and 47). “[B]ecause the defendants attached the contracts to their motions to dismiss, the contracts were referred to in the complaints, and the contracts are central to the plaintiffs' claims, we may consider the terms of the contracts in assessing the motions to dismiss.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, C.A.5th, 2007, 495 F.3d 191, 205. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 496 (court may consider documents attached to motion to dismiss). Spivey v. Robertson, C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 772, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2659, 530 U.S. 1229, 147 L.Ed.2d 274 (court will not look beyond alleged facts on face of pleadings). Cinel v. Connick, C.A.5th, 1994, 15 F.3d 1338, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 189, 513 U.S. 868, 130 L.Ed.2d 122 (consideration of consent judgment did not trigger conversion into summary judgment motion because a court may refer to matters of public record). Mahone v. Addicks Util. Dist. of Harris County, C.A.5th, 1988, 836 F.2d 921. Goodwin v. Elkins & Co., C.A.3d 1984, 730 F.2d 99, 104, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 105 S.Ct. 118, 469 U.S. 831, 83 L.Ed.2d 61.

Louisiana T Moore Services, LLC v. Rentrop Tugs Inc., 2011 WL 976738 (W.D. La. 2011). Davis v. Evangelist, 2009 WL 2447897 (E.D. La. 2009). Green v. Wolters Kluwer U.S. Corp., 2008 WL 2355848 (E.D. La. 2008). Esfeller v. O'Keefe, 2008 WL 2234056 (M.D. La. 2008). Davis v. EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP, D.C.La.2006, 2006 WL 2631966. Lomax v. City of New Orleans, D.C.La.2004, 2004 WL 1586539, citing Wright & Miller. Although the court may not look beyond the pleadings, it may take into account matters of public record, orders, items appearing on the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint. Nabors Drilling U.S.A. LP v. Twister Exploration, LLC, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 287728, citing Wright & Miller. Romero v. Witherspoon, D.C.La.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 808 (face of pleadings). Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing v. Quarter House, D.C.La.1997, 952 F.Supp. 352. Abramson v. Florida Gas Transmission Co., D.C.La.1995, 887 F.Supp. 121. Watermeier v. Continental Oil Co., D.C.La.1993, 818 F.Supp. 929. Louisiana, ex rel. Guste v. U.S., D.C.La.1986, 656 F.Supp. 1310, 1314 n. 6, citing Wright & Miller.

Mississippi Galada v. Gatson-Riley, 2010 WL 3120069, *4 (S.D. Miss. 2010) ("Ordinarily, the Court may not look beyond the pleadings in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion. However, in evaluating a motion which challenges the adequacy of a complaint under 12(b)(6) in a prisoner's

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

pro se suit, this Court must look beyond the inmate's formal complaint and consider material subsequently filed as amendments to that complaint.") (internal citations omitted). Dale v. Ala Acquisitions, Inc., D.C.Miss.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 694 (court will not look outside of facts contained in pleadings in consideration of motion). Baldwin v. Laurel Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 894 (defendant can introduce contract plaintiff suing on for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting to summary judgment motion). Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 423, summary judgment granted in part, denied in part on other grounds D.C.Miss.2001, 2001 WL 1543890 (public records). Kinnison v. Mississippi Dep't of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks, D.C.Miss.1998, 990 F.Supp. 481. Parker v. Byrd & Wiser, D.C.Miss.1996, 947 F.Supp. 245. RTC v. Scott, D.C.Miss.1995, 887 F.Supp. 937, citing Wright & Miller. In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Miss.1993, 826 F.Supp. 1019.

Texas Gallentine v. Housing Authority of City of Port Arthur, Tex., 919 F. Supp. 2d 787, 794 (E.D. Tex. 2013), citing Wright & Miller. Crooks v. Wal-Mart Stores of Texas, LLC, 2009 WL 2422330 (N.D. Tex. 2009). Covalt v. Pintar, 103 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1619, 2008 WL 2312651 (S.D. Tex. 2008). Wilson v. Barcella, D.C.Tex.2007, 2007 WL 963977 (can consider matters in public record). Powell v. Cooke, D.C.Tex.2006, 2006 WL 1851376. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698, citing Wright & Miller (“four corners” of plaintiff's pleadings, and matters of public record). Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196, citing Wright & Miller. Brock v. Baskin-Robbins USA Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 1078 (court may consider undisputedly authentic document that defendant attaches as exhibit to motion to dismiss if plaintiff's claims are based on document). Meador v. Oryx Energy Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 658, citing Wright & Miller. Chawla v. Shell Oil Co., D.C.Tex.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 626 (court is limited to facts stated in complaint, documents attached to or incorporated into complaint, and matters of judicial notice). Piraino v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tex.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 889, citing Wright & Miller (court may consider matters of which it may take judicial notice, matters of public record, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint). Santerre v. Agip Petroleum Co., D.C.Tex.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 558 (not beyond four corners of complaint). Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., D.C.Tex.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 618 (pleadings). Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 177 F.R.D. 387 (documents attached to or incorporated in complaint and matters of which court may take judicial notice). Cross Timbers Concerned Citizens v. Saginaw, D.C.Tex.1997, 991 F.Supp. 563. Timmons v. Special Ins. Servs., D.C.Tex.1997, 984 F.Supp. 997. Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247. U.S. ex rel. Foulds v. Texas Tech Univ., D.C.Tex.1997, 980 F.Supp. 864, reversed on other grounds C.A.5th, 1999, 171 F.3d 279. Roberts v. U.S. Postmaster Gen., D.C.Tex.1996, 947 F.Supp. 282. Thornton v. Micrografx, Inc., D.C.Tex.1995, 878 F.Supp. 931 (complaint includes documents attached to it as exhibits or documents incorporated in it by reference). Bob Hamric Chevrolet, Inc. v. U.S. IRS, D.C.Tex.1994, 849 F.Supp. 500, citing Wright & Miller. Sheppard v. Texas Dep't of Transportation, D.C.Tex.1994, 158 F.R.D. 592. Chevalier v. Animal Rehabilitation Center, Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1224 (material appended to complaint can be considered). Bartley v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.Tex.1992, 824 F.Supp. 624 (considering contract that formed the basis of suit and that was attached to complaint). Webber v. White, D.C.Tex.1976, 422 F.Supp. 416, 422 n. 5, citing Wright & Miller.

See also "In case of a conflict between the allegations in a complaint and the exhibits attached to the complaint, the exhibits control." Stockwell v. Kanan, 442 Fed. Appx. 911, 913 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) when matters outside the pleadings are presented, a district court "has complete discretion to accept or exclude the evidence." Unless the documents presented are referred to in the complaint and central to it, if these outside matters are not excluded, the court must convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Harris v. Coastal Offshore, Inc., 2011 WL 2457922, *3 (S.D. Tex. 2011), quoting General Retail Services, Inc. v. Wireless Toyz Franchise, LLC, 255 Fed. Appx. 775, 783 (5th Cir. 2007). Atwater Partners of Texas LLC v. AT & T, Inc., 2011 WL 1004880 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (on motion to dismiss, court may look only to allegations in complaint to determine their sufficiency).

Sixth Circuit Mediacom Southeast LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 672 F.3d 396, 399 (6th Cir. 2012) ("A district court is not permitted to consider matters beyond the complaint."). Ashland, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 648 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2011). Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673, 680-681 (6th Cir. 2011). "Under our 12(b)(1) analysis above, we did not consider matters outside the pleadings. Rule 12(b)(6), besides some minor exceptions, does not permit courts to consider evidence extrinsic to the pleadings." Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2009). Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 U.S. 909, 2009 WL 56226 (2009) (if evidence captures only part of incident and would provide distorted view of events, court not required to consider evidence because it is subject to reasonable dispute). When the plaintiff fails to introduce pertinent documents as part of his pleading, the defendant may introduce them in an exhibit as part of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Thomas v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., C.A.6th, 2002, 29 Fed.Appx. 319. Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., C.A.6th, 2000, 210 F.3d 612, rehearing en banc granted, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 2001, 251 F.3d 540 (conversion is not required when court considers public documents and documents referred to in complaint and central to plaintiff's claim). Jackson v. City of Columbus, C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737 (decision rendered by Civil Service Commission that was matter of public record and documents from plaintiff's state court mandamus case that were also public records were property considered by court in ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, C.A.6th, 1999, 177 F.3d 507 (document central to plaintiff's claim can be considered without conversion). Appellate court will consider evidence outside the pleadings in reviewing a decision to grant or deny a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the evidence was properly placed in the district court record and considered by the court in its ruling. EEOC v. Ohio Edison Co., C.A.6th, 1993, 7 F.3d 541.

Kentucky Griffin v. Jones, 2013 WL 5441650, *3 (W.D. Ky. 2013), citing Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008). In the Sixth Circuit, "'a document that is not formally incorporated by reference or attached to a complaint may still be considered part of the pleadings … when [that] document is referred to in the complaint and central to the plaintiff's claim.'" Williams v. CIGNA Corp., 2010 WL 5147257, *2 (W.D. Ky. 2010), quoting Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 177 F.3d 507, 514 (6th Cir. 1999). Tungate v. Thoms, D.C.Ky.2002, 199 F.Supp.2d 608, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.6th, 2002, 45 Fed.Appx. 502.

Michigan Berry v. Main Street Bank, 2013 WL 5651440, *3 (E.D. Mich. 2013) ("In conducting its analysis, the Court may consider the complaint and any exhibits attached thereto, public records, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to defendant's motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the complaint and are central to the claims contained therein."), quoting Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008). In re Compuware Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mich.2004, 301 F.Supp.2d 672 (in securities fraud cases, courts may consider full text of SEC filings, prospectuses, analysts' reports and statements integral to complaint, even if not attached).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

In a securities fraud action the court could consider SEC filings, prospectus, analysts reports, and statements integral to the complaint, even when such documents have not been incorporated by reference, as long as they were mentioned in and integral to the complaint. In re Credit Acceptance Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mich.1999, 50 F.Supp.2d 662. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Strand, D.C.Mich.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 993 (court may take judicial notice of outcomes from other court and administrative proceedings). Havenick v. Network Express, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 981 F.Supp. 480 (entirety of documents that plaintiffs relied upon and quoted in their complaint).

Ohio Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 918 F. Supp. 2d 708, 717 (S.D. Ohio 2013) ("A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is directed solely to the complaint and any exhibits attached to it."), citing Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). Dillon v. Village of Piketon, Ohio, 2011 WL 2632802 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (court generally should not consider matters outside pleadings on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Harris v. Smith, 2011 WL 2413490 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (court may consider exhibits attached to complaint as well as complaint itself). Grattan v. Strickland, 2008 WL 2433829 (N.D. Ohio 2008). DeNune v. Consolidated Capital of No. America, Inc., D.C.Ohio 2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 844. Butler v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., D.C.Ohio 2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 856 (matters outside pleadings are not to be considered by court in ruling on motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, but defendant may introduce certain pertinent documents if plaintiff fails to do so). Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark County Solid Waste Management Dist., D.C.Ohio 1999, 110 F.Supp.2d 627 (court may consider matters of public record without converting motion into one for summary judgment, but court will not accept defendants' unsupported version of events). Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 815, affirmed on other grounds C.A.6th, 2003, 317 F.3d 646 (evidence outside pleadings may not be used to support motion unless evidence is referenced in plaintiff's complaint and is central to plaintiff's claims). Jackson v. City of Columbus, D.C.Ohio 1998, 67 F.Supp.2d 839, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737 (court may consider documents attached to motion when they are referred to in plaintiff's complaint and are central to plaintiff's claims, depositions and affidavits when they are referred to in complaint and their authenticity is not questioned, public records, including court records in related cases, letter decisions of government agencies and published reports of administrative bodies, and matters of which court may take judicial notice). Hollar v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ohio 1998, 43 F.Supp.2d 794 (court may consider matters of public record, orders, items in case record, and exhibits attached to complaint). A court may go outside the pleadings to determine whether a statute bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose; this does not conflict with the requirement that the pleaded facts be accepted as true. Spivey v. Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1998, 999 F.Supp. 987. Petrone v. Cleveland State Univ., D.C.Ohio 1998, 993 F.Supp. 1119 (contents of complaint, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint). Yanacos v. Lake County, Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1996, 953 F.Supp. 187. Harris v. Muchnicki, D.C.Ohio 1996, 932 F.Supp. 192, affirmed C.A.6th, 1996, 101 F.3d 702. Czupih v. Card Pak Inc., D.C.Ohio 1996, 916 F.Supp. 687. The court properly considered legislative history of the statutory provisions at issue. U.S. v. Tuente Livestock, D.C.Ohio 1995, 888 F.Supp. 1416. City of Heath, Ohio v. Ashland Oil, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1993, 834 F.Supp. 971 (court took judicial notice of record in state court proceeding).

Tennessee Sanders v. Williams Equipment & Supply Co., Inc., 2010 WL 5575483 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 943 (court not to consider matters outside pleadings). Lawson v. Shelby County, Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 985, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 2000, 211 F.3d 331 (content of complaint, matters of public record, orders, items appearing on record of case, and exhibits attached to complaint).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Seventh Circuit Burke v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, LLC, 714 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 2013) ("In general, a court may only consider the plaintiff's complaint when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. However, Federal Rule of Procedure 10(c) provides that '[a] copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is part thereof for all purposes.' We have concluded that this rule includes a limited class of attachments to motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)."), citing Rosenblum v. Travelbyus.com Ltd., 299 F.3d 657, 661 (7th Cir. 2002). Ennenga v. Starns, 677 F.3d 766, 773-774 (7th Cir. 2012) (court may look to public records, including date on which estate entered probate) Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012) ("In the district court, too, a party opposing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion may submit materials outside the pleadings to illustrate the facts the party expects to be able to prove."). Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547, 555 (7th Cir. 2012). Kolbe & Kolbe Health & Welfare Benefit Plan v. Medical College of Wisconsin, Inc., 657 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 2011) (court may consider documents outside complaint when document is referenced by complaint and central to it). Cole v. Milwaukee Area Technical College Dist., 634 F.3d 901, 903 (7th Cir. 2011) (pleadings in this case consisted of complaint, attached exhibits, and supporting briefs). Ray v. City of Chicago, 629 F.3d 660, 665 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 100, 181 L. Ed. 2d 28 (2011) ("[D]istrict courts may take judicial notice of certain documents—including records of administrative actions—when deciding motions to dismiss."). LaBella Winnetka, Inc. v. Village of Winnetka, 628 F.3d 937, 942 n.2 (7th Cir. 2010). Segal v. Geisha NYC LLC, 517 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 2008). Thompson v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, C.A.7th, 2002, 300 F.3d 750. 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., C.A.7th, 2002, 300 F.3d 730. Documents attached 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 his claim, and those documents may be considered by a district court in ruling on the motion to dismiss. Rosenblum v. Travelbyus.com Ltd., C.A.7th, 2002, 299 F.3d 657, on remand D.C.Ill.2002, 2002 WL 31487823. Jacobs v. City of Chicago, C.A.7th, 2000, 215 F.3d 758 (consideration of photographs of apartment building and copy of police report when deciding motion to dismiss apartment residents' § 1983 action against police officers for failure to state claim constituted error). Kennedy v. National Juvenile Detention Ass'n, C.A.7th, 1999, 187 F.3d 690, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 1169, 528 U.S. 1159, 145 L.Ed.2d 1079 (court may consider contract in contract action). “It is well-established that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading; facts not incorporated into the amended pleading are considered functus officio. … If certain facts or admissions from the original complaint become functus officio, they cannot be considered by the court on a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.” Kelley v. Crosfield Catalysts, C.A.7th, 1998, 135 F.3d 1202, 1204–1205 (reversing district court's dismissal for failure to state claim when original complaint contained factual detail likely showing insuperable bar to relief but amended complaint lacked such detail) (Flaum, J.). Duda v. Board of Educ. of Franklin Park Public School Dist. No. 84, C.A.7th, 1998, 133 F.3d 1054. In reviewing a district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, the appellate court will not look beyond the four corners of the complaint to determine whether the plaintiff can state a claim. Palda v. General Dynamics Corp., C.A.7th, 1995, 47 F.3d 872. Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., C.A.7th, 1994, 29 F.3d 280, quoting Wright & Miller. “Documents 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 her claim.” Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., C.A.7th, 1993, 987 F.2d 429, on remand D.C.Ill.1994, 1994 WL 71430 (appropriate to consider such documents on Rule 12(b)(6) motion) (Aspen, J.). “A plaintiff need not put all of the essential facts in the complaint. He may add them by affidavit or brief—even a brief on appeal.” Hrubec v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., C.A.7th, 1992, 981 F.2d 962, 963–964 (Easterbrook, J.), on remand D.C.Ill.1993, 829 F.Supp. 1502. U.S. v. Wood, C.A.7th, 1991, 925 F.2d 1580, 1582, citing Wright & Miller. Beam v. IPCO Corporation, C.A.7th, 1988, 838 F.2d 242, 244, citing Wright & Miller. Parr v. Great Lakes Express Co., C.A.7th, 1973, 484 F.2d 767, 773 n. 5, quoting Wright & Miller.

Illinois

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Jafri v. Chandler LLC, 48 Nat'l Disability Law Rep. P 65, 2013 WL 5513238, *1 (N.D. Ill. 2013) ("The court must also consider 'documents attached to the complaint, documents that are critical to the complaint and referred to in it, and information that is subject to proper judicial notice,' along with additional facts set forth in the non-movant's brief opposing dismissal, so long as those facts 'are consistent with the pleadings.' * * * To the extent an exhibit contradicts the complaint's allegations, the exhibit takes precedence."), quoting Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012). Reid v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., 2010 WL 5289108 (S.D. Ill. 2010) (material attached to complaint or matters subject to judicial notice may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting it to summary judgment). Bilek v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, 2010 WL 2836976, *1 (N.D. Ill. 2010). Viteri v. Pflucker, 550 F. Supp. 2d 829 (N.D. Ill. 2008). Thompson v. Fairmont Chicago Hotel, D.C.Ill.2007, 2007 WL 1594478. Reis Robotics USA, Inc. v. Concept Indus., Inc., D.C.Ill.2006, 462 F.Supp.2d 897. Rizzo v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 1093359 (by considering materials referred to in complaint, even if not attached to it, court insures that dismissal is not avoided solely by failing to attach controlling documents). Lara-Unzueta v. Monica, D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 856570 (court took judicial notice of documents from prior removal and criminal proceedings and considered them on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Davis v. Potter, D.C.Ill.2004, 301 F.Supp.2d 850. On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is inappropriate for the court to rely on a document of disputed authenticity and attached to the complaint without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. Fairbanks Capital Corp. v. Jenkins, D.C.Ill.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 910. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute, and is either 1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or 2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The court also may take notice of matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint. Grimes v. Navigant Consulting, Inc., D.C.Ill.2002, 185 F.Supp.2d 906, quoting Wright & Miller (court took judicial notice of published stock prices). U.S. SEC v. Park, D.C.Ill.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 889 (court is limited to allegations in pleadings, documents incorporated by reference into pleadings and attached as exhibits, and documents that defendant attaches to motion that are referred to in plaintiff's claim). The complaint relied heavily on the contract, but the plaintiff did not append it; the contract referred to the owners manual. The court could consider both documents on the defendants motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., D.C.Ill.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 974. Neuma, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 952. Madsen v. Park City, D.C.Ill.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 938 (refusing to consider document that was not attached to any of defendants' motions or answers). Vakharia v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care Centers, D.C.Ill.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1028 (exhibits, affidavits, or other documents attached to complaint or incorporated by reference). DeLeon v. Beneficial Constr. Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 859 (excluding exhibits that were not part of plaintiff's complaint). Freeman v. Godinez, D.C.Ill.1998, 996 F.Supp. 822 (allegations in all of pro se plaintiff's filings, not just pro se plaintiff's complaint). Blumenthal v. Murray, D.C.Ill.1998, 995 F.Supp. 831 (four corners of complaint). Petri v. Gatlin, D.C.Ill.1997, 997 F.Supp. 956. A party may assert additional facts in response to a motion to dismiss as long as they are consistent with the allegations of the complaint. Adamczyk v. Lever Bros. Co., Div. of Conopco, D.C.Ill.1997, 991 F.Supp. 931. Vickery v. Minooka Volunteer Fire Dep't, D.C.Ill.1997, 990 F.Supp. 995. Facts alleged in a brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss, as well as factual allegations contained in other court filings, may be considered when evaluating the sufficiency of pro se complaints. Naguib v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 1082. Sterling v. Kazmierczak, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1186 (facts in either affidavit to court or plaintiff's response brief that are consistent with complaint's allegations). Wiskup v. Liberty Buick Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 953 F.Supp. 958. Kastel v. Winnetka Bd. of Educ., Dist. 36, D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1329 (argument raised in reply brief not considered). Yellow Cab Co. v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1996, 919 F.Supp. 1133. Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 904 F.Supp. 753.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

The court considered exhibits and stock purchase agreement attached to the defendants' memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss. Marks v. CDW Computer Centers, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 901 F.Supp. 1302. Fairley v. Zelenik, D.C.Ill.1995, 888 F.Supp. 89. Offutt v. Kaplan, D.C.Ill.1995, 884 F.Supp. 1179. Leslie v. Doyle, D.C.Ill.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1039, affirmed C.A.7th, 1997, 125 F.3d 1132. Whitehead v. AM International, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 860 F.Supp. 1280 (court considered EEOC charge attached to defendant's motion to dismiss in Title VII suit). Janivo Holding, B.V. v. Continental Bank, D.C.Ill.1994, 859 F.Supp. 316 (court can consider agreement attached to defendant's motion to dismiss since it was central to plaintiff's complaint and referred to therein). EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Ill.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1233 (allegations in party's response to Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss are not considered). Nielsen v. Greenwood, D.C.Ill.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1233 (court may consider outside documents on Rule 12(b)(6) motion if plaintiff relied on them in its complaint). Eret v. Continental Holding, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 358 (court can consider without conversion documents provided by defendant if they are referred to in plaintiff's complaint and are central to plaintiff's claim). Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. Edgar, D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 927 (documents incorporated by reference to complaint as exhibits). AM International, Inc. v. Graphic Management Associates, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 836 F.Supp. 487, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 44 F.3d 572 (court may consider any document incorporated by reference in pleading). Harris Custom Builders, Inc. v. Hoffmeyer, D.C.Ill.1993, 834 F.Supp. 256, citing Wright & Miller. Dobiecki v. Palacios, D.C.Ill.1993, 829 F.Supp. 229 (documents that may be judicially noticed may be considered). Ahmad v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., D.C.Ill.1990, 735 F.Supp. 257. Three D Departments, Inc. v. K Mart Corp., D.C.Ill.1987, 670 F.Supp. 1404, 1406, citing Wright & Miller. Griswold v. E.F. Hutton & Co., D.C.Ill.1985, 622 F.Supp. 1397, 1402, citing Wright & Miller. Hollymatic Corp. v. Holly Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1985, 620 F.Supp. 1366, 1367, citing Wright & Miller (court considered contract attached to complaint and admissions in answer and in reply to counterclaim).

Indiana Newman v. Gagan LLC, 939 F. Supp. 2d 883, 892 (N.D. Ind. 2013) ("The Seventh Circuit agrees that a district court may consider materials outside the pleadings to the extent they are consistent with the complaint and support denying the motion to dismiss. * * * Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiff's extrinsic documents insofar as they are consistent with the Complaint and weigh against granting any part of the motions to dismiss."), citing Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012). Stokes v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., D.C.Ind.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 966 (court may consider allegations in complaint, documents incorporated by reference, and documents attached to pleadings as exhibits). Hirata Corp. v. J.B. Oxford & Co., D.C.Ind.2000, 193 F.R.D. 589 (court may consider documents attached to complaint by defendant and expressly incorporated into complaint in order to prevent plaintiffs from surviving motion to dismiss by deliberately omitting references to documents upon which their claims are based). A plaintiff cannot prevent a court from looking at the texts of the documents on which its claim is based simply by failing to attach or explicitly cite them. However, the district court refused to consider a “private placement memorandum” neither attached to nor referenced in the complaint because it was not central to the plaintiff's securities fraud complaint. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 994. The complaint cannot be amended by the briefs filed by the plaintiff in opposition to a motion to dismiss. Likewise, the defendant may not attempt to refute the complaint or to present a different set of allegations. Town of Ogden Dunes v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 996 F.Supp. 850. Fleming v. Alcoa Bldg. Prods., D.C.Ind.1992, 820 F.Supp. 1113, affirmed C.A.7th, 1993, 7 F.3d 238. Implement Serv., Inc. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., D.C.Ind.1989, 726 F.Supp. 1171, citing Wright & Miller. “Aside from documents incorporated by a complaint, a court must confine its review to the pleading or convert the motion to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Ryan v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., D.C.Ind.2007, 2007 WL 2316474, *2 n.5 (for citation rules see Seventh Circuit Rule 53). “Documents attached to a complaint become part of the complaint, as do some documents, such as a contract, which may not be part of the complaint physically but are nonetheless an essential part of the plaintiff's complaint. Aside from such documents, a court must

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

confine its review to the pleading or convert the motion to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Hoffa Engineering, LLC v. Craney, D.C.Ind.2007, 2007 WL 831820, *7 n.5 (internal citations omitted) (considering Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Warnock v. Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Ins., D.C.Ind.2004, 2004 WL 1087364 (insurance policy and autopsy attached to complaint may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion).

Wisconsin Edgenet, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 148389, *1 (E.D. Wis. 2010) ("Generally, a court must limit its review to the allegations in the complaint in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. However, an exception to this rule exists for documents that are referred to in the complaint and that are central to the plaintiff's claim, as the court can consider those documents using the standards for deciding a motion to dismiss."). Lindsey v. Matrix Financial Services Corp., 2008 WL 1969761 (E.D. Wis. 2008). Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Nicholson, D.C.Wis.2006, 448 F.Supp.2d 1028. Wheeler v. Kollman, D.C.Wis.2004, 2004 WL 420163 (outside documents can be considered if they are part of public record). Pleva v. Norquist, D.C.Wis.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 839, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 195 F.3d 905 (matters of public record such as statutes, charters, and ordinances could be considered, affidavits could not). Snap-On Inc. v. Hunter Engineering Co., D.C.Wis.1998, 29 F.Supp.2d 965 (court may take judicial notice of matters in public record). Pabst Brewing Co. v. Corrao, D.C.Wis.1997, 176 F.R.D. 552 (pertinent documents referred to in complaint and central to plaintiff's claim). Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson, D.C.Wis.1996, 943 F.Supp. 999, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 161 F.3d 449. Wag-Aero, Inc. v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1479, affirmed C.A.7th, 1994, 35 F.3d 569 (attached exhibits incorporated by reference in pleading). Numerous letters sent to the court by a pro se plaintiff in a Section 1983 action, which made additional factual assertions relating to events underlying his claim, were not responsive pleadings warranting consideration as such but rather matters outside of the pleadings, and thus the letters were not included for purposes of ruling on the defendant's motion for failure to state a claim. DeSouto v. Cooke, D.C.Wis.1990, 751 F.Supp. 794.

Eighth Circuit Dittmer Properties, L.P. v. F.D.I.C., 708 F.3d 1011, 1021 (8th Cir. 2013), citing Wright & Miller. E-Shops Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 678 F.3d 659, 663 (8th Cir. 2012). Ashanti v. City of Golden Valley, 666 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2012) ("Documents necessarily embraced by the pleadings include 'documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading.'" ), quoting Kushner v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 317 F.3d 820, 831 (8th Cir. 2003). Brooks v. Midwest Heart Group, 655 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2011) (inquiry limited to initial pleadings). Illig v. Union Elec. Co., 652 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2011) (court may consider pleadings, materials embraced by or attached to pleadings, and matters of public record). Outdoor Cent., Inc. v. GreatLodge.com, Inc., 643 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2011) (when court rules on Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is not limited to four corners of complaint). Mulvenon v. Greenwood, 643 F.3d 653, 656-657 (8th Cir. 2011). Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., 628 F.3d 451, 459 (8th Cir. 2010) (court may consider any document attached to or incorporated in pleadings and use such document for all purposes). Detroit General Retirement System v. Medtronic, Inc., 621 F.3d 800, 804-805 (8th Cir. 2010). In re K-tel International, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.8th, 2002, 300 F.3d 881. Jenisio v. Ozark Airlines, Inc., C.A.8th, 1999, 187 F.3d 970 (court may consider documents when complaint is based solely on interpretation and authenticity is not controverted). Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., C.A.8th, 1999, 186 F.3d 1077, citing Wright & Miller. Riley v. St. Louis County of Missouri, C.A.8th, 1998, 153 F.3d 627, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1113, 525 U.S. 1178, 143 L.Ed.2d 109 (facts alleged in complaint). A dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity will be upheld on a motion to dismiss only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint. Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale School Dist., C.A.8th, 1998, 133 F.3d 649. Penn v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, C.A.8th, 1993, 999 F.2d 305. Morton v. Becker, C.A.8th, 1986, 793 F.2d 185.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Arkansas Pet Quarters, Inc. v. Depository Trust and Clearing Corp., 545 F. Supp. 2d 845 (E.D. Ark. 2008) (court could take judicial notice of SEC releases published in Federal Register, briefs and opinions of other jurisdictions, public disclosures filed with SEC, and other SEC publications when considering motion to dismiss because they were public records). Hamilton v. Tenet Corp., 2008 WL 4217990 (W.D. Ark. 2008). J.K.P. Foods, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., D.C.Ark.2006, 420 F.Supp.2d 966.

Iowa Robertson v. Siouxland Community Health Center, 938 F. Supp. 2d 831, 840 n.5 (N.D. Iowa 2013), citing Wright & Miller. Meighan v. TransGuard Ins. Co. of America, Inc., 2013 WL 5596915, *5 (N.D. Iowa 2013), quoting Wright & Miller. Lucht v. Encompass Corp., D.C.Iowa 2007, 491 F.Supp.2d 856 (useful discussion). “On a motion to dismiss, the court may consider certain matters outside of the pleadings without converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment where ‘the plaintiffs' claims are based solely on the interpretation of the documents [submitted] and the parties do not dispute the actual contents of the documents’.” Iowa Health Sys. v. Trinity Health Corp., D.C.Iowa 2001, 177 F.Supp.2d 897, 927 (Bennett, C.J.), quoting Jenisio v. Ozark Airlines, Inc., Retirement Plan, C.A.8th, 1999, 187 F.3d 970, 972. Terra Indus., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Iowa 1997, 990 F.Supp. 679. Thompson v. Thalacker, D.C.Iowa 1996, 950 F.Supp. 1440. De Wit v. Firstar Corp., D.C.Iowa 1995, 879 F.Supp. 947.

Minnesota Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co. v. ADT LLC, 2013 WL 5728211 (D. Minn. 2013) (affidavit not considered because it plainly contradicted allegations in complaint). Meecorp Capital Markets, LLC v. PSC of Two Harbors, LLC, 2010 WL 2946984, *1 (D. Minn. 2010) ("A court may consider the complaint, matters of public record, orders, materials embraced by the complaint, and exhibits attached to the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)."). Facet Technology Corp. v. Tele Atlas North America, Inc., 2008 WL 2439804 (D. Minn. 2008) (mem. op.). Ester v. Faflak, D.C.Minn.2006, 2006 WL 2700288, quoting Wright & Miller. Any written or oral evidence in support of or in opposition to the pleading that provides some substantiation for and does not merely reiterate what is said in the pleadings constitutes matters outside the pleadings, which cannot be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting it to a motion for summary judgment. Schoolhouse, Inc. v. Anderson, D.C.Minn.2001, 2001 WL 1640081, affirmed C.A.8th, 2002, 275 F.3d 726 (unpublished). In re Digi Int'l, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Minn.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1089 (documents relied upon in plaintiffs' complaint, and of undisputed authenticity, but not physically attached to pleading). Force v. ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., D.C.Minn.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 843 (documents integral to cause of action but not attached to complaint). In re Grand Casinos, Inc., Secs. Litigation, D.C.Minn.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1273 (documents relied upon in complaint and of undisputed authenticity, even if not physically attached to pleading). Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceutical, Inc., D.C.Minn.1997, 176 F.R.D. 566, affirmed C.A.8th, 1999, 187 F.3d 941 (allegations contained on face of complaint). Moubry v. Independent School Dist. No. 696, D.C.Minn.1996, 951 F.Supp. 867.

Missouri Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection Dist., 2013 WL 5707875, *3 (E.D. Mo. 2013) ("Ordinarily, only the facts alleged in the complaint are considered for purposes of a motion to dismiss; however, materials attached to the complaint may also be considered in construing its sufficiency."), on reconsideration in part, 2014 WL 466234 (E.D. Mo. 2014), citing Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).

North Dakota Graham Const. Services, Inc. v. Hammer & Steel, Inc., 2011 WL 3236083 (D.N.D. 2011). Peak North Dakota, LLC v. Wilkinson, 2010 WL 2813508, *3 (D.N.D. 2010).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

South Dakota Birdnecklace v. Steele, 2008 WL 1766720 (D.S.D. 2008). Harms v. Cigna Ins. Cos., D.C.S.D.2006, 421 F.Supp.2d 1225.

See also "Consideration of matters outside the pleading is harmless where the nonmoving party had an adequate opportunity to respond to the motion and material facts were neither disputed nor missing from the record." Van Zee v. Hanson, 630 F.3d 1126, 1129 (8th Cir. 2011), quoting BJC Health System v. Columbia Cas. Co., 348 F.3d 685, 688 (8th Cir. 2003).

Ninth Circuit Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 717 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2013), withdrawn and superseded on denial of reh'g en banc, 738 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). Sams v. Yahoo! Inc., 713 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2013) ("However, we are permitted to consider documents that were not physically attached to the complaint where the documents' authenticity is not contested, and the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on them."), citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-689 (9th Cir. 2001). Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012). Western Radio Services Co. v. Qwest Corp., 678 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 758, 184 L.Ed.2d 499 (2012). Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1017 (9th Cir. 2012) (court properly took judicial notice of contract provision). On a motion to dismiss, the court generally may not consider materials outside of the pleadings. However, it may consider materials "submitted with and attached to" the complaint. It also may consider unattached materials necessarily relied upon by the complaint if "(1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the document." U.S. v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 998-999 (9th Cir. 2011). New Mexico State Investment Council v. Ernst & Young LLP, 641 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011). Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-999 (9th Cir. 2010). Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean, Geological Formation, 524 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (generally, court only considers allegations contained in pleadings, exhibits attached to pleadings, and matters subject to judicial notice). Knievel v. ESPN, C.A.9th, 2005, 393 F.3d 1068 (website). Lapidus v. Hecht, C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 679 (court may consider documents whose contents are alleged in complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but that are not physically attached to complaint). Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California, C.A.9th, 1998, 159 F.3d 1178 (allegations of material fact set forth in complaint). Schneider v. California Dep't of Corrections, C.A.9th, 1998, 151 F.3d 1194. Enesco Corp. v. Price/Costco Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 146 F.3d 1083 (contents of complaint). A district court may consider documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the plaintiff's pleading. Obviously the plaintiff is on notice of the contents of documents that the complaint relies upon. Parrino v. FHP, Incorporated, C.A.9th, 1998, 146 F.3d 699, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 510, 525 U.S. 1001, 142 L.Ed.2d 423. Pareto v. FDIC, C.A.9th, 1998, 139 F.3d 696. A court may consider documents to which the complaint specifically refers if their authenticity is not questioned. The court of appeals refused to consider disputed documents that the complaint did not reference. Cooper v. Pickett, C.A.9th, 1997, 137 F.3d 616. In re American Continental Corp., C.A.9th, 1996, 102 F.3d 1524, reversed on other grounds 1998, 118 S.Ct. 956, 523 U.S. 26, 140 L.Ed.2d 62. Campanelli v. Bockrath, C.A.9th, 1996, 100 F.3d 1476, on remand D.C.Cal.1997, 1997 WL 325422. In re Syntex Corp. Secs. Litigation, C.A.9th, 1996, 95 F.3d 922. Parks School of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, C.A.9th, 1995, 51 F.3d 1480. Gemtel Corp. v. Community Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, C.A.9th, 1994, 23 F.3d 1542 (court can consider matters of public record on Rule 12(b)(6) motion).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Documents not attached to the pleading but whose contents are alleged in the pleading and whose authenticity are not challenged can be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without conversion to summary judgment. Documents submitted as part of the complaint also may be considered. Branch v. Tunnell, C.A.9th, 1994, 14 F.3d 449, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 2704, 512 U.S. 1219, 129 L.Ed.2d 832. Cervantes v. City of San Diego, C.A.9th, 1993, 5 F.3d 1273. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., C.A.9th, 1989, 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., C.A.9th, 1988, 846 F.2d 1190, 1198, citing Wright & Miller. Durning v. First Boston Corp., C.A.9th, 1987, 815 F.2d 1265, certiorari denied 108 S.Ct. 330, 484 U.S. 944, 98 L.Ed.2d 358. Mack v. South Bay Beer Dist., Inc., C.A.9th, 1986, 798 F.2d 1279.

Arizona Baca ex rel. Nominal Defendant Insight Enterprises, Inc. v. Crown, 2010 WL 2812712, *2 (D. Ariz. 2010). Nored v. City of Tempe, 2008 WL 2561905, *3 n. 4 (D. Ariz. 2008). Traynor v. Winnebago Indus., Inc., D.C.Ariz.2004, 2004 WL 1146077 (court ruled that it could consider matters not physically attached to complaint without conversion to summary judgment if their authenticity was unquestioned and complaint necessarily relied upon them). SEC v. Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc., D.C.Ariz.1998, 17 F.Supp.2d 985 (disregarding forms not referred to or relied on in complaint).

California "Under the 'incorporation by reference' rule, however, 'documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.'" Taylor v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, 2011 WL 1303430, *5 (N.D. Cal. 2011), quoting Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994). Manestar v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 686252 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (court may consider exhibits alleged in complaint or submitted with it, as well as matters that may be taken under judicial notice). Zepeda v. Tate, 2010 WL 4977596, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (court may consider only matters contained within complaint "with a limited exception for exhibits that are attached to the complaint, exhibits incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice"). Baker v. Aegis Wholesale Corp., 2010 WL 2853915, *3-4 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Copeland v. Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB, 2010 WL 2817173, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2010). A "court 'need not accept as true allegations contradicting documents that are referenced in the complaint or that are properly subject to judicial notice.’” Anderson v. Fishback, 2009 WL 2423327, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009), quoting Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). In re American Funds Secs. Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (useful discussion). Consiglio v. Woodford, D.C.Cal.2007, 2007 WL 1655496 (court may consider judicially noticed facts, facts that exhibits attached to complaint establish, and matters of public record). Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corp., D.C.Cal.2006, 423 F.Supp.2d 1053. In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider material that is submitted properly or attached as part of the complaint, and if the documents are not physically attached to the complaint, they may be considered if the documents' authenticity is not contested and the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on them. In re Immune Response Secs. Litigation, D.C.Cal.2005, 375 F.Supp.2d 983. Hazleton v. Alameida, D.C.Cal.2005, 358 F.Supp.2d 926. Neilson v. Union Bank of California, D.C.Cal.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 1101. In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider matters subject to judicial notice, exhibits submitted with the complaint, and documents not physically attached to the complaint but whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., D.C.Cal.2002, 194 F.Supp.2d 1040, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds and remanded C.A.9th, 2003, 349 F.3d 1191. Migliori v. Boeing No. American, Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 1001 (court may consider exhibits submitted with complaint and matters that may be judicially noticed). Selby v. New Line Cinema Corp., D.C.Cal.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1053 (material properly submitted as part of complaint may be considered on motion to dismiss, as well as documents whose contents are alleged in complaint and whose authenticity no party questions).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Barapind v. Reno, D.C.Cal.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132 (matters of public record may be considered, including pleadings, orders, and other papers filed with court, as well as records of administrative bodies). Roe v. Unocal Corp., D.C.Cal.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1073 (court may consider exhibits submitted with complaint and matters that may be judicially noticed, and even if document is neither submitted with complaint nor explicitly referred to in complaint, district court may consider document in ruling on motion to dismiss so long as complaint necessarily relies on document and document's authenticity is not contested). Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, D.C.Cal.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 1083 (documents attached to complaint and incorporated therein by reference are treated as part of complaint for purposes of motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, and documents whose contents are alleged in complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to pleading, may be considered on motion without converting it to summary judgment). Northland Cas. Co. v. Wescal Yachts, Inc., D.C.Cal.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 1027 (records and reports of which court takes judicial notice may be considered). Nuno v. County of San Bernardino, D.C.Cal.1999, 58 F.Supp.2d 1127. Cauchi v. Brown, D.C.Cal.1999, 51 F.Supp.2d 1014 (matters outside complaint cannot be considered). U.S. v. Crisp, D.C.Cal.1999, 190 F.R.D. 546 (court may consider matters of public record, including pleadings, orders, other papers filed with court, and records of administrative bodies). Pegasus Holdings v. Veterinary Centers of America, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 38 F.Supp.2d 1158 (court may consider matters that can be judicially noticed). Silva v. M/V First Lady, D.C.Cal.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 581 (court usually only considers face of complaint but can consider anything of which judicial notice can be taken). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion the court may consider the contents of the complaint, exhibits submitted with the complaint, matters that may be judicially noticed, and any document necessarily relied on by the complaint. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., D.C.Cal.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 1013. Films of Distinction, Inc. v. Allegro Film Productions, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1068 (contents of complaint, exhibits submitted with complaint, and matters that may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201). Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1035 (contents of complaint, exhibits submitted with complaint, and matters that may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201). Ricotta v. California, D.C.Cal.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 961, affirmed C.A.9th, 1999, 173 F.3d 861 (official records and reports). Allison v. Brooktree Corp., D.C.Cal.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1342 (considering face of complaint, documents referred to by complaint, and matters subject to judicial notice; not considering facts presented in briefs, affidavits, or discovery materials). Hernandez v. McClanahan, D.C.Cal.1998, 996 F.Supp. 975 (face of complaint). Dunlap v. Association of Bay Area Govs., D.C.Cal.1998, 996 F.Supp. 962 (documents whose contents are alleged in complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to pleading). Diaz v. Carlson, D.C.Cal.1997, 5 F.Supp.2d 809, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 142 F.3d 443 (matters that may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201). Fontanilla v. City & County of San Francisco, D.C.Cal.1997, 987 F.Supp. 1206, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 205 F.3d 1351 (documents attached to complaint). Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1303 (documents whose contents are alleged in complaint and whose authenticity no party questions). Meek v. County of Riverside, D.C.Cal.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1410, affirmed in part, dismissed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 183 F.3d 962 (exhibits submitted with complaint). National Coalition Gov. of Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 176 F.R.D. 329 (contents of complaint, exhibits submitted with complaint, matters that may be judicially noticed pursuant to federal rules of evidence, and documents specifically referred to by complaint and whose authenticity is not questioned). Summit Technology, Inc. v. High-Line Medical Instruments, D.C.Cal.1996, 933 F.Supp. 918. Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State, D.C.Cal.1996, 922 F.Supp. 1426. California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. City of West Sacramento, D.C.Cal.1995, 905 F.Supp. 792 (allowing consideration of matters of public record). Datastorm Technologies, Inc. v. Excalibur Communications, Inc., D.C.Cal.1995, 888 F.Supp. 112. Romeo v. General Chem. Corp., D.C.Cal.1994, 922 F.Supp. 287.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

In re Century 21—RE/MAX Real Estate Advertising Claims Litigation, D.C.Cal.1994, 882 F.Supp. 915 (court may consider matters of public record). Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 874 F.Supp. 1072. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, D.C.Cal.1994, 871 F.Supp. 381 (court considered securities offering documents on a motion to dismiss). Citizens for a Better Environment—California v. Union Oil Co. of California, D.C.Cal.1994, 861 F.Supp. 889, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 83 F.3d 1111 (court may take judicial notice of agency rulings and regulations). Glenbrook Homeowners Ass'n v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1994, 858 F.Supp. 986 (documents referred to in complaint may be considered). Haskell v. Time, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1392 (although sample sweepstakes solicitations were not attached to complaint, court may consider them on defendant's motion to dismiss because they were at heart of complaint and their authenticity was not questioned). Rabkin v. Dean, D.C.Cal.1994, 856 F.Supp. 543. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1388. Clemes v. Del Norte County Unified School Dist., D.C.Cal.1994, 843 F.Supp. 583 (documents attached to the complaint). The court may consider matters of public record and exhibits attached to the complaint; allegations in the complaint that are contradicted by the public record or exhibits need not be accepted as true. Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1993, 823 F.Supp. 715. “[T]he court need not accept as true allegations that contradict facts which may be judicially noticed.” Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1503, affirmed C.A.9th, 1993, 10 F.3d 667. Doe v. Schachter, D.C.Cal.1992, 804 F.Supp. 53 (documents attached to complaint may be considered). Cox v. Eichler, D.C.Cal.1990, 765 F.Supp. 601. Merrell v. All Seasons Resorts, Inc., D.C.Cal.1989, 720 F.Supp. 815. The complaint and matters of public record were considered on the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Hagan v. California, D.C.Cal.1967, 265 F.Supp. 174.

Hawai'i Levy v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 WL 2493055 (D. Haw. 2011). Kapu v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2010 WL 2943339, *2 (D. Haw. 2010) ("Review is limited to the contents of the complaint."). In re Li, D.C.Haw.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1052 (review is limited to contents of complaint and attached exhibits). Pai 'Ohana v. U.S., D.C.Haw.1995, 875 F.Supp. 680, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 76 F.3d 280.

Idaho Swendsen v. Corey, 2010 WL 2867806, *2 (D. Idaho 2010) ("The Court may also examine documents referred to in the complaint, although not attached thereto, without transforming the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment."). Edwards v. Ellsworth, May, Sudweeks, Stubbs, Ibsen & Perry, D.C.Idaho 1997, 10 F.Supp.2d 1131, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 152 F.3d 924.

Montana Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library, 2011 WL 4499043 (D. Mont. 2011). Engebretson v. Mahoney, 2010 WL 2683202, *2 (D. Mont. 2010).

Nevada Martinez v. Bank of America, 2011 WL 1740146 (D. Nev. 2011). Wheeler v. Terrible Herbst, 2010 WL 4983302 (D. Nev. 2010). Fleeger v. Bell, D.C.Nev.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 1126, affirmed C.A.9th, 2001, 23 Fed.Appx. 741 (court may consider documents attached to complaint, documents of undisputed authenticity that are alleged or referenced in complaint, public records, and other judicially noticeable evidence). In re Stratosphere Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Nev.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1096 (document referred to in complaint and authenticity of which is not questioned).

Oregon

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Ellis v. GMAC Mortg., Inc., 2011 WL 1086530 (D. Or. 2011) (court may consider only pleadings). Dauven v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 2010 WL 2640119, *3 (D. Or. 2010). Goff v. Astrue, 2008 WL 2278668 (D. Or. 2008). Baynton v. Wyatt, D.C.Ore.2006, 411 F.Supp.2d 1223.

Washington Phillips v. World Pub. Co., 2011 WL 4899973 (W.D. Wash. 2011). Parker v. Barclays Bank Delaware, 2011 WL 2709407 (E.D. Wash. 2011). Mandelas v. Gordon, 2010 WL 2639846, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2010). Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v. The Lash Group, Inc., 2008 WL 2489931 (W.D. Wash. 2008). Pierce v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., D.C.Wash.2006, 422 F.Supp.2d 1230. Documents that are not physically attached to the complaint may be considered if the document's authenticity is not contested and the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on them. Gordon v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc., D.C.Wash.2005, 375 F.Supp.2d 1040. In re Boeing Secs. Litigation, D.C.Wash.1998, 40 F.Supp.2d 1160 (court may consider documents attached to parties papers or matters subject to judicial notice).

Tenth Circuit "In a securities case, we may consider, in addition to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference into the complaint, public documents filed with the SEC, and documents the plaintiffs relied upon in bringing suit. When there are allegations that certain disclosures were not made in publicly available documents, we may look to those documents to see whether such disclosures were in fact made." Slater v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 719 F.3d 1190, 1196 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted), citing ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007); Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007). Rose v. Utah State Bar, 471 Fed. Appx. 818 (10th Cir. 2012) (court may take judicial notice of court records and matters of public record, as when considering whether issue preclusion applies, without converting Rule 12(b)(6) motion into motion for summary judgment). Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 680 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2011). Kerber v. Qwest Group Life Ins. Plan, 647 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2011) (exhibits and documents incorporated into complaint may be considered as long as parties do not dispute their veracity). Young v. United Parcel Services, Inc. Employees' Short Term Disability Plan, 416 Fed. Appx. 734, 737 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Rocha v. CCCF Admin., 408 Fed. Appx. 141, 144 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3067, 180 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2011) (Rule 12(b)(6) inquiry is limited to four corners of complaint; district court had no obligation to compel discovery or consider evidence) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Gee v. Pacheco, 624 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2010), opinion amended and superseded, 2010 WL 4909644 (10th Cir. 2010). Pace v. Swerdlow, 519 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 2008). Alvarado v. KOB-TV, Limited Liability Corp., C.A.10th, 2007, 493 F.3d 1210 (discussing standard). Issa v. Comp USA, C.A.10th, 2003, 354 F.3d 1174. If the plaintiff does not incorporate by reference or attach to the complaint a document referred to in the complaint and central to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant may submit an indisputably authentic copy to the court to be considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion. MacArthur v. San Juan County, C.A.10th, 2002, 309 F.3d 1216, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 2252, 539 U.S. 902, 156 L.Ed.2d 110. Prager v. LaFaver, C.A.10th, 1999, 180 F.3d 1185, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 405, 528 U.S. 967, 145 L.Ed.2d 315 (documents referred to in complaint may be considered). Kamplain v. Curry County Bd. of Comm'rs, C.A.10th, 1998, 159 F.3d 1248 (allegations set forth in complaint). Dill v. City of Edmond, Oklahoma, C.A.10th, 1998, 155 F.3d 1193. Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, C.A.10th, 1998, 154 F.3d 1124 (limiting review to examination of pleadings because lower court decided case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and thus did not consider affidavits or submitted documents). Bauchman for Bauchman v. West High School, C.A.10th, 1997, 132 F.3d 542, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 2370, 524 U.S. 953, 141 L.Ed.2d 738 (declining to review direct statements from defendants not contained in complaint).

Colorado Hastings v. Barbee, 2011 WL 2610132 (D. Colo. 2011), citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. F.I.C., 2008 WL 1700408, *1 n. 1 (D. Colo. 2008). SEC v. Nacchio, D.C.Colo.2006, 438 F.Supp.2d 1266. Durham v. Lappin, D.C.Colo.2006, 2006 WL 2724091. Kaplan v. Reed, D.C.Colo.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 1191 (evidence gained in discovery not to be considered). Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., D.C.Colo.1998, 178 F.R.D. 545 (document attached to motion that was referred to in complaint). American Cas. Co. v. Glaskin, D.C.Colo.1992, 805 F.Supp. 866 (limited to “four corners” of complaint).

Kansas Cooper v. Old Dominion Freight Line, 2010 WL 2609385, *1 (D. Kan. 2010). Capps v. Whitson, D.C.Kan.2006, 2006 WL 3313723. Lingenfelter v. Board of Comm'rs of Reno County, Kansas, D.C.Kan.2005, 359 F.Supp.2d 1163. In re Sprint Corp. ERISA Litigation, D.C.Kan.2004, 388 F.Supp.2d 1207. Riggs v. Boeing Co., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1215 (documents attached to plaintiff's complaint). Shoup v. Higgins Rental Center, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 991 F.Supp. 1265 (contract attached to motion that was quoted in third-party complaint and not in dispute). Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Dymon, Inc., D.C.Kan.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1394 (well-pleaded allegations contained within four corners of complaint). Adams v. Walker, D.C.Kan.1991, 767 F.Supp. 1099. Kutilek v. Gannon, D.C.Kan.1991, 766 F.Supp. 967.

New Mexico Midgley v. Rayrock Mines, Inc., D.C.N.M.2005, 374 F.Supp.2d 1039.

Oklahoma Michael v. Newton-Embry, 2011 WL 4007335 (W.D. Okla. 2011). Global Client Solutions, LLC v. Fluid Trade, Inc., 2010 WL 2690373, *3 (N.D. Okla. 2010) ("When reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may 'consider documents referred to in the complaint if the documents are central to the plaintiff's claims and the parties do not dispute the documents' authenticity.'"), quoting Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir. 2002).

Wyoming Jones v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.Wyo.1999, 57 F.Supp.2d 1224. Coalition for Sustainable Resources v. U.S. Forest Serv., D.C.Wyo.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 1303, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.10th, 2001, 259 F.3d 1244 (document referred to in complaint may be considered).

Utah Baird v. Cutler, D.C.Utah 1995, 883 F.Supp. 591.

Eleventh Circuit Dyer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 535 Fed. Appx. 839 (11th Cir. 2013) (district court did not rely upon extrinsic pleadings outside four corners of complaint; reference to Wal-Mart's employee handbook was permissible because court only discussed contents of handbook as alleged by plaintiff in amended complaint), quoting Rule 12(d). Alvarez v. Attorney General for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1261 (11th Cir. 2012). Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2012) (letter attached to complaint as exhibit treated as part of complaint for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes). F.T.C. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 677 F.3d 1298, 1313 (11th Cir. 2012), reversed on other grounds, 133 S. Ct. 787, 2223 L.Ed.2d 343 (2013) (court cannot go beyond allegations of complaint). Cline v. Tolliver, 434 Fed. Appx. 823 (11th Cir. 2011) (court generally is limited to four corners of compliant on Rule 12(b)(6) motion, with some exceptions) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Speaker v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379-1380 (11th Cir. 2010).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of America Secs., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2010) ("In general, if it considers materials outside of the complaint, a district court must convert the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). There is an exception, however, to this general rule. In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the district court may consider an extrinsic document if it is (1) central to the plaintiff's claim, and (2) its authenticity is not challenged."). Cranford v. Nevada Dept. of Corrections, 2010 WL 3860725, *6 (11th Cir. 2010). “ ‘[T]he analysis of a 12(b)(6) motion is limited primarily to the face of the complaint and attachments thereto.’” Novoneuron Inc. v. Addiction Research Institute, Inc., 326 Fed. Appx. 505, 507 (11th Cir. 2009). Day v. Taylor, C.A.11th, 2005, 400 F.3d 1272. La Grasta v. First Union Secs., Inc., C.A.11th, 2004, 358 F.3d 840. Hoffman-Pugh v. Ramsey, C.A.11th, 2002, 312 F.3d 1222 (in libel action, book published by defendants that was central to plaintiff's case was properly considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., C.A.11th, 1999, 187 F.3d 1271 (SEC documents may be considered in securities fraud action).

Alabama Johnson v. Mobile County Sheriff Dep't, D.C.Ala.2007, 2007 WL 2023488.

Florida Degutis v. Financial Freedom, LLC, 2013 WL 5705438, *5 (M.D. Fla. 2013) ("Federal courts evaluating Rule 12(b)(6) motions may consider an exhibit 'in cases in which a plaintiff refers to a document in its complaint, the document is central to its claim, its contents are not in dispute, and the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss.'"), quoting Financial Sec. Assur., Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007). U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Aliaga, 2011 WL 941373 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (court's inquiry limited to complaint and incorporated exhibits). Luke v. Residential Elevators, Inc., 2011 WL 311370 (N.D. Fla. 2011). U.S. v. Assets Described in Attachment A to the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem, 2010 WL 6593942 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (review generally limited to four corners of complaint). Crim v. Manalich, 2010 WL 2757223, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2010). BB In Technology Co., Ltd. v. JAF, Limited Liability Corp., D.C.Fla.2007, 242 F.R.D. 632. Jordan v. Miami–Dade County, D.C.Fla.2006, 439 F.Supp.2d 1237. Caravello v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.Fla.2004, 315 F.Supp.2d 1346 (collective bargaining agreement incorporated by reference in plaintiff's complaint and attached to defendant's motion to dismiss could be considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion without conversion to summary judgment or judgment on pleadings). In determining whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court also may consider the allegations in the complaint, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint. Hodges v. Buzzeo, D.C.Fla.2002, 193 F.Supp.2d 1279, citing Wright & Miller. On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint may be taken into account. SEC v. Dunlap, D.C.Fla.2002, 2002 WL 1007626, citing Wright & Miller. In re Sunbeam Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1999, 89 F.Supp.2d 1326, citing Wright & Miller. In re Physician Corp. of America Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1999, 50 F.Supp.2d 1304, citing Wright & Miller. O'Rourke v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., D.C.Fla.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 1383 (court not to consider matters outside complaint). Rhodes v. Omega Research, Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 1353 (court may consider documents attached to complaint or directly referred to in complaint). Raber v. Osprey Alaska, Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 187 F.R.D. 675 (only four corners of complaint). Digiro v. Pall Aeropower Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 19 F.Supp.2d 1304. Stapleton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1344 (four corners of complaint). Harris v. District Bd. of Trustees of Polk Community College, D.C.Fla.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1319 (four corners of complaint). Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, D.C.Fla.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 1369 (material allegations of complaint and its incorporated exhibits). Henniger v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1334 (four corners of complaint). Elger v. Martin Memorial Health Sys., Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1351. American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1481 (four corners of complaint).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Farabee v. Rider, D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1398 (four corners of complaint). DiGiro v. Pall Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1471 (four corners of complaint). If a plaintiff refers to a document in the complaint and that document is central to the plaintiff's claim, then the court may consider the document as part of the pleadings for purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss. Smith Barney, Inc. v. Scanlon, D.C.Fla.1998, 180 F.R.D. 444. Aruvision Holding & Exploitation, B.V. v. Disney/ABC Television Int'l, Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 992 F.Supp. 1370 (agreement attached to motion to dismiss that formed central part of plaintiffs' claims). “In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court can examine only the four (4) corners of the complaint.” Florida College of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 982 F.Supp. 862, 864. Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland Florida, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1455. Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1538, citing Wright & Miller. When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a judge should be limited to only the four corners of the complaint. Hunter v. Chiles, D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 914. Watson v. Bally Mfg. Corp., D.C.Fla.1993, 844 F.Supp. 1533, quoting Wright & Miller. City of Fort Lauderdale v. Ross, Saarinen, Bolton & Wilder, Inc., D.C.Fla.1992, 815 F.Supp. 444. Sizemore v. U.S., D.C.Fla.1985, 651 F.Supp. 463. Landmark Tower Associates v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, D.C.Fla.1977, 439 F.Supp. 195, 197, citing Wright & Miller.

Georgia Purcell v. Catlin, 2010 WL 786611, *1 (M.D. Ga. 2010). Rudd v. Suburban Lodges of America, Inc., D.C.Ga.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 1366 (if plaintiff refers to certain documents in complaint and those documents are central to plaintiff's claim, court may consider documents for purposes of dismissal). Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., D.C.Ga.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 1358 (court may consider document not attached to pleading if authenticity undisputed and plaintiff has relied on in complaint). Bryant v. Apple So., Inc., D.C.Ga.1998, 25 F.Supp.2d 1372 (court can consider exhibits attached to defendants motion only if exhibit is integral to complaint). In re Miller Indus., Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ga.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1323 (exhibits and affidavits attached to complaint). General Time Corp. v. Bulk Materials, Inc., D.C.Ga.1993, 826 F.Supp. 471 (court may consider consent order without converting motion to one for summary judgment since court may take judicial notice of order). Breckenridge Creste Apartments, Ltd. v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., D.C.Ga.1993, 826 F.Supp. 460, citing Wright & Miller. Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, D.C.Ga.1993, 813 F.Supp. 821, affirmed C.A.11th, 1993, 992 F.2d 1548. Atlanta Gas Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Co., D.C.Ga.1972, 338 F.Supp. 1039, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1973, 476 F.2d 142.

D.C. Circuit Covad Communications Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., C.A.2005, 407 F.3d 1220, 366 U.S.App.D.C. 24 (court may take judicial notice of facts on public record). A court may not draw upon facts from outside the pleadings. Thus, a vague and conclusory complaint may survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when more detail would disclose fatal weaknesses. A defendant's remedy is not to move for dismissal but to serve contention interrogatories or to proceed to summary judgment. Taylor v. FDIC, C.A.1997, 132 F.3d 753, 328 U.S.App.D.C. 52. Douglas v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 28 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 1534, 2013 WL 5764842, *5 (D.D.C. 2013), citing U.S. ex rel. Folliard v. CDW Technology Services, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 2d 20, 24 (D.D.C. 2010). Diaby v. Bierman, 795 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2011). Chase v. District of Columbia, 723 F. Supp. 2d 130, 133 (D.D.C. 2010). Stoyanov v. Winter, 643 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2009). Fraternal Order of Police. v. Gates, 562 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008). Marshall v. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2008). Rattigan v. Gonzales, D.C.D.C.2007, 2007 WL 1577855. Herron v. Veneman, D.C.D.C.2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 64. National Community Reinvestment Coalition v. National Credit Union Admin., D.C.D.C.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 124. Keith v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., D.C.D.C.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 31.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

U.S. ex rel. Harris v. Bernad, D.C.D.C.2003, 275 F.Supp.2d 1. Vanover v. Hantman, D.C.D.C.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 91, affirmed C.A.D.C.2002, 38 Fed.Appx. 4 (if document is referred to in complaint and is central to plaintiff's claim, it may be attached to motion papers and be considered without converting motion to one for summary judgment). Factual allegations in a brief are not to be considered on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Shapiro, Lifschitz, & Schram, P.C. v. Hazard, D.C.D.C.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 66. Slaby v. Fairbridge, D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 22 (complaint, items in record of case, and matters of public record). Mittleman v. U.S., D.C.D.C.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1, affirmed C.A.D.C.1998, 1998 WL 796300 (face of complaint and matters of general public record). The court considered the eighteen previous complaints filed by the plaintiff, all of which alleged essentially the same facts as the complaint at issue and all of which were dismissed, and dismissed the plaintiff's action on the basis of res judicata. Sparrow v. Reynolds, D.C.D.C.1986, 646 F.Supp. 834. District of Columbia v. Moxley, D.C.D.C.1979, 471 F.Supp. 777, 779, citing Wright & Miller.

Federal Circuit Sebastain v. U.S., C.A.Fed., 1999, 185 F.3d 1368, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 1669, 529 U.S. 1065, 146 L.Ed.2d 479 (superceded military regulations were matter of public record), citing Wright & Miller. See also vol. 5A, § 1327, vol. 5C, §§ 1364, 1366.

Compare Unless a court converts a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment, it cannot consider material outside of the complaint, such as facts presented in briefs, affidavits, or discovery materials. A court may, however, consider exhibits submitted with the complaint and matters subject to judicial notice. RDF Media Ltd. v. Fox Broadcasting Co., D.C.Cal.2005, 372 F.Supp.2d 556. The court may consider documents attached to the complaint, but the court may not consider other documents outside the pleadings. Lee v. Plummer, D.C.Cal.2005, 2005 WL 91380. Maharishi Hardy Blechman Ltd. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., D.C.N.Y.2004, 220 F.R.D. 39 (court rejected motion opposing plaintiff's request to amend complaint since points in opposition motion all argued futility of amendment based on extra-pleading materials). Norm Thompson Outfitters, Inc. v. Starcrest Prods. of California, Inc., D.C.Ore.2004, 2004 WL 957774 (court considered catalog whose authenticity was unquestioned and to which complaint referred multiple times but refused to consider website whose authenticity was unquestioned because it was not central to complaint). Columbia Hosp. at Medical City Dallas Subsidiary, L.P. v. Legend Asset Management Corp., D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 769253 (court refused to consider document whose authenticity was in dispute). McNeal v. Cook County Sheriff's Dep't, D.C.Ill.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 865 (facts or admissions from original complaint not incorporated into amended complaint cannot be considered on motion to dismiss).

But see The court is not always limited to the four corners of the complaint and "may take judicial notice of matters of public record without converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion." Halmos v. Bomardier Aerospace Corp., 404 Fed. Appx. 376, 377 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). "When ruling on a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint, however, a district court is required to look beyond the plaintiff's formal complaint and to consider as amendments to the complaint those materials subsequently filed." Val-Com Acquisitions Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 1344176, *2 (E.D. Tex. 2011), aff'd, 428 Fed. Appx. 313 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). "When ruling on a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint, however, a district court is required to look beyond the plaintiff's formal complaint and to consider as amendments to the complaint those materials subsequently filed." Anderson v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2011 WL 1113494, *3 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cardew v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 943575 (since plaintiff was entitled to have all facts assumed in his favor, court rejected defendant's argument that substance of grievance forms mentioned in complaint should be considered because they were incorporated).

But compare

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Adams v. Crystal City Marriott Hotel, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 744489 (“certification” resembling affidavit or declaration submitted by plaintiff in response to motion to dismiss was unusual filing and since it was not attached to or incorporated in complaint, court would not consider it on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. United Limousine Serv., Inc., D.C.N.Y.2004, 303 F.Supp.2d 432 (although not relying on materials in affidavit to resolve Rule 12(b)(6) motion, court considered such materials for sole purpose of determining whether to grant leave to amend complaint). 2 Rule 12(h)(2) See vol. 5C, § 1392.

See also A Rule 60(b) motion is made after trial, and is therefore an inappropriate means by which to assert a failure to state a claim defense. Rule 12(h)(2) only preserves the defense through trial. Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Constr., Inc., C.A.4th, 1999, 167 F.3d 861. Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Tenn.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 832, citing Wright & Miller, appeal dismissed C.A.6th, 2001, 2 Fed.Appx. 470. Puckett v. U.S., D.C.Tex.1999, 82 F.Supp.2d 660, citing Wright & Miller. Mullis v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank, D.C.N.C.1997, 994 F.Supp. 680, citing Wright & Miller. 3 Some other vehicle "We note that [defendants] filed answers in the District Court on June 22, 2009, thus generally barring the filing of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Balintulo v. Daimler AG, 727 F.3d 174, 188 n.20 (2d Cir. 2013). Patrick v. Rivera-Lopez, 708 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 2013) (district court should have treated Rule 12(b)(6) motion as motion for judgment on pleadings under Rule 12(c), although court's reliance on wrong rule was inconsequential). ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Biamp Systems, 653 F.3d 1163, 1172 (10th Cir. 2011). Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, C.A.9th, 2004, 375 F.3d 951 (district court should not have considered motion to dismiss made after answer under Rule 12(b)(6) but instead should have considered it under Rule 12(c) or Rule 12(h)(2)). A late motion under Rule 12(b)(6) may be treated as one for judgment on the pleadings. Joseph v. Patterson, C.A.6th, 1986, 795 F.2d 549, 562, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 1910, 481 U.S. 1023, 95 L.Ed.2d 516. Poole v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 2013 WL 5774947, *4 (M.D. Ala. 2013) ("[I]n the interest of judicial economy, the court will treat [defendant]'s untimely motion to dismiss as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings."). Rutland v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 2012 WL 3060949, *2 n.1 (E.D. Mich. 2012), citing Wright & Miller. Harris v. Smith, 2011 WL 2413490 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (post-answer Rule 12(b)(6) motion will be construed as Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on pleadings). Jane Doe ex rel. J.M. v. Phoenix-Talent School Dist. No. 4, 2011 WL 704877 (D. Or. 2011), quoting Wright & Miller. Dykes v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2011 WL 357633 (S.D. Miss. 2011), quoting Wright & Miller. Dowdy & Dowdy Partnership v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 2010 WL 4883215, *2 (S.D. Miss. 2010), quoting Wright & Miller. Nicks v. Brewer, 2010 WL 4868172, *2 n.5 (D. Kan. 2010), quoting Wright & Miller. Mayo v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 2010 WL 4363392, *1 (S.D. Miss. 2010), quoting Wright & Miller. Filo America, Inc. v. Olhoss Trading Co., D.C.Ala.2004, 321 F.Supp.2d 1266 (although Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed after answer is inappropriate, court has discretion to treat it as motion for judgment on pleadings). Marrero v. Modern Maintenance Bldg. Servs., Inc., D.C.Wis.2004, 318 F.Supp.2d 721 (Rule 12(b)(6) motion made after answer treated as motion for partial judgment on pleadings). Micrins Surgical, Inc. v. Neuroregen, LLC, D.C.Md.2004, 2004 WL 1697837 (after close of pleadings, dismissal for failure to state claim may be achieved by motion for judgment on pleadings). Bennerson v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 902166 (motion to dismiss for failure to state claim made after close of pleadings should be converted into motion for judgment on pleadings). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is rendered moot by the filing of an answer. Brisk v. City of Miami Beach, Florida, D.C.Fla.1989, 709 F.Supp. 1146, citing Wright & Miller. Snyder v. Baumecker, D.C.N.J.1989, 708 F.Supp. 1451 (motion under Rule 12(b)(6) after answer treated as motion under Rule 12(c)).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

A second motion to dismiss, which technically is improper, would be treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings when made after the defendant answered. Merk v. Jewel Food Stores Div., Jewel Cos., D.C.Ill.1988, 702 F.Supp. 1391. Mills v. Fitzgerald, D.C.Ga.1987, 668 F.Supp. 1554, 1556–1557 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller. Miller v. Cudahy Co., D.C.Kan.1987, 656 F.Supp. 316, 323, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.10th, 1988, 858 F.2d 1449.

But see "Under Seventh Circuit law, however, 'it is well established that the amended pleading supersedes the original pleading * * * Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case * * * .' * * * Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an answer to the Second Amended Complaint, thus the Rule 12(b)(6) motion is proper." Wellness Community-National v. Wellness House, 70 F.3d 46, 49 (7th Cir. 1995), quoting Panwar v. Access Therapies, Inc., 2013 WL 5486783, *4 (S.D. Ind. 2013), quoting Wright & Miller. 4 Court's own initiative

First Circuit Cepero–Rivera v. Fagundo, C.A.1st, 2005, 414 F.3d 124 (not to be cited per First Circuit Rule 32.3). Chute v. Walker, C.A.1st, 2002, 281 F.3d 314. Futura Dev. of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, C.A.1st, 1998, 144 F.3d 7, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 338, 525 U.S. 930, 142 L.Ed.2d 278 (sua sponte dismissal for failure to state claim is erroneous unless party has been afforded notice and opportunity to amend complaint or otherwise respond). It was error for the court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint sua sponte without affording him notice and an opportunity to respond. Wyatt v. City of Boston, C.A.1st, 1994, 35 F.3d 13, citing Wright & Miller. Literature, Inc. v. Quinn, C.A.1st, 1973, 482 F.2d 372, 374, citing Wright & Miller. Falcon-Cuevas v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 951 F. Supp. 2d 267, 278-279 (D.P.R. 2013). Grimaldi v. Paggioli, 2010 WL 2698284, *1 (D. Conn. 2010) ("The district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, so long as it allows the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard."). Comacho–Cardona v. Lopez Pena, D.C.Puerto Rico 2005, 360 F.Supp.2d 298. Snyder v. Talbot, D.C.Me.1993, 836 F.Supp. 26, citing Wright & Miller. Devlin v. WSI Corporation, D.C.Mass.1993, 833 F.Supp. 69. Diaz v. Stathis, D.C.Mass.1977, 440 F.Supp. 634, affirmed C.A.1st, 1978, 576 F.2d 9.

Second Circuit Webster v. Penzetta, 458 Fed. Appx. 23, 25 (2d Cir. 2012) ("A district court has inherent authority to dismiss meritless claims sua sponte, even when a plaintiff has paid his filing fee."). Simmons v. Abruzzo, C.A.2d, 1995, 49 F.3d 83, on remand D.C.N.Y.1996, 1996 WL 79321 (appellate court reverses district court's sua sponte dismissal of prisoner's pro se complaint). Wachtler v. County of Herkimer, C.A.2d, 1994, 35 F.3d 77, citing Wright & Miller. Lugo v. Keane, C.A.2d, 1994, 15 F.3d 29, quoting Wright & Miller. Thomas v. Scully, C.A.2d, 1991, 943 F.2d 259. Perez v. Ortiz, C.A.2d, 1988, 849 F.2d 793, 797, citing Wright & Miller. The district court has the power to dismiss the complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim and there is no reason why the same rule should not apply to dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, at least when the facts supporting the statute of limitations defense are set forth in the papers the plaintiff himself submitted. Leonhard v. U.S., C.A.2d, 1980, 633 F.2d 599, 609 n. 11, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 1975, 451 U.S. 908, 68 L.Ed.2d 295. Robins v. Rarback, C.A.2d, 1963, 325 F.2d 929, certiorari denied 85 S.Ct. 670, 379 U.S. 974, 13 L.Ed.2d 565. MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp., 931 F. Supp. 2d 387, 396 (N.D. N.Y. 2013) ("The Court has the authority under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss a complaint sua sponte for 'failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted' if the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact."), quoting Thomas v. Scully, 943 F.2d 259, 260 (2d Cir. 1991). Aquino v. Prudential Life & Cas. Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.2005, 2005 WL 486563. D.D. ex rel. V.D. v. New York City Board of Educ., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 633222. Puccio v. Town of Oyster Bay, D.C.N.Y.2002, 229 F.Supp.2d 173.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

The district court may dismiss claims sua sponte for failure to state claim, so long as the plaintiff had notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue. First Capital Asset Management, Inc. v. Brickellbush, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2002, 219 F.Supp.2d 576, quoting Wright & Miller. Hill v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 254 (court has power to dismiss complaint for failure to state claim sua sponte as long as plaintiff is given notice and opportunity to be heard). Brady v. Marks, D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 247 (dismissing claims after sua sponte ordering of plaintiff to show cause). Proctor v. Vadlamudi, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 156 (sua sponte dismissal of prisoner's § 1983 claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e). Barth v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1998, 178 F.R.D. 371 (ordering plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed on res judicata grounds). Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, D.C.N.Y.1995, 874 F.Supp. 576 (court dismissed RICO claim sua sponte for lack of standing). Notice and an opportunity to be heard should be given to the plaintiff prior to a dismissal of the complaint sua sponte. Koch v. Mirza, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 1031, quoting Wright & Miller. Highly frivolous claims by fee-paying plaintiffs are subject to sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Tyler v. Carter, D.C.N.Y.1993, 151 F.R.D. 537 (dismissing suit against president and other parties alleging conspiracy to reinstitute slavery and perpetrate oppression, and alleging that plaintiff is cyborg and received such information telepathically). Kearney v. Todd L. Smith, P.A., D.C.N.Y.1985, 624 F.Supp. 1008, 1014, citing Wright & Miller. Dahlberg v. Becker, D.C.N.Y.1984, 581 F.Supp. 855, 863, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.2d, 1984, 748 F.2d 85, certiorari denied 105 S.Ct. 1845, 470 U.S. 1084, 85 L.Ed.2d 144. Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin v. New York, D.C.N.Y.1981, 520 F.Supp. 1278, 1309 n. 33, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 1982, 691 F.2d 1070, on remand D.C.N.Y.1983, 102 F.R.D. 445, reversed on other grounds C.A.2d, 1984, 732 F.2d 261. Patton v. Dumpson, D.C.N.Y.1980, 498 F.Supp. 933, 935, citing Wright & Miller. Raitport v. Chemical Bank, D.C.N.Y.1977, 74 F.R.D. 128. When one defendant had not joined in the motion to dismiss but it was sued only because it was alleged to be a person who controlled the defendant whose dismissal motion was granted, the court on its own motion would grant the same relief to the nonmoving defendant. Piemonte v. Chicago Bd. Options Exchange, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1975, 405 F.Supp. 711.

Third Circuit Goodwin v. Castille, 465 Fed. Appx. 157, 163 (3d Cir. 2012) ("This is the rare case where sua sponte dismissal was appropriate. The District Court had sufficient facts to determine that legislative immunity was an absolute bar to Appellants' action."). Bryson v. Brand Insulations, Inc., C.A.3d, 1980, 621 F.2d 556. Dougherty v. Harper's Magazine Co., C.A.3d, 1976, 537 F.2d 758, 761, citing Wright & Miller. Fischer v. Cahill, C.A.3d, 1973, 474 F.2d 991. Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Omega Flex, Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 441, 447-448 (D.N.J. 2013), quoting Wright & Miller. Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, D.C.N.J.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 460 (court may dismiss claim on its own motion when inadequacy of claim is clear). Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Rennard St. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1046, citing Wright & Miller. Michaels v. New Jersey, D.C.N.J.1996, 955 F.Supp. 315. Herrmann v. Meridan Mortgage Corp., D.C.Pa.1995, 901 F.Supp. 915, quoting Wright & Miller. Erie City Retirees Ass'n v. City of Erie, D.C.Pa.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1048, citing Wright & Miller. Parsons v. City of Philadelphia Coordinating Office of Drug & Abuse Programs, D.C.Pa.1993, 822 F.Supp. 1181, 1182 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller. Washington Petroleum & Supply Co. v. Girard Bank, D.C.Pa.1983, 629 F.Supp. 1224, 1231, citing Wright & Miller. Coggins v. Carpenter, D.C.Pa.1979, 468 F.Supp. 270. Sutton v. Hilco Homes Corp., D.C.Pa.1968, 283 F.Supp. 492.

Fourth Circuit Blakely v. Wards, 738 F.3d 607, 625 (4th Cir. 2013).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Jensen v. Conrad, D.C.S.C.1983, 570 F.Supp. 91, 100, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.4th, 1984, 747 F.2d 185, certiorari denied 105 S.Ct. 1754, 470 U.S. 1052, 84 L.Ed.2d 818. Johnson v. Baskerville, D.C.Va.1983, 568 F.Supp. 853, 856, citing Wright & Miller. Rogers v. Fuller, D.C.N.C.1976, 410 F.Supp. 187, 192, citing Wright & Miller. Citizens Committee to Oppose Annexation v. City of Lynchburg, Virginia, D.C.Va.1975, 400 F.Supp. 68, 76 n. 9, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.4th, 1975, 528 F.2d 816. The sufficiency of the complaint as against any defendant, private or federal, would be considered, although only the private defendant had moved to dismiss, when the plaintiff already had been afforded an opportunity to amend, the issues applied equally to all defendants, and the issues were exhaustively discussed by the plaintiff. Clinton Community Hosp. Corp. v. Southern Maryland Medical Center, D.C.Md.1974, 374 F.Supp. 450, 453, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed per curiam C.A.4th, 1975, 510 F.2d 1037, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 2666, 422 U.S. 1047, 45 L.Ed.2d 700.

Fifth Circuit Val-Com Acquisitions Trust v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 421 Fed. Appx. 398 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). The district court's dismissal of an employee's Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim was not proper absent procedures to ensure fairness to the employee, since the employer's motion to dismiss did not mention that claim. Marak v. Dallas Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd., C.A.5th, 2005, 124 Fed.Appx. 272 (not to be cited per Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Bazrowx v. Scott, C.A.5th, 1998, 136 F.3d 1053, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 156, 525 U.S. 865, 142 L.Ed.2d 128. First Gibraltar Bank, FSB v. Smith, C.A.5th, 1995, 62 F.3d 133. Guthrie v. Tifco Indus., C.A.5th, 1991, 941 F.2d 374, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 1267, 503 U.S. 908, 117 L.Ed.2d 495. Pugh v. Parish of St. Tammany, C.A.5th, 1989, 875 F.2d 436 (sua sponte dismissal upheld when complaint had no basis in law or fact and there was no reasonable chance of ultimate success). Shawnee Int'l, N.V. v. Hondo Drilling Co., C.A.5th, 1984, 742 F.2d 234, 236, citing Wright & Miller. Swan v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 743894. Coghlan III v. Aquasport Marine Corp., D.C.Tex.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 769, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 2001, 240 F.3d 449. Bacon v. Southwest Airlines Co., D.C.Tex.1998, 997 F.Supp. 775, citing Wright & Miller. Foreman v. Dallas County, Texas, D.C.Tex.1998, 990 F.Supp. 505, citing Wright & Miller. The plaintiff had not been afforded the notice required by Rule 56(c), so the court did not have the authority to enter summary judgment. Instead, the court sua sponte dismissed with prejudice some of the plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Timmons v. Special Ins. Servs., D.C.Tex.1997, 984 F.Supp. 997, affirmed C.A.5th, 1998, 167 F.3d 537. U.S. ex rel. Paul v. Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., D.C.Tex.1994, 860 F.Supp. 370. Vines v. City of Dallas, Texas, D.C.Tex.1994, 851 F.Supp. 254. Dupree v. Lubbock County Jail, D.C.Tex.1992, 805 F.Supp. 20. Roe v. City of New Orleans, D.C.La.1991, 766 F.Supp. 1443. Webber v. White, D.C.Tex.1976, 422 F.Supp. 416, 418 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller.

Sixth Circuit Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the complaint of a plaintiff that fails to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies through particularized averments does not state a claim on which relief may be granted, and must be dismissed sua sponte. Baxter v. Rose, C.A.6th, 2002, 305 F.3d 486. A district court faced with a complaint that it believes may be subject to dismissal must: (1) allow service of the complaint upon the defendant, (2) notify all parties of its intent to dismiss the complaint, (3) give the plaintiff a chance to either amend his complaint or respond to the reasons stated by the district court in its notice of intended sua sponte dismissal, (4) give the defendant a chance to respond or file an answer or motions, and (5) if the claim is dismissed, state its reasons for the dismissal. Catz v. Chalker, C.A.6th, 1998, 142 F.3d 279 (holding that sua sponte dismissal with prejudice was error because district court did not provide notice and effective opportunity to respond). The district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim sua sponte if: 1) the complaint has been served on the defendant; 2) the court has notified all parties of its intent to dismiss; 3) the court has given plaintiff an opportunity to either amend complaint or respond; 4) the court has given the defendant an opportunity to respond, file an answer, or file motions; and 5) the court states its

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

reasons for dismissal. Schorn v. Larose, D.C.Mich.1993, 829 F.Supp. 215, 217, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 16 F.3d 1221 citing Tingler v. Marshall, C.A.6th, 1983, 716 F.2d 1109. Bajenski v. Chivatero, D.C.Ohio 1993, 818 F.Supp. 1083, citing Wright & Miller. Myers v. Davis, D.C.Tenn.1978, 467 F.Supp. 8. The court would not require a criminal court judge being sued for damages by a penitentiary inmate to appear and enter a formal motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim but would direct the dismissal sua sponte. Gilland v. Hyder, D.C.Tenn.1967, 278 F.Supp. 189.

Seventh Circuit Hoskins v. Poelstra, C.A.7th, 2003, 320 F.3d 761 (Easterbrook, J.) (even when complaint is short and plain and would entitle plaintiff to relief if he could prove allegations contained within, judge has ample authority to dismiss frivolous and transparently defective suits spontaneously, saving everyone time and legal expense). If the court believes that it should dismiss sua sponte for failure to state a claim, notice and an opportunity to respond must be given the parties. Ricketts v. Midwest Nat. Bank, C.A.7th, 1989, 874 F.2d 1177. Shockley v. Jones, C.A.7th, 1987, 823 F.2d 1068. Doe on Behalf of Doe v. St. Joseph's Hosp. of Fort Wayne, C.A.7th, 1986, 788 F.2d 411. Tamari v. Bache & Co. (Lebanon) S.A.L., C.A.7th, 1977, 565 F.2d 1194, certiorari denied 98 S.Ct. 1450, 435 U.S. 905, 55 L.Ed.2d 495. Peterson Steels, Inc. v. Seidmon, C.A.7th, 1951, 188 F.2d 193. Napier v. Bruce, D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 1194747. Jayne v. Kozak, D.C.Ill.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 1032. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment but the court treated it as a motion to dismiss because the legal question raised was jurisdictional. EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of America, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 990 F.Supp. 1059. Rosenberg v. Healthcorp Affiliates, D.C.Ill.1987, 663 F.Supp. 222, 223 n. 2, citing Wright & Miller (dismissal as to nonmoving defendants). Baron v. U.S. Steel Corp., D.C.Ind.1986, 649 F.Supp. 537, 543. Ramsey v. U.S., D.C.Ill.1978, 448 F.Supp. 1264, 1268, citing Wright & Miller.

Eighth Circuit Granting a motion to dismiss sua sponte before the service of the complaint is disfavored and proper only when the claim is frivolous. Porter v. Fox, C.A.8th, 1996, 99 F.3d 271. Phelps v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, C.A.8th, 1995, 62 F.3d 1020 (power to dismiss sua sponte should be exercised only after service of process). Smith v. Boyd, C.A.8th, 1991, 945 F.2d 1041. Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, C.A.8th, 1982, 691 F.2d 856, 858, citing Wright & Miller. Schwartz v. Pridy, D.C.Mo.1995, 874 F.Supp. 256, affirmed C.A.8th, 1996, 94 F.3d 453. Helton v. Phelps County Regional Medical Center, D.C.Mo.1993, 817 F.Supp. 789. Johnson v. State of Nebraska, Dep't of Correctional Servs., D.C.Neb.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1412, citing Wright & Miller, (may dismiss sua sponte prior to service of process). Tyler v. City of Omaha, D.C.Neb.1991, 780 F.Supp. 1266, remanded without published opinion C.A.8th, 1991, 953 F.2d 648 (pro se complaint dismissed after plaintiff failed to amend it to correct deficiencies pointed out by the court). Eckert v. Lane, D.C.Ark.1988, 678 F.Supp. 773, 775, quoting Wright & Miller. Alford v. National Post Office Mail Handlers, D.C.Mo.1983, 576 F.Supp. 278, 281, citing Wright & Miller. Mehlar Corp. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, D.C.Mo.1981, 530 F.Supp. 85, 86, citing Wright & Miller. Harvey v. Clay County Sheriff's Dep't, D.C.Mo.1979, 473 F.Supp. 741, 744, citing Wright & Miller.

Ninth Circuit Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., C.A.9th, 2005, 399 F.3d 1047 (on preclusion grounds). A case may be dismissed sua sponte on statute of limitations grounds as long as that affirmative defense has not been waived. Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, C.A.9th, 1993, 998 F.2d 680, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 924, 510 U.S. 1093, 127 L.Ed.2d 217. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., C.A.9th, 1988, 864 F.2d 635, 638, citing Wright & Miller. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., C.A.9th, 1987, 813 F.2d 986, 991, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Wong v. Bell, C.A.9th, 1981, 642 F.2d 359, 361, citing Wright & Miller. Dodd v. Spokane County, Washington, C.A.9th, 1968, 393 F.2d 330. Mateos-Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 942 F. Supp. 2d 890, 904 (N.D. Cal. 2013), citing Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 617 (9th Cir. 2012). Pyle v. Hatley, D.C.Cal.2002, 239 F.Supp.2d 970 (sua sponte, court dismissed complaint that was barred by judicial immunity, failed to state conspiracy claim, violated Rules 10 and 11, and probably was motivated by plaintiff's desire to harass every state official involved with his long-running custody dispute with ex-wife). Ricotta v. California, D.C.Cal.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 961, affirmed C.A.9th, 1999, 173 F.3d 861 (dismissal may be without notice if claimant cannot possibly win relief). A district court may dismiss a claim sua sponte if the inadequacy of the complaint is apparent as a matter of law. Hernandez v. McClanahan, D.C.Cal.1998, 996 F.Supp. 975. Samuel v. Michaud, D.C.Idaho 1996, 980 F.Supp. 1381, affirmed C.A.9th, 1997, 129 F.3d 127 (dismissal without notice proper when claimant cannot possibly win relief). Foster v. National Biscuit Co., D.C.Wash.1940, 31 F.Supp. 552.

Tenth Circuit Rockefeller v. Chu, 471 Fed. Appx. 829 (10th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 242, 184 L. Ed. 2d 44 (2012). McGinnis v. Freudenthal, 426 Fed. Appx. 625 (10th Cir. 2011) (court may dismiss sua sponte when it is patently obvious plaintiff cannot prevail) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Kenney v. Swift Trans. Inc., 410 Fed. Appx. 143, 144 (10th Cir. 2011) (sua sponte dismissal is proper when obvious that plaintiff could not prevail on alleged facts) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Cohen v. Clemens, 321 Fed. Appx. 739 (10th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1). Phillips v. Public Serv. Co. of New Mexico, C.A.10th, 2003, 58 Fed.Appx. 407 (not selected for publication in Federal Reporter; not to be cited per Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3) (sua sponte dismissal permissible when it is patently obvious plaintiff could not prevail on facts alleged and amendment would be futile), citing McKinney v. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs., C.A.10th, 1991, 925 F.2d 363. Smith v. Colorado Dep't of Corrections, C.A.10th, 1994, 23 F.3d 339. Hall v. Bellmon, C.A.10th, 1991, 935 F.2d 1106. McKinney v. State of Oklahoma, Dep't of Human Servs., Shawnee, Oklahoma, C.A.10th, 1991, 925 F.2d 363, 365, citing Wright & Miller. Frank v. Bush, 2010 WL 1408405, *4 (D. Kan. 2010), aff'd, 391 Fed. Appx. 745 (10th Cir. 2010) ("The court has the authority to raise issues regarding the failure to state a claim, whether or not those issues are asserted in the motions to dismiss."). Walton v. Shanelec, D.C.Kan.1998, 19 F.Supp.2d 1209 (dismissal sua sponte of pro se complaint because it was patently obvious that plaintiff could not prevail on facts alleged and opportunity to amend would have been futile). U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Orris, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 1201, affirmed C.A.Fed., 1999, 185 F.3d 885 (defendant was entitled to notice before its counterclaims were dismissed sua sponte for failure to state claim upon which relief could be granted; defendant had arguable claim, it had no opportunity to request leave to amend, and proposed amendment would not have been futile). A court has the authority to raise obvious defects in a complaint sua sponte. Roemer v. Crow, D.C.Kan.1998, 993 F.Supp. 834, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 162 F.3d 1174 (holding that defendant judges were entitled to immunity and thus complaint was frivolous). Moll v. Carter, D.C.Kan.1998, 179 F.R.D. 609 (dismissing pro se complaint without prejudice because it consisted of ambiguous and incomprehensible allegations that plaintiff's caretakers at military hospital failed to remove electric batteries from his teeth and starved him into dementia).

Eleventh Circuit Turner v. Broward Sheriff's Office, 2013 WL 5495675, *1 (11th Cir. 2013) ("We review de novo a district court's sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) * * *."). Ganstine v. Williams, 476 Fed. Appx. 361 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Sanders, C.A.11th, 1998, 138 F.3d 1347 (except under extraordinary circumstances, appellate court will not decide whether plaintiff failed to state claim unless defendant preserved that defense at trial pursuant to Rule 12(h)(2)). A court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint as long as the procedure employed is fair. A fair procedure includes allowing service of the complaint on the defendants, notice to all parties of the court's intention to dismiss, a statement of the reasons for the dismissal, and providing the plaintiff with an opportunity either to amend the complaint or to respond to the basis for dismissal. Helton v.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Hawkins, D.C.Ala.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1276, quoting Wright & Miller (dismissing complaint unless plaintiff amended it within one week to state valid claim). McCoy v. Johnson, D.C.Ga.1997, 176 F.R.D. 676 (sua sponte dismissal of federal civil rights claim did not violate plaintiff's due process rights because he had notice and opportunity to argue complaint's sufficiency). Wilson v. U.S., D.C.Fla.1991, 786 F.Supp. 1571, 1574, citing Wright & Miller. Freeman v. Fuller, D.C.Fla.1985, 623 F.Supp. 1224, 1228, citing Wright & Miller.

D.C. Circuit Rollins v. Wackenhut Services, Inc., 703 F.3d 122, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ("The district court may sua sponte dismiss a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) without notice where it is 'patently obvious' that the plaintiff cannot possibly prevail based on the facts alleged in the complaint."), quoting Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Com'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Best v. Kelly, C.A.1994, 39 F.3d 328, 309 U.S.App.D.C. 51. Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm'n, C.A.1990, 916 F.2d 725, 286 U.S.App.D.C. 310 (upholding sua sponte dismissal without notice when claimant cannot possibly win relief). Quezada v. Marshall, 915 F. Supp. 2d 129, 133 (D.D.C. 2013) ("[A] 'district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim if it is "patently obvious" that the plaintiff cannot prevail.'"), quoting Scott v. United States, 275 Fed. Appx. 21 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Caldwell v. Obama, 112 A.F.T.R.2d 2013-7058, 2013 WL 6094237, *1 (D.D.C. 2013).

See also Ellis v. Guarino, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 1879834. Atlas v. City of No. Chicago, D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 816456. Binkley v. Edwards Hosp., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 719527. Rampersad v. Deutsche Bank Secs., Inc., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 616132 (although court acknowledged that falsity and sham were grounds for granting motion to strike, it denied motion because falsity had not been sufficiently established). Surat v. Nu-Med Pembroke, Inc., Fla.App., 4th Dist., 1994, 632 So.2d 1136, quoting Wright & Miller. Albrecht v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n, N.D.1985, 372 N.W.2d 893, 894, citing Wright & Miller.

Compare Even if the plaintiff does not oppose a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court should conduct an independent inquiry to determine whether the motion to dismiss has merit. Such an inquiry is especially important when the parties do not agree on whether any disposition should be made with or without prejudice. Seaweed, Inc. v. DMA Product & Design & Marketing LLC, D.C.N.Y.2002, 219 F.Supp.2d 551.

But see Lindley v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 452 Fed. Appx. 878, 880-881 (11th Cir. 2011) (sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's claim as time-barred reversed because court did not give plaintiff notice and opportunity to be heard on question of dismissal for failure to state claim). "Whether the court had the authority sua sponte to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) is unclear." Holbrook v. Castle Key Ins. Co., 405 Fed. Appx. 459, 460 n.1 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Jamison v. Butcher & Sherred, D.C.Pa.1975, 68 F.R.D. 479. “For the Court to dismiss an action upon its own motion for failure to state a claim is a radical step not to be taken lightly.” Barnes v. Dorsey, D.C.Mo.1973, 354 F.Supp. 179, 184 (Wangelin, J.). 5 Issue of law Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1832, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989) ("Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law."). Sons of Confederate Veterans, Virginia Div. v. City of Lexington, Va., 722 F.3d 224, 228 (4th Cir. 2013) ("'Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law.'"), quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1832, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge, 632 F.3d 822, 835 (3d Cir. 2011) (Rule 12(b)(6) motion presents purely legal question; evidence is irrelevant).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Public Health Equipment & Supply Co., Inc. v. Clarke Mosquito Control Products, Inc., 410 Fed. Appx. 738, 741 (5th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2009) ("Our jurisdiction, however, is severely curtailed: 'we are restricted to determinations of question[s] of law and legal issues, and we do not consider the correctness of the plaintiff's version of the facts.’”), quoting Atteberry v. Nocona General Hosp., 430 F.3d 245, 251-252 (5th Cir. 2005). McLean v. U.S., 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009). Leider v. U.S., C.A.Fed., 2002, 301 F.3d 1290, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 1786, 538 U.S. 978, 155 L.Ed.2d 666. Thompson v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, C.A.7th, 2002, 300 F.3d 750. Smith v. Cash Store Management, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 195 F.3d 325. Yuba Consol. Gold Fields v. Kilkeary, C.A.9th, 1953, 206 F.2d 884. Georgia v. Wenger, C.A.7th, 1951, 187 F.2d 285, certiorari denied 72 S.Ct. 41, 342 U.S. 822, 96 L.Ed. 621. Faulkner Literary Rights, LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics Inc., 953 F. Supp. 2d 701, 706 (N.D. Miss. 2013) ("A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint and raises an issue of law."). Moore v. Chilton County Bd. of Educ., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1300, 1304 (M.D. Ala. 2013) ("[A] court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) when a dispositive issue of law precludes a plaintiff from maintaining a cause of action on the facts alleged."), citing Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1275 (11th Cir. 2005). Musila v. Lock Haven University, 2013 WL 4813196, *2 (M.D. Pa. 2013). Herschelman v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 2010 WL 4448224, *2 (D. Haw. 2010). Yarney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 3075460, *2 (W.D. Va. 2010) ("A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint to determine whether the plaintiff has properly stated a claim; 'it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.'"), quoting Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). Brown v. Dillman, 2010 WL 2775842, *1 (D. Nev. 2010). Solis v. Time Warner Cable San Antonio, L.P., 2010 WL 2756800, *1 (W.D. Tex. 2010). Sidell v. CRF First Choice, Inc., 2010 WL 2732913, *1 (S.D. Ind. 2010) ("Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) requires the court to analyze the legal sufficiency of the complaint, and not the factual merits of the case."). Palkimas v. Bella, 2010 WL 2712192, *2 (D. Conn. 2010). Engebretson v. Mahoney, 2010 WL 2683202, *2 (D. Mont. 2010) ("A cause of action may be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) either when it asserts a legal theory that is not cognizable as a matter of law, or if it fails to allege sufficient facts to support an otherwise cognizable legal claim."). In re: Mirapex Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 2520567, *1 (D. Minn. 2010) ("[D]ismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) serves to eliminate actions which are fatally flawed in their legal premises and designed to fail, thereby sparing litigants the burden of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity."). Bowen v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 2010 WL 1740779, *1 (M.D. Ga. 2010) ("On a motion to dismiss, the court's function is not to assess the veracity or weight of the evidence; instead, the court must merely determine whether the complaint is legally sufficient."). Leggat v. Equifax Information Services, Inc., 2009 WL 2432371 (E.D. Va. 2009). Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, D.C.Iowa 2002, 212 F.Supp.2d 1034, affirmed C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Schultzen v. Woodbury Cent. Community School Dist., D.C.Iowa 2002, 187 F.Supp.2d 1099. Phillips Kiln Servs., Ltd. v. International Paper Co., D.C.Iowa 2002, 2002 WL 1712870. Davison v. Santa Barbara High School Dist., D.C.Cal.1998, 48 F.Supp.2d 1225 (Rule 12(e) motion not to be granted if defendant can learn information in discovery). In re Stratosphere Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Nev.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1096. Teamsters Local 372, Detroit Mailers Union Local 2040 v. Detroit Newspapers, D.C.Mich.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1052. Gutierrez v. Givens, D.C.Cal.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1033. Jefferson County School Dist. No. R1 v. Moody's Investor's Servs., Inc., D.C.Colo.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1341, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 175 F.3d 848. Barry v. Ratelle, D.C.Cal.1997, 985 F.Supp. 1235. Doe by Hickey v. Jefferson County, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 66. Lowery v. Carrier Corp., D.C.Tex.1997, 953 F.Supp. 151. Gray v. Petoseed Co., D.C.S.C.1996, 985 F.Supp. 625, affirmed C.A.4th, 1997, 129 F.3d 1259.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Holley v. Deal, D.C.Tenn.1996, 948 F.Supp. 711. U.S. ex rel. Aranda v. Community Psychiatric Centers of Oklahoma, D.C.Okl.1996, 945 F.Supp. 1485. Quartana v. Utterback, D.C.Mo.1985, 609 F.Supp. 72, reversed on other grounds C.A.8th, 1986, 789 F.2d 1297. Niece v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Okl.1968, 293 F.Supp. 792.

See also Bilbo v. Thigpen, Miss.1994, 647 So.2d 678, citing Wright & Miller. 6 No discretion Moore v. Carwell, C.A.5th, 1999, 168 F.3d 234 (under Prison Litigation Reform Act). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim allows no discretion in the usual sense, since the complaint is either good or not good. Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., C.A.5th, 1959, 269 F.2d 126. Yuba Consol. Gold Fields v. Kilkeary, C.A.9th, 1953, 206 F.2d 884. Frontline Test Equip., Inc. v. Greenleaf Software, Inc., D.C.Va.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 583. Singer v. Bulk Petroleum Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 916. If it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations, a claim must be dismissed, without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one. Township of West Orange v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 408. A motion to dismiss invokes a form of legal triage, a paring of viable claims from those doomed by law. Lebron v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hosp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 995 F.Supp. 241. Gray v. Petoseed Co., D.C.S.C.1996, 985 F.Supp. 625, affirmed C.A.4th, 1997, 129 F.3d 1259. Erie City Retirees Ass'n v. City of Erie, D.C.Pa.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1048. Bender v. CenTrust Mortgage Corp., D.C.Fla.1992, 833 F.Supp. 1525, citing Wright & Miller, appeal dismissed C.A.11th, 1995, 51 F.3d 1027.

See also Environmental Ass'n of St. Thomas & St. John v. Department of Planning & Natural Resources, Terr. Virgin Islands 2002, 2002 WL 655506, citing Wright & Miller. 7 Considerable discretion Pro se litigants held to less stringent pleading requirements than lawyers when the court is determining whether the pleading fails to state a cause of action. Jourdan v. Jabe, C.A.6th, 1991, 951 F.2d 108. Reynoldson v. Shillinger, C.A.10th, 1990, 907 F.2d 124. Cohen v. McAllister, D.C.Pa.1988, 688 F.Supp. 1040. In general the court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion to dismiss, but dismissal should be granted with care to avoid improperly denying the plaintiff the opportunity to have his claim adjudicated on the merits. Beenken v. Chicago & Northwest R.R. Co., D.C.Iowa 1973, 367 F.Supp. 1337. 8 Federal law Carter v. Norfolk Community Hosp. Ass'n, C.A.4th, 1985, 761 F.2d 970. Church of Scientology of California v. Flynn, C.A.9th, 1984, 744 F.2d 694, 696 n. 2, citing Wright & Miller. U.S. v. Cisco Aircraft, Inc., D.C.Mont.1972, 54 F.R.D. 181. 8.50 Tenth Circuit Fournerat v. Wisconsin Law Review, 420 Fed. Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 290, 181 L. Ed. 2d 175 (2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Issa v. Comp USA, 354 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2003).

See also Land v. International Business Machines, Inc., 485 Fed. Appx. 830 (7th Cir. 2012) ("Our review of the court's decision dismissing a case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is, however, de novo, and so we will overlook [plaintiff's] failure properly to raise before the district court any arguments opposing the motion to dismiss.").

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

9 Magistrates Act 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 631 to 639. 10 McMillen case C.A.7th, 1972, 460 F.2d 348.

But compare Blasi v. Attorney Gen. of Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 481 (court may assign magistrate to hear motion, but must review ruling for merit even when motion unopposed). 11 Allegations taken as true

Supreme Court Erickson v. Pardus, 2007, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 2007, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 550 U.S. 544, 167 L.Ed.2d 929. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 152 L.Ed.2d 1, citing Wright & Miller. “Accordingly, in reviewing the legal sufficiency of petitioner's cause of action, ‘we must assume the truth of the material facts as alleged in the complaint.’ ” Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 1999, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 526 U.S. 629, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (O'Connor, J.), quoting Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, 1991, 111 S.Ct. 1842, 500 U.S. 322, 114 L.Ed.2d 366. In passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 1974, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 416 U.S. 232, 40 L.Ed.2d 90. California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 1972, 92 S.Ct. 609, 404 U.S. 508, 30 L.Ed.2d 642. Boddie v. Connecticut, 1971, 91 S.Ct. 780, 401 U.S. 371, 28 L.Ed.2d 113. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 1969, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 1849, 395 U.S. 411, 421–422, 23 L.Ed.2d 404. Gardner v. Toilet Goods Ass'n, 1967, 87 S.Ct. 1526, 387 U.S. 167, 18 L.Ed.2d 704. Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 1965, 86 S.Ct. 347, 382 U.S. 172, 15 L.Ed.2d 247. Radovich v. National Football League, 1957, 77 S.Ct. 390, 352 U.S. 445, 1 L.Ed.2d 456.

First Circuit New York v. Amgen Inc., 652 F.3d 103, 109 (1st Cir. 2011). U.S. ex rel. Hutcheson v. Blackstone Medical, Inc., 647 F.3d 377, 383 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 815, 181 L.Ed.2d 525 (2011). Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2011). Hill v. Gozani, 638 F.3d 40, 55 (1st Cir. 2011). Decotiis v. Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 2011). Sutliffe v. Epping School Dist., 584 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 2009) Rivera v. Centro Medico de Turabo, Inc., 575 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2009). Citibank Global Markets, Inc. v. Rodriguez Santana, 573 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2009). Dixon v. Shamrock Financial Corp., 522 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2008). McCloskey v. Mueller, C.A.1st, 2006, 446 F.3d 262. In re Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., C.A.1st, 2006, 431 F.3d 36. Arturet Velez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., C.A.1st, 2005, 429 F.3d 10 (although allegations of complaint generally are taken as true, court may consider facts subject to judicial notice, implications from documents incorporated into complaint, and concessions in complainant's response to motion to dismiss). Stinson v. SimplexGrinnell LP, C.A.1st, 2005, 152 Fed.Appx. 8. Baker v. Rexroad, C.A.11th, 2005, 2005 WL 2673512 (not to be cited per Eleventh Circuit Rule 36–2). Cogan v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 2002, 310 F.3d 238. Young v. Lepone, C.A.1st, 2002, 305 F.3d 1, citing Wright & Miller. Hasenfus v. LaJeunesse, C.A.1st, 1999, 175 F.3d 68. Cooperman v. Individual, Inc., C.A.1st, 1999, 171 F.3d 43.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

El Dia, Inc. v. Governor Rossello, C.A.1st, 1999, 165 F.3d 106. Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., C.A.1st, 1994, 26 F.3d 254. Watterson v. Page, C.A.1st, 1993, 987 F.2d 1. Knight v. Mills, C.A.1st, 1987, 836 F.2d 659. Carr v. Learner, C.A.1st, 1976, 547 F.2d 135.

Maine Hamilton v. U.S., 107 A.F.T.R.2d 2011-1815, 2011 WL 1298578 (D. Me. 2011). One and Ken Valley Housing Group v. Maine State Housing Authority, 2010 WL 4191488, *12 (D. Me. 2010). Frontier Communications Corp. v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., 2010 WL 2651356, *1 (D. Me. 2010), aff'd, 2010 WL 3342201 (D. Me. 2010) ("To decide a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, draws all fair and reasonable inferences for the plaintiff that are supported by the factual allegations, and determines whether the complaint, so read, sets forth a plausible basis for recovery."). Piampiano v. Central Maine Power Co., D.C.Me.2002, 221 F.Supp.2d 6. Greenier v. Pace, Local No. 1188, D.C.Me.2002, 201 F.Supp.2d 172. Siegemund ex rel. Estate of Siegemund v. Shapland, D.C.Me.2002, 2002 WL 31123861. GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp. v. Gleichman, D.C.Me.1999, 84 F.Supp.2d 127. Feighery v. York Hosp., D.C.Me.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 142. Bushey v. Derboven, D.C.Me.1996, 946 F.Supp. 96. Jackson v. Faber, D.C.Me.1993, 834 F.Supp. 471. Eagle Snacks, Inc. v. Our Co., D.C.Me.1993, 831 F.Supp. 1. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Guilford Transp. Indus., Inc., D.C.Me.1987, 667 F.Supp. 29, 34 n. 12, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.1st, 1993, 989 F.2d 9.

Massachusetts George v. National Water Main Cleaning Co., 2011 WL 841226 (D. Mass. 2011). Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Inc. v. Pullen, 2010 WL 3038317, *1 (D. Mass. 2010). Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., D.C.Mass.2006, 447 F.Supp.2d 23. Gelfer v. Pegasystems, Inc., D.C.Mass.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 10. System Management, Inc. v. Loiselle, D.C.Mass.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 401. In re Fidelity/Apple Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mass.1997, 986 F.Supp. 42. Acciavatti v. Professional Servs. Group, Inc., D.C.Mass.1997, 982 F.Supp. 69. Baker v. Coxe, D.C.Mass.1996, 940 F.Supp. 409. Tarr v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of America, D.C.Mass.1996, 913 F.Supp. 40. Herb Chambers I-93, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of No. America, D.C.Mass.1995, 911 F.Supp. 34. Clancy v. Mobil Oil Corp., D.C.Mass.1995, 906 F.Supp. 42. In re Computervision Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mass.1994, 869 F.Supp. 56 (factual allegations). Visiting Nurse Ass'n of No. Shore, Inc. v. Bullen, D.C.Mass.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1444, reversed on other grounds C.A.1st, 1996, 93 F.3d 997. Petricca v. Simpson, D.C.Mass.1994, 862 F.Supp. 13. Pierce v. Runyon, D.C.Mass.1994, 857 F.Supp. 129. Sharpe v. Kelley, D.C.Mass.1993, 835 F.Supp. 33. Branch v. FDIC, D.C.Mass.1993, 825 F.Supp. 384. Colby v. Hologic, Inc., D.C.Mass.1993, 817 F.Supp. 204. Remco Distributors, Inc. v. Oreck Corp., D.C.Mass.1992, 814 F.Supp. 171, affirmed C.A.1st, 1992, 981 F.2d 1245. Jackson v. Sargent, D.C.Mass.1975, 394 F.Supp. 162.

New Hampshire Peterboro Tool Co., Inc. Profit Sharing Plan & Trust v. People's United Bank, 848 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D.N.H. 2012). Michnovez v. Blair, LLC, 795 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.N.H. 2011). Zhou v. F.B.I., 2008 WL 2413896 (D.N.H. 2008).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Norton v. Cross Border Initiative, D.C.N.H.2007, 2007 WL 1657387 (not for publication). Boots v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.H.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 211 (material allegations). Yates v. Cunningham, D.C.N.H.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 47. Kerouac v. FDIC, D.C.N.H.1993, 825 F.Supp. 438. Manchester Mfg. Acquisitions, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.N.H.1992, 802 F.Supp. 595.

Puerto Rico Colon-Rodriguez v. Astra/Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, 831 F. Supp. 2d 545, 549 (D.P.R. 2011). MMB Development Group, Ltd. v. Westernbank Puerto Rico, 762 F. Supp. 2d 356, 364 (D.P.R. 2010). Camacho-Torres v. Betancourt-Vazquez, 722 F. Supp. 2d 150, 154 (D.P.R. 2010). Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl, 2010 WL 4861457, *5 (D.P.R. 2010). Machado v. Sanjurjo, 559 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D.P.R. 2008). Viera-Marcano v. Ramirez-Sanchez, D.C.Puerto Rico 2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 397. Rivera Borrero v. Rivera Correa, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 122. Santiago v. Garcia, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 84. Rodriguez-Oquendo v. Toledo-Davila, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 127. International Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Union de Empleados de Muelles de Puerto Rico, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 21 F.Supp.2d 100, quoting Wright & Miller. Rivera-Lebron v. Cellular One, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 13 F.Supp.2d 235, quoting Wright & Miller. U.S. v. $40,000.00 in U.S. Currency, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 999 F.Supp. 234, citing Wright & Miller. Lebron v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hosp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 995 F.Supp. 241, quoting Wright & Miller. U.S. v. Pesquera, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 995 F.Supp. 235, quoting Wright & Miller. Kmart Corp. v. Rivera-Alejandro Architects & Engineers, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 174 F.R.D. 242. Figueroa v. Fernandez, D.C.Puerto Rico 1996, 921 F.Supp. 889. Corporacion Insular de Seguros v. Reyes Munoz, D.C.Puerto Rico 1993, 826 F.Supp. 599. Caribe BMW, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, D.C.Puerto Rico 1993, 821 F.Supp. 802, vacated on other grounds C.A.1st, 1994, 19 F.3d 745. Padilla Rodriguez v. Llorens Quinones, D.C.Puerto Rico 1993, 813 F.Supp. 924. Arroyo Otero v. Hernandez Purcell, D.C.Puerto Rico 1992, 804 F.Supp. 418. International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180, 182.

Rhode Island Okpoko v. Heinauer, 796 F. Supp. 2d 305, 320 (D.R.I. 2011). Jefferson v. Gates, 2010 WL 2927529, *5 (D.R.I. 2010). Lieberman-Sack v. Harvard Community Health Plan of New England, Inc., D.C.R.I.1995, 882 F.Supp. 249. Lee v. Life Ins. Co. of No. America, D.C.R.I.1993, 829 F.Supp. 529, affirmed C.A.1st, 1994, 23 F.3d 14, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 427, 513 U.S. 964, 130 L.Ed.2d 340. Nickerson v. Gilbert, D.C.R.I.1975, 66 F.R.D. 593, 594 n. 1.

Second Circuit Acticon AG v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd., 692 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2012). McGarry v. Pallito, 687 F.3d 505 (2d Cir. 2012). Ahlers v. Rabinowitz, 684 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 466, 184 L. Ed. 2d 261 (2012). Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162, 192 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 1133 S.Ct. 846, 184 L.Ed.2d 655 (2013) (district court impermissibly rejected truth of plaintiff's allegation). Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York, 662 F.3d 600, 602 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 637 F.3d 112, 115 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1093 (2012). Litwin v. Blackstone Group, L.P., 634 F.3d 706, 715 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 242, 181 L. Ed. 2d 138 (2011). Matson v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of New York, 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011). VanBrocklen v. U.S., 410 Fed. Appx. 378, 379 (2d Cir. 2011).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Regan v. New York State, Local Retirement System, 406 Fed. Appx. 568 (2d Cir. 2011). Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160-161 (2d Cir. 2010). Knight v. U.S. S.E.C., 403 Fed. Appx. 622, 623 (2d Cir. 2010). Spagnola v. Chubb Corp., 574 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2009). Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009). West Virginia Inv. Management Bd. v. Doral Financial Corp., 344 Fed. Appx. 717 (2d Cir. 2009). Collins v. West Hartford Police Dept., 324 Fed. Appx. 137 (2d Cir. 2009). Peker v. Steglich, 324 Fed. Appx. 38 (2d Cir. 2009). Roman v. Donelli, 2009 WL 3109882 (2d Cir. 2009). Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Communications, Inc., 2009 WL 2959883 (2d Cir. 2009). City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2008). Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., C.A.2d, 2005, 425 F.3d 99, reversed, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Phelps v. Kapnolas, C.A.2d, 2002, 308 F.3d 180, citing Wright & Miller. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., C.A.2d, 2002, 282 F.3d 147. Friedl v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 2000, 210 F.3d 79. X-Men Sec., Inc. v. Pataki, C.A.2d, 1999, 196 F.3d 56. Hayden v. County of Nassau, C.A.2d, 1999, 180 F.3d 42. Stevelman v. Alias Research Inc., C.A.2d, 1999, 174 F.3d 79. Vital v. Interfaith Medical Center, C.A.2d, 1999, 168 F.3d 615, on remand D.C.N.Y.2001, 2001 WL 901140. Koppel v. 4987 Corporation, C.A.2d, 1999, 167 F.3d 125 (pleader need only allege sufficient facts, allegations are assumed true). Lee v. Bankers Trust Co., C.A.2d, 1999, 166 F.3d 540. Press v. Chemical Inv. Servs. Corp., C.A.2d, 1999, 166 F.3d 529. Stuto v. Fleishman, C.A.2d, 1999, 164 F.3d 820. Brown v. Coach Stores, Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 163 F.3d 706. King v. Town of Hempstead, C.A.2d, 1998, 161 F.3d 112. Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, C.A.2d, 1998, 155 F.3d 150. In re Carter-Wallace, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.2d, 1998, 150 F.3d 153, on remand D.C.N.Y.1999, 1999 WL 1029713. Irish Lesbian & Gay Organization v. Giuliani, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 638. In re Emery, C.A.2d, 1998, 132 F.3d 892. Still v. DeBuono, C.A.2d, 1996, 101 F.3d 888. Baker v. Cuomo, C.A.2d, 1995, 58 F.3d 814. Hill v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1995, 45 F.3d 653. Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., C.A.2d, 1993, 12 F.3d 1170. Allen v. WestPoint-Pepperell, Inc., C.A.2d, 1991, 945 F.2d 40. LaBounty v. Adler, C.A.2d, 1991, 933 F.2d 121, on remand D.C.N.Y.1992, 1992 WL 188349. Jones-Bey v. Caso, C.A.2d, 1976, 535 F.2d 1360. Fine v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1975, 529 F.2d 70. Williams v. Vincent, C.A.2d, 1974, 508 F.2d 541. Build of Buffalo, Inc. v. Sedita, C.A.2d, 1971, 441 F.2d 284. Dacey v. New York County Lawyers' Ass'n, C.A.2d, 1969, 423 F.2d 188, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 1819, 398 U.S. 929, 26 L.Ed.2d 92. Averments of the complaint should be assumed to be true. Iroquois Indus., Inc. v. Syracuse China Corp., C.A.2d, 1969, 417 F.2d 963, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 2199, 399 U.S. 909, 26 L.Ed.2d 561.

Connecticut Consolmagno v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 44292, 2011 WL 4804774 (D. Conn. 2011). Monson v. Whitby School, Inc., 2010 WL 3023873, *1 (D. Conn. 2010) ("[T]he Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the counter-claims and draws all inferences from these allegations in the light most favorable to the counter-claimant."). Westbrook Technologies, Inc. v. Wesler, 2010 WL 2826280, *1 (D. Conn. 2010). Lieberman v. Emigrant Mortgage Co., D.C.Conn.2006, 436 F.Supp.2d 357. Calderon v. Dinan & Dinan PC, D.C.Conn.2006, 2006 WL 1646157. Independence Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., D.C.Conn.2006, 2006 WL 860676.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Lotto v. Hamden Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.2005, 400 F.Supp.2d 451. Colon v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Conn.1999, 95 F.Supp.2d 85. Gaynor v. Martin, D.C.Conn.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 272. Leventhal v. Tow, D.C.Conn.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 104. BRM Industries, Inc. v. Mazak Corp., D.C.Conn.1999, 42 F.Supp.2d 176. Ziemba v. Slater, D.C.Conn.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 81. Messier v. Southbury Training School, D.C.Conn.1996, 916 F.Supp. 133. Bennett v. Beiersdorf, Inc., D.C.Conn.1995, 889 F.Supp. 46. Siebert v. Nives, D.C.Conn.1994, 871 F.Supp. 110. Connecticut Hosp. Ass'n v. Pogue, D.C.Conn.1994, 870 F.Supp. 444, reversed on other grounds C.A.2d, 1995, 66 F.3d 413. Johnson v. Meachum, D.C.Conn.1993, 839 F.Supp. 953. Harris v. Wells, D.C.Conn.1993, 832 F.Supp. 31. Chesna v. U.S. Department of Defense, D.C.Conn.1993, 822 F.Supp. 90. Shane v. Connecticut, D.C.Conn.1993, 821 F.Supp. 829. Bapat v. Connecticut Dep't of Health Servs., D.C.Conn.1992, 815 F.Supp. 525, citing Wright & Miller. Kent v. AVCO Corporation, D.C.Conn.1992, 815 F.Supp. 67. Ferber v. Travelers Corp., D.C.Conn.1992, 802 F.Supp. 698. In re Emhart Corp., D.C.Conn.1988, 706 F.Supp. 153. McPhee v. Chilton Corp., D.C.Conn.1978, 468 F.Supp. 494. Zitser v. Walsh, D.C.Conn.1972, 352 F.Supp. 438. Pavlak v. Duffy, D.C.Conn.1969, 48 F.R.D. 396.

New York Kaufman v. Columbia Memorial Hosp., 25 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 1258, 2011 WL 5007988 (N.D. N.Y. 2011). Daniels v. Wesley Gardens Corp., 2011 WL 1598962 (W.D. N.Y. 2011). Graham Hanson Design LLC v. 511 9th LLC, 2011 WL 744801 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). Levista, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2010 WL 5067843 (E.D. N.Y. 2010), judgment aff'd, 450 Fed.Appx. 54 (2d Cir. 2011). Oldham v. Universal Music Group, 2010 WL 4967923, *1 (S.D. N.Y. 2010). Bowman v. Waterside Plaza, L.L.C., 2010 WL 2873051, *3 (S.D. N.Y. 2010). Cruz v. Reilly, 2009 WL 2567990 (E.D. N.Y. 2009). Automated Teller Mach. Advantage LC v. Moore, 2009 WL 2431513 (S.D. N.Y. 2009). Rodenhouse v. Palmyra-Macedon Cent. School Dist., 2008 WL 2331314 (W.D. N.Y. 2008). Watts v. Services for the Underserved, D.C.N.Y.2007, 2007 WL 1651852. Lonegan v. Hasty, D.C.N.Y.2006, 436 F.Supp.2d 419. Morningside Supermarket Corp. v. New York State Dep't of Health, D.C.N.Y.2006, 432 F.Supp.2d 334. Peres v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., D.C.N.Y.2006, 426 F.Supp.2d 15. Merck & Co. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2006, 425 F.Supp.2d 402. Streit v. Bushnell, D.C.N.Y.2006, 424 F.Supp.2d 633. In considering a motion to dismiss, “a court must accept all factual assertions in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Locicero v. O'Connell, D.C.N.Y.2006, 419 F.Supp.2d 521, 525. Crab House of Douglaston, Inc. v. Newsday, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2006, 418 F.Supp.2d 193. Jones v. National Communication & Surveillance Networks, D.C.N.Y.2006, 409 F.Supp.2d 456. Reinard v. Harsco Corp., D.C.N.Y.2006, 2006 WL 2795639. Long v. Marubeni America Corp., D.C.N.Y.2006, 2006 WL 547555. Lee v. HealthFirst, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2006, 2006 WL 177175. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. United Limousine Serv., Inc., D.C.N.Y.2004, 303 F.Supp.2d 432. Global View Ltd. Venture Capital v. Great Cent. Basin Exploration, LLC, D.C.N.Y.2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 473. Jones v. Nassau County Sheriff Dep't, D.C.N.Y.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 322. Margiotta v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 857. Ainbinder v. Potter, D.C.N.Y.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 180. Shenandoah v. Halbritter, D.C.N.Y.2003, 275 F.Supp.2d 279.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Brown v. Quiniou, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22509400. In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22489764. Harrison v. New York City Admin. For Children's Servs., D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22271219. Bernstein v. The MONY Group, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2002, 228 F.Supp.2d 415. Sanzo v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., D.C.N.Y.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 266. Baskerville v. Blot, D.C.N.Y.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 723. Calcutti v. SBU, Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 691. Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. v. American Rock Salt Co., D.C.N.Y.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 520. Lipin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.N.Y.2002, 202 F.Supp.2d 126. T.S. Haulers, Inc. v. Town of Riverhead, D.C.N.Y.2002, 190 F.Supp.2d 455. American Medical Ass'n v. United Healthcare Corp., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 31413668. World Omni Financial Corp. v. Ace Capital Re, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 31016669. Bolanos v. Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1465907 (magistrate judge). Joseph v. America Works, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1033833. Benjamin v. NYC Department of Health, D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 485731. Bellis v. Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 193149 (unpublished). National Western Life Ins. Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 292, vacated and remanded on other grounds C.A.2d, 2004, 89 Fed.Appx. 287. DePrima v. Village of Catskill, D.C.N.Y.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 75. Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 454. Burger v. Risk Management Alternatives, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 291. Muller v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 204. Evac, LLC v. Pataki, D.C.N.Y.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 250. Weil v. Long Island Savs. Bank, FSB, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 313. Watson v. Dominican College, D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 222. Kirkpatrick v. Rays Group, D.C.N.Y.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 204. Brown v. Stone, D.C.N.Y.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 412. Brown v. American Legion Cortland City Post 489, D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 96. Lennon v. Seaman, D.C.N.Y.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 428. Hill v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 254. Economic Opportunity Comm'n of Nassau County, Inc. v. The County of Nassau, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 47 F.Supp.2d 353. Coddington v. Adelphi Univ., D.C.N.Y.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 211. Hicks v. IBM, D.C.N.Y.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 593. Black Radio Network, Inc. v. NYNEX Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 565. Magnus v. Fortune Brands, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 41 F.Supp.2d 217. Continental Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 109. Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram Yuzek, Gainen, Carroll & Bertolotti, D.C.N.Y.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 394. Warren v. Fischl, D.C.N.Y.1999, 33 F.Supp.2d 171. Krape v. PDK Labs Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 194 F.R.D. 82. Husowitz v. American Postal Workers Union, D.C.N.Y.1999, 190 F.R.D. 53. Thanning v. Nassau County Medical Examiners Office, D.C.N.Y.1999, 187 F.R.D. 69. Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 348. O'Hearn v. Bodyonics, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1998, 22 F.Supp.2d 7. Cytyc Corp. v. Neuromedical Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 296. Donohue v. Teamsters Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training & Vacation & Sick Leave Trust Funds, D.C.N.Y.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 273. Prentice v. Apfel, D.C.N.Y.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 420 (Rule 12(c)). Jaouad v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 311. Ives v. Guilford Mills, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 191. Ross v. Mitsui Fudosan, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 522.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

A. Terzi Productions, Inc. v. Theatrical Protective Union, D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 485. Graaf v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 318. Harless v. Research Institute of America, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 235. Harris v. American Protective Servs. of New York, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 191. Novak v. Kasaks, D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 425. Llanes v. EMSA Limited Partnership, D.C.N.Y.1998, 996 F.Supp. 314. Parisi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 298, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 38. Stordeur v. Computer Associates Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 94. McNight v. Dormitory Authority of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 70. Tucker v. Kenney, D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 412. Continental Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 133. Clifford v. Hughson, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 661. Proctor v. Vadlamudi, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 156. Harrison v. NBD Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 179. Nazarian v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, D.C.N.Y.1998, 989 F.Supp. 504. Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Dep't Stores, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 26 F.Supp.2d 577, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 171 F.3d 754. Daniel v. American Bd. of Emergency Medicine, D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 112. Yucyco, Ltd. v. Republic of Slovenia, D.C.N.Y.1997, 984 F.Supp. 209. X-Men Sec., Inc. v. Pataki, D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 101, reversed on other grounds C.A.2d, 1999, 196 F.3d 56. Moses v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 982 F.Supp. 897, 898 (“face value”). China Trust Bank of New York v. Standard Chartered Bank, D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 282. Allstate Ins. Co. v. American Transit Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 977 F.Supp. 197. First Interregional Advisors Corp. v. Wolff, D.C.N.Y.1997, 956 F.Supp. 480. Gleave v. Graham, D.C.N.Y.1997, 954 F.Supp. 599, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 918. Murphy v. Cadillac Rubber & Plastics, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1108. Fry v. McCall, D.C.N.Y.1996, 945 F.Supp. 655. Wallace v. Conroy, D.C.N.Y.1996, 945 F.Supp. 628. Zigman v. Giacobbe, D.C.N.Y.1996, 944 F.Supp. 147. SKR Resources, Inc. v. Players Sports, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 938 F.Supp. 235. Green v. Kadilac Mortgage Bankers Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1996, 936 F.Supp. 108. Campbell v. Grayline Air Shuttle, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 930 F.Supp. 794. DeFalco v. Dirie, D.C.N.Y.1996, 923 F.Supp. 473. Microtel Franchise & Dev. Corp. v. Country Inn Hotel, D.C.N.Y.1996, 923 F.Supp. 415. Mincone v. Nassau County Community College, D.C.N.Y.1996, 923 F.Supp. 398. Roucchio v. Coughlin, D.C.N.Y.1996, 923 F.Supp. 360. Lyng Motors & Serv., Inc. v. U.S., D.C.N.Y.1996, 923 F.Supp. 356. Russell v. Northrop Grumman Corp., D.C.N.Y.1996, 921 F.Supp. 143. Greenberg v. New York State, D.C.N.Y.1996, 919 F.Supp. 637. Storr v. Anderson School, D.C.N.Y.1996, 919 F.Supp. 144. Quartararo v. Catterson, D.C.N.Y.1996, 917 F.Supp. 919. Walker v. Mahoney, D.C.N.Y.1996, 915 F.Supp. 548. Odom v. Columbia Univ., D.C.N.Y.1995, 906 F.Supp. 188. Schmelzer v. Norfleet, D.C.N.Y.1995, 903 F.Supp. 632. Prisco v. New York, D.C.N.Y.1995, 902 F.Supp. 400. Art Leather Mfg. Co. v. Albumx Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 888 F.Supp. 565. Pappas v. Passias, D.C.N.Y.1995, 887 F.Supp. 465. Kershaw v. Nautica S.A. Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1995, 885 F.Supp. 617. Lavian v. Haghnazari, D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 670. McCoy v. Goldberg, D.C.N.Y.1995, 883 F.Supp. 927.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bellinger v. Deere & Co., D.C.N.Y.1995, 881 F.Supp. 813. Romand v. Zimmerman, D.C.N.Y.1995, 881 F.Supp. 806. D'Orange v. Feely, D.C.N.Y.1995, 877 F.Supp. 152 (factual allegations). Lomaglio Associates Inc. v. LBK Marketing Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 876 F.Supp. 41. Mathon v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 986. Craft v. McNulty, D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 121. Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, D.C.N.Y.1995, 874 F.Supp. 576. D.S. America (East), Inc. v. Chromagrafx Imaging Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 873 F.Supp. 786 (applying principle to counterclaims). Hamilton v. New York State Dep't of Mental Hygiene, D.C.N.Y.1994, 876 F.Supp. 470. Philippeaux v. North Cent. Bronx Hosp., D.C.N.Y.1994, 871 F.Supp. 640. Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 1076. Koch v. Mirza, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 1031. Reed Int'l Trading Corp. v. Donau Bank AG, D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 750. Abbasi v. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., D.C.N.Y.1994, 863 F.Supp. 144. In re Puma & Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local Union No. 137, D.C.N.Y.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1077. Oakes v. Cooke, D.C.N.Y.1994, 858 F.Supp. 330. Ruderman v. Police Dep't of City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 326. Update Traffic Sys., Inc. v. Gould, D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 274. Mezo v. Elmergawi, D.C.N.Y.1994, 855 F.Supp. 59. Messina v. Mazzeo, D.C.N.Y.1994, 854 F.Supp. 116. Levy v. Lerner, D.C.N.Y.1994, 853 F.Supp. 636. Respass v. New York City Police Dep't, D.C.N.Y.1994, 852 F.Supp. 173. Naso v. Park, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 264. Coliniatis v. Dimas, D.C.N.Y.1994, 848 F.Supp. 462. Eisenberg v. District Attorney of County of Kings, D.C.N.Y.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1029. Hall v. Ruggeri, D.C.N.Y.1994, 841 F.Supp. 484. Alie v. NYNEX Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 239. Italian & French Wine Co. of Buffalo, Inc. v. Negociants U.S.A., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 842 F.Supp. 693. Keenan v. D.H. Blair & Co., D.C.N.Y.1993, 838 F.Supp. 82. Morin v. Trupin, D.C.N.Y.1993, 835 F.Supp. 126. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. v. Cybo Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 833 F.Supp. 189. Scheiner v. Wallace, D.C.N.Y.1993, 832 F.Supp. 687. U.S. v. All Right, Title & Interest in Five Parcels of Real Property & Appurtances Thereto Known as 64 Lovers Lane, D.C.N.Y.1993, 830 F.Supp. 750. Gould v. Russi, D.C.N.Y.1993, 830 F.Supp. 139. Hall v. Dworkin, D.C.N.Y.1993, 829 F.Supp. 1403. Verdon v. Consolidated Rail Corp., D.C.N.Y.1993, 828 F.Supp. 1129. Flowers v. Dalsheim, D.C.N.Y.1993, 826 F.Supp. 772. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists (Risk Management Servs.) v. AON Reinsurance Agency, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 826 F.Supp. 107. Amalgamated Bank of New York v. Marsh, D.C.N.Y.1993, 823 F.Supp. 209. Liddy v. Cisneros, D.C.N.Y.1993, 823 F.Supp. 164, 172 (“it is not sufficient for a motion to dismiss to state that an allegation contained in the complaint is false or incomplete”) (Patterson, J.). Henschke v. New York Hosp. Cornell Medical Center, D.C.N.Y.1993, 821 F.Supp. 166. Block v. Marino, D.C.N.Y.1993, 819 F.Supp. 349. Feerick v. Sudolnik, D.C.N.Y.1993, 816 F.Supp. 879. Ballachino v. Anders, D.C.N.Y.1993, 811 F.Supp. 121. Bharucha v. Reuters Holdings PLC, D.C.N.Y.1993, 810 F.Supp. 37. Fulani v. Brady, D.C.N.Y.1993, 809 F.Supp. 1112, affirmed C.A.2d, 1994, 35 F.3d 49. Guzman v. Bevona, D.C.N.Y.1992, 810 F.Supp. 509.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

East Coast Novelty Co. v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1992, 809 F.Supp. 285. Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1037. Federal Ins. Co. v. May Dep't Stores Co., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 347. In re AnnTaylor Stores Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1992, 807 F.Supp. 990. Bilick v. Eagle Elec. Mfg. Co., D.C.N.Y.1992, 807 F.Supp. 243. Church of Scientology Int'l v. Time Warner, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1157. Barrett v. U.S. Banknote Corp., D.C.N.Y.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1094. Hotel Syracuse, Inc. v. Young, D.C.N.Y.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1073. Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York City, Inc. v. Dinkins, D.C.N.Y.1992, 805 F.Supp. 159, affirmed C.A.2d, 1993, 5 F.3d 591. Ameritrust Co. Nat. Ass'n v. Chanslor, D.C.N.Y.1992, 803 F.Supp. 893. Ades v. Deloitte & Touche, D.C.N.Y.1992, 799 F.Supp. 1493. Van Brunt v. Rauschenberg, D.C.N.Y.1992, 799 F.Supp. 1467. Roundtree v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1991, 778 F.Supp. 614, 617, quoting Wright & Miller. Schmid, Inc. v. Zucker's Gifts, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1991, 766 F.Supp. 118. Knight v. Storex Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1990, 739 F.Supp. 739. Capital Imaging Associates, P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Medical Associates, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1989, 725 F.Supp. 669. Thomas v. Beth Israel Hosp. Inc., D.C.N.Y.1989, 710 F.Supp. 935, citing Wright & Miller. Ismail v. Cohen, D.C.N.Y.1989, 706 F.Supp. 243, affirmed C.A.2d, 1990, 899 F.2d 183 (pleadings should be read generously). Grossman v. Citrus Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1989, 706 F.Supp. 221. Frankel v. Slotkin, D.C.N.Y.1989, 705 F.Supp. 105. Brick v. Dominion Mortgage & Realty Trust, D.C.N.Y.1977, 442 F.Supp. 283. Green v. Hamilton Int'l Corp., D.C.N.Y.1977, 437 F.Supp. 723. Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund, D.C.N.Y.1977, 434 F.Supp. 950, affirmed without opinion C.A.2d, 1978, 578 F.2d 1366. Ross v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co., D.C.N.Y.1977, 433 F.Supp. 306. Brager & Co. v. Leumi Secs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1977, 429 F.Supp. 1341, affirmed C.A.2d, 1980, 646 F.2d 559, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 2322, 451 U.S. 987, 68 L.Ed.2d 845. Tron v. Condello, D.C.N.Y.1976, 427 F.Supp. 1175. Kistler Instrumente A.G. v. PCB Piezotronics, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1976, 419 F.Supp. 120. Mendoza v. Lavine, D.C.N.Y.1976, 412 F.Supp. 1105. Andujar v. Weinberger, D.C.N.Y.1976, 69 F.R.D. 690. Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp., D.C.N.Y.1975, 410 F.Supp. 10, affirmed C.A.2d, 1977, 550 F.2d 68. M & T Chemicals, Inc. v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1975, 403 F.Supp. 1145, 1146 n. 2, affirmed without opinion C.A.2d, 1976, 542 F.2d 1165, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 656, 429 U.S. 1030, 50 L.Ed.2d 637. Carnivale Bag Co. v. Slide-Rite Mfg. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1975, 395 F.Supp. 287. Milburn v. Fogg, D.C.N.Y.1975, 393 F.Supp. 1164. Heyman v. Heyman, D.C.N.Y.1973, 356 F.Supp. 958. Competitive Associates, Inc. v. Fire Fly Enterprise, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1972, 59 F.R.D. 336. Simons v. U.S., D.C.N.Y.1971, 333 F.Supp. 855, affirmed on other grounds C.A.2d, 1971, 452 F.2d 1110. Washington v. Wyman, D.C.N.Y.1971, 54 F.R.D. 266. Hanes Dye & Finishing Co. v. Caisson Corp., D.C.N.C.1970, 309 F.Supp. 237. Overstock Book Co. v. Barry, D.C.N.Y.1969, 305 F.Supp. 842, affirmed on other grounds C.A.2d, 1970, 436 F.2d 1289. Thurston v. Setab Computer Institute, D.C.N.Y.1969, 48 F.R.D. 134. Schwartz v. Alleghany Corp., D.C.N.Y.1968, 282 F.Supp. 161. Vine v. Beneficial Fin. Co., D.C.N.Y.1966, 252 F.Supp. 212, reversed on other grounds C.A.2d, 1967, 374 F.2d 627, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 463, 389 U.S. 970, 19 L.Ed.2d 460. Stockwell v. Reynolds & Co., D.C.N.Y.1965, 252 F.Supp. 215.

Vermont Moran v. Pallito, 2010 WL 5648722 (D. Vt. 2010). Esden v. Bank of Boston, D.C.Vt.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 214. Gadbois v. Rock-Tenn Co., Mill Div., D.C.Vt.1997, 984 F.Supp. 811.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bentley v. Northshore Dev., D.C.Vt.1996, 935 F.Supp. 500. Goodstein v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., D.C.Vt.1995, 889 F.Supp. 760. Nordica USA, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, D.C.Vt.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1082.

Third Circuit PG Pub. Co. v. Aichele, 705 F.3d 91, 97 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2771, 186 L. Ed. 2d 219 (2013), citing McTernan v. City of York, Penn., 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009). Shelley v. Patrick, 481 Fed. Appx. 34 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (for citation rules see Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1). Baldwin v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 636 F.3d 69, 74 (3d Cir. 2011). Johnson v. Laundry Workers LCL 141 & Agents, 419 Fed. Appx. 146 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Nails v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Transp., 414 Fed. Appx. 452, 455 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Young v. Dubow, 411 Fed. Appx. 456, 458 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit rule 28.3(a)). Davis v. County of Allegheny, 411 Fed. Appx. 447, 449 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). DiFronzo v. Chiovero, 406 Fed. Appx. 605, 607 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Rea v. Federated Investors, 627 F.3d 937, 940 (3d Cir. 2010). Golod v. Bank of America Corp., 403 Fed. Appx. 699, 702 (3d Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Cerome v. Moshannon Valley Correctional Center/Cornell Companies, Inc., 2010 WL 4948940 (3d Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Institutional Investors Group v. Avaya, Inc., 564 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2009). Gattis v. Phelps, 344 Fed. Appx. 801 (3d Cir. 2009). Miles v. Tp. of Barnegat, 343 Fed. Appx. 841 (3d Cir. 2009). Beightler v. Office of Essex County Prosecutor, 342 Fed. Appx. 829 (3d Cir. 2009). Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD, 342 Fed. Appx. 818 (3d Cir. 2009). Munsif v. Cassel, 331 Fed. Appx. 954 (3d Cir. 2009). McSpadden v. Wolfe, 325 Fed. Appx. 134 (3d Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Washam v. Stesis, 321 Fed. Appx. 104 (3d Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Guirguis v. Movers Specialty Services, Inc., 2009 WL 3041992 (3d Cir. 2009). Carpenter v. Ashby, 2009 WL 2893198 (3d Cir. 2009). Krantz v. Prudential Invs. Fund Management LLC, C.A.3d, 2002, 305 F.3d 140, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 928, 537 U.S. 1113, 154 L.Ed.2d 787. Pryor v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, C.A.3d, 2002, 288 F.3d 548. Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., C.A.3d, 2000, 232 F.3d 173, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 2000, 532 U.S. 1038, 149 L.Ed.2d 1003. U.S. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., C.A.3d, 1999, 200 F.3d 143. Heffernan v. Hunter, C.A.3d, 1999, 189 F.3d 405. Klein v. General Nutrition Co., C.A.3d, 1999, 186 F.3d 338. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Trump, C.A.3d, 1999, 182 F.3d 183, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 795, 528 U.S. 1078, 145 L.Ed.2d 670. Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group, Ltd., C.A.3d, 1999, 181 F.3d 410. Steamfitters Local 420 v. Philip Morris, Inc., C.A.3d, 1999, 171 F.3d 912, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 844, 528 U.S. 1105, 145 L.Ed.2d 713. Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., C.A.3d, 1998, 145 F.3d 601, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 850, 525 U.S. 1093, 142 L.Ed.2d 704. Smith v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, C.A.3d, 1998, 139 F.3d 180, vacated on other grounds 1999, 119 S.Ct. 924, 525 U.S. 459, 142 L.Ed.2d 929. Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., C.A.3d, 1997, 132 F.3d 902. Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, C.A.3d, 1994, 38 F.3d 1380. Bensalem Tp. v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co., C.A.3d, 1994, 38 F.3d 1303. ALA, Incorporated v. CCAIR, Incorporated, C.A.3d, 1994, 29 F.3d 855. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, C.A.3d, 1994, 20 F.3d 1250, on remand D.C.Pa.1995, 1995 WL 141465. The University of Maryland at Baltimore v. Peat, Marwick, Main & Co., C.A.3d, 1993, 996 F.2d 1534. Holder v. City of Allentown, C.A.3d, 1993, 987 F.2d 188, on remand D.C.Pa.1993, 151 F.R.D. 552 (do not dismiss if plaintiff may be entitled to relief “under any reasonable reading of the pleadings”).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Hayes v. Gross, C.A.3d, 1992, 982 F.2d 104. “We accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them.” Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., C.A.3d, 1990, 906 F.2d 100, 103. Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Secs., Inc., C.A.3d, 1985, 764 F.2d 939, certiorari denied 106 S.Ct. 267, 474 U.S. 935, 88 L.Ed.2d 274. Mahone v. Waddle, C.A.3d, 1977, 564 F.2d 1018, certiorari denied 98 S.Ct. 3122, 438 U.S. 904, 57 L.Ed.2d 1147. Braden v. University of Pittsburgh, C.A.3d, 1977, 552 F.2d 948, 955, citing Wright & Miller. Curtis v. Everette, C.A.3d, 1973, 489 F.2d 516, certiorari denied 94 S.Ct. 2409, 416 U.S. 995, 40 L.Ed.2d 774. RKO-Stanley Warner Theatres, Inc. v. Mellon Nat. Bank & Trust Co., C.A.3d, 1970, 436 F.2d 1297, 1300 n. 6.

Delaware King v. Doe, 2011 WL 2669221 (D. Del. 2011), subsequent determination, 2011 WL 4351797 (D. Del. 2011). Bowers v. City of Wilmington, 723 F. Supp. 2d 700, 705 (D. Del. 2010). Burgess v. Cahall, D.C.Del.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 319. Capano Management Co. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., D.C.Del.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 320. Dow Chem. Co. v. Exxon Corp., D.C.Del.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 673. Parker v. Delaware, Dep't of Public Safety, D.C.Del.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 467. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Tridair Helicopters, Inc., D.C.Del.1997, 982 F.Supp. 318. Barkauskie v. Indian River School Dist., D.C.Del.1996, 951 F.Supp. 519. Toner v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Del.1993, 829 F.Supp. 695. Tybout v. Karr Barth Pension Admin., Inc., D.C.Del.1993, 819 F.Supp. 371. Finch v. Hercules Inc., D.C.Del.1992, 809 F.Supp. 309.

New Jersey Gallina v. Potter, 2010 WL 5013844 (D.N.J. 2010). Oss Nokalva, Inc. v. European Space Agency, 2009 WL 2424702 (D.N.J. 2009). Rivera v. Marcoantonio, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 2135814. Kleinerman v. Chao, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 1949211 (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Brandt v. Nurenberg, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 1455780. Barnes v. UBS Financial Servs. Inc., D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 1373056. Hilton v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 1307900. Blevins v. SEW Eurodrive, Inc., D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 1128708. Hill v. Nigro, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 436133. McLeod v. Still, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 372986. Rinald (Neifert) v. Komar, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 166449. Boerger v. Commerce Ins. Servs., D.C.N.J.2005, 2005 WL 3440632 (Not reported in federal reporter, for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Syncsort Inc. v. Innovative Routines Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.J.2005, 2005 WL 1076043, citing Wright & Miller. Dasrath v. Continental Airlines, Inc., D.C.N.J.2002, 228 F.Supp.2d 531. Garlanger v. Verbeke, D.C.N.J.2002, 223 F.Supp.2d 596. Messa v. Omaha Property & Cas. Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 513. Castlerock Management Ltd. v. Ultralife Batteries, Inc., D.C.N.J.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 316. Leshner v. McCollister's Transportation Sys., Inc., D.C.N.J.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 689. Zieper v. Reno, D.C.N.J.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 484. Boyle v. D'Onofrio, D.C.N.J.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 541. Poling v. K. Hovnanian Enterprises, D.C.N.J.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 502. Livingston v. Shore Slurry Seal, Inc., D.C.N.J.2000, 98 F.Supp.2d 594. N.A.M.I. v. Essex County Bd. of Freeholders, D.C.N.J.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 781. Charlie H. v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 476. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 550. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. IVAX Corporation, D.C.N.J.2000, 77 F.Supp.2d 606. Kurdyla v. Pinkerton, Inc., D.C.N.J.2000, 197 F.R.D. 128.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Concern Sojuzvneshtrans v. Buyanovski, D.C.N.J.1999, 80 F.Supp.2d 273. Naporano Iron & Metal Co. v. American Crane Corp., D.C.N.J.1999, 79 F.Supp.2d 494. Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Management LLC, D.C.N.J.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 559. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 539. In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999. 69 F.Supp.2d 645. Salovaara v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 593, affirmed C.A.3d, 2001, 246 F.3d 289. Prevard v. Fauver, D.C.N.J.1999, 47 F.Supp.2d 539. Rowe v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, D.C.N.J.1999, 191 F.R.D. 398. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 190 F.R.D. 331. In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 189 F.R.D. 117. In re MobileMedia Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 901. Florian Greenhouse, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 521. Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 517. Although the court must accept as true all facts alleged, it is not proper to assume that the plaintiff can prove any facts that it has not alleged. Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 518, affirmed as modified on other grounds and remanded C.A.3d, 2000, 232 F.3d 173. Ramirez v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1998, 998 F.Supp. 425. Green v. William Mason & Co., D.C.N.J.1998, 996 F.Supp. 394. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Arcadian Corp., D.C.N.J.1997, 991 F.Supp. 390, affirmed C.A.3d, 1999, 189 F.3d 305. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. Leslie v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1997, 986 F.Supp. 900. De Joy v. Comcast Cable Communications Inc., D.C.N.J.1996, 941 F.Supp. 468. Gannon v. Continental Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1996, 920 F.Supp. 566. Woods Corporate Associates v. Signet Star Holdings, Inc., D.C.N.J.1995, 910 F.Supp. 1019. King v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, D.C.N.J.1995, 909 F.Supp. 938. Town of Secaucus v. U.S. Department of Transportation, D.C.N.J.1995, 889 F.Supp. 779. Stanziale v. County of Monmouth, D.C.N.J.1995, 884 F.Supp. 140. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Graphnet, Inc., D.C.N.J.1995, 881 F.Supp. 126. Johnson v. New Jersey, D.C.N.J.1994, 869 F.Supp. 289. Biase v. Kaplan, D.C.N.J.1994, 852 F.Supp. 268. Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, D.C.N.J.1993, 845 F.Supp. 182. Renz v. Schreiber, D.C.N.J.1993, 832 F.Supp. 766. Mayor & Council of Borough of Rockaway v. Klockner & Klockner, D.C.N.J.1993, 811 F.Supp. 1039. Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., D.C.N.J.1992, 820 F.Supp. 834. Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., D.C.N.J.1992, 809 F.Supp. 1172. Lerch v. Citizens First Bancorp., Inc., D.C.N.J.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1142. Easling v. Glen-Gery Corp., D.C.N.J.1992, 804 F.Supp. 585. Leaty v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1990, 748 F.Supp. 268. Gutman v. Howard Savs. Bank, D.C.N.J.1990, 748 F.Supp. 254. Snyder v. Baumecker, D.C.N.J.1989, 708 F.Supp. 1451, 1462 n. 6.

Pennsylvania Benner v. Bank of America, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 2d 338, 350 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (Third Circuit employs three-part test when evaluating whether complaint survives Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss: "(1) identifying the elements of the claim, (2) reviewing the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then (3) looking at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluating whether all of the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged."), quoting Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Stanton v. City of Philadelphia, 2011 WL 710481 (E.D. Pa. 2011). Pumphrey v. Smith, 2010 WL 4983675 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Wilson v. Board of Control of City of Harrisburg School Dist., 2010 WL 4977056 (M.D. Pa. 2010). E.B. v. Woodland Hills School Dist., 2010 WL 2817201, *3 (W.D. Pa. 2010).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Sherk v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2009 WL 2412750 (E.D. Pa. 2009). Yatsko v. Berezwick, 2008 WL 2444503 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (mem. op.). Harris v. Lumberman's Mut. Cas. Co., D.C.Pa.2006, 409 F.Supp.2d 618. Alberti v. Ron Lewis Automotive Group, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 2773254. McLaughlin v. Kvaerner ASA, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 2129124. In re Bath & Kitchen Fixtures Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 2038605. Bond v. Rhodes, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 1617892. Ziner v. Cedar Crest College, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 1517387. Gupta v. Albright College, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 162977. Thompson v. County of Beaver, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 62822. Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Health & Welfare Fund of Northeastern Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 573. Tierney & Partners, Inc. v. Rockman, D.C.Pa.2003, 274 F.Supp.2d 693. Tri Star Farms Ltd. v. Marconi, PLC, D.C.Pa.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 567. Fortier v. U.S. Steel Corp., D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 1797796. Campbell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 1020811. Sullivan v. Equifax, Inc., D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 799856. Perazzo v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.2001, 2001 WL 1468287 (unpublished). Qwest Communications Int'l v. Cyber-Quest, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 124 F.Supp.2d 297. Cortes v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 255. Superior Precast, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Pa.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 438. Capital Bonding Corp. v. ABC Bail Bonds, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 691. Woolf v. 1417 Spruce Associates, D.C.Pa.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 569. Abrams v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 433. Sunquest Information Sys., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 644. Township of So. Fayette v. Allegheny County Housing Authority, D.C.Pa.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 582. Breyer v. Meissner, D.C.Pa.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 521, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.3d, 2000, 214 F.3d 416. Malone v. Specialty Prods. & Insulation Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 15 F.Supp.2d 769. Johnson v. City of Chester, D.C.Pa.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 482. McLaughlin v. Rose Tree Media School Dist., D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 476. Saylor v. Ridge, D.C.Pa.1998, 989 F.Supp. 680. Tolan v. U.S., D.C.Pa.1998, 176 F.R.D. 507. Avellino v. Herron, D.C.Pa.1997, 991 F.Supp. 722. Pearson v. Miller, D.C.Pa.1997, 988 F.Supp. 848. Homan v. City of Reading, D.C.Pa.1997, 963 F.Supp. 485. Sarver v. Capital Recovery Associates, Inc., D.C.Pa.1996, 951 F.Supp. 550. Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia v. Boyertown Area Times, D.C.Pa.1996, 945 F.Supp. 826. City of Erie v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1996, 935 F.Supp. 610, affirmed C.A.3d, 1997, 109 F.3d 156. Rashid v. Kite, D.C.Pa.1996, 934 F.Supp. 144. Williams v. Discovery Day School, D.C.Pa.1996, 924 F.Supp. 41. Williams v. Stone, D.C.Pa.1996, 923 F.Supp. 689, affirmed C.A.3d, 1997, 109 F.3d 890. Logue v. Logano Trucking Co., D.C.Pa.1996, 921 F.Supp. 1425. Nelson v. Temple Univ., D.C.Pa.1996, 920 F.Supp. 633. Esfahani v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1996, 919 F.Supp. 832. Stone v. Pennsylvania Merchant Group, Ltd., D.C.Pa.1996, 915 F.Supp. 727. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Co., D.C.Pa.1996, 914 F.Supp. 97. Johnson v. Hill, D.C.Pa.1996, 910 F.Supp. 218. Sharrow v. Bailey, D.C.Pa.1995, 910 F.Supp. 187. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Arch Associates Corp., D.C.Pa.1995, 908 F.Supp. 265. Clarke v. Whitney, D.C.Pa.1995, 907 F.Supp. 893.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Slater v. Marshall, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 256. Seneca Ins. Co. v. Commercial Transportation, Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 239. Shoemaker v. City of Lock Haven, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 230. Eagle Traffic Control v. Addco, D.C.Pa.1995, 889 F.Supp. 200. Arber v. Equitable Beneficial Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1995, 889 F.Supp. 194. Metcalf v. PaineWebber Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 886 F.Supp. 503. Pierce v. Montgomery County Opportunity Bd., Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 884 F.Supp. 965. Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey, D.C.Pa.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1529. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 764 v. Greenawalt, D.C.Pa.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1076. Doe v. Methacton School Dist., D.C.Pa.1995, 880 F.Supp. 380. School Dist. of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Bd., D.C.Pa.1995, 877 F.Supp. 245. Centennial School Dist. v. Independence Blue Cross, D.C.Pa.1994, 885 F.Supp. 683. Dugan v. Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1994, 876 F.Supp. 713. Jackson v. Nicoletti, D.C.Pa.1994, 875 F.Supp. 1107. Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 872 F.Supp. 203. Leach v. Quality Health Servs., Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 869 F.Supp. 315. Ferry v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 764. Builders Square, Inc. v. Saraco, D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 748. Pittman v. Correctional Healthcare Solutions, Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 105. Mulgrew v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 98. Strange v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 867 F.Supp. 1209 (accepting factual allegations that plaintiffs were employees for purposes of Age Discrimination in Employment Act). Youse v. Carlucci, D.C.Pa.1994, 867 F.Supp. 317. Lindsay v. Kvortek, D.C.Pa.1994, 865 F.Supp. 264. Piedmont Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, D.C.Pa.1994, 863 F.Supp. 212. Verde v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1329. Total Care Sys., Inc. v. Coons, D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 236. Bieros v. Nicola, D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 226. Johnson v. Resources for Human Dev., Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 218. Kearney v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 859 F.Supp. 182. Corrigan v. Methodist Hosp., D.C.Pa.1994, 853 F.Supp. 832. U.S. v. Witco Corp., D.C.Pa.1994, 853 F.Supp. 139. Plasko v. City of Pottsville, D.C.Pa.1994, 852 F.Supp. 1258. Bieros v. Nicola, D.C.Pa.1994, 851 F.Supp. 683. Trinsey v. Mitchell, D.C.Pa.1994, 851 F.Supp. 167. Brennan v. National Telephone Directory Corp., D.C.Pa.1994, 850 F.Supp. 331. Raines v. Haverford College, D.C.Pa.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1009. Arber v. Equitable Beneficial Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1204. Hunt v. U.S. Air Force, D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1190. Laborers Combined Funds Of Western Pennsylvania v. Ruscitto, D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 598. Jones v. Hinton, D.C.Pa.1994, 847 F.Supp. 41. Lattany v. Four Unknown U.S. Marshals, D.C.Pa.1994, 845 F.Supp. 262. Atlantic Paper Box Co. v. Whitman's Chocolates, D.C.Pa.1994, 844 F.Supp. 1038. Loftus v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, D.C.Pa.1994, 843 F.Supp. 981. Hicks v. Arthur, D.C.Pa.1994, 843 F.Supp. 949. Boyce v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 842 F.Supp. 822. Smith v. City of Chester, D.C.Pa.1994, 842 F.Supp. 147. Melendez v. Horizon Cellular Telephone Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 841 F.Supp. 687. Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., D.C.Pa.1993, 842 F.Supp. 161. In re Fidelity Bank Trust Fee Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 839 F.Supp. 318.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Erie City Retirees Ass'n v. City of Erie, D.C.Pa.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1048. Palace v. Deaver, D.C.Pa.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1016. RTC v. Farmer, D.C.Pa.1993, 836 F.Supp. 1123. Great West Life Assur. Co. v. Levithan, D.C.Pa.1993, 834 F.Supp. 858. Dibiase v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., D.C.Pa.1993, 834 F.Supp. 143. Edwards v. U.S., D.C.Pa.1993, 833 F.Supp. 521. In re Westinghouse Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 832 F.Supp. 948, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.3d, 1996, 90 F.3d 696. U.S. v. Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1993, 832 F.Supp. 122. Piazza v. Major League Baseball, D.C.Pa.1993, 831 F.Supp. 420. Taha v. INS, D.C.Pa.1993, 828 F.Supp. 362. Carroll v. Bristol Tp., D.C.Pa.1993, 827 F.Supp. 332. Gurfein v. Sovereign Group, D.C.Pa.1993, 826 F.Supp. 890. Institute of Pennsylvania Hosp. v. Travelers Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1993, 825 F.Supp. 727. Seal v. Riverside Fed. Savs. Bank, D.C.Pa.1993, 825 F.Supp. 686. Lattanzio v. Security Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1993, 825 F.Supp. 86. RTC v. Farmer, D.C.Pa.1993, 823 F.Supp. 302. Coades v. Jeffes, D.C.Pa.1993, 822 F.Supp. 1189. In re One Meridian Plaza Fire Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1460. Wexco Inc. v. IMC, Incorporated, D.C.Pa.1993, 820 F.Supp. 194. Le Grand v. Lincoln, D.C.Pa.1993, 818 F.Supp. 112. Clark v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.Pa.1993, 816 F.Supp. 1064. Marrazzo v. Bucks County Bank & Trust Co., D.C.Pa.1993, 814 F.Supp. 437. Jones v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1125. Johnson-Lloyd v. Vocational Rehabilitation Office, Pennsylvania Dep't of Labor & Indus., D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1120. Seidman v. American Mobile Sys., Inc., D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 323. Defeo v. Sill, D.C.Pa.1993, 810 F.Supp. 648. Carey v. Consolidated Rail Corp., D.C.Pa.1992, 810 F.Supp. 164. Friedman v. Lansdale Parking Authority, D.C.Pa.1993, 151 F.R.D. 42. Glaziers & Glassworkers Union Local 252 Annuity Fund v. Newbridge Secs., Inc., D.C.Pa.1992, 823 F.Supp. 1185. Gavaghan v. Replacement Rent-A-Car, Inc., D.C.Pa.1992, 811 F.Supp. 1077. Brossman Sales, Inc. v. Broderick, D.C.Pa.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1209. In re U.S. Bioscience Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1197. In re American Travellers Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1992, 806 F.Supp. 547. Flohr v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., D.C.Pa.1992, 800 F.Supp. 1252. Lombardo v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1992, 800 F.Supp. 208. U.S. Department of HUD ex rel. Givler v. Smith, D.C.Pa.1991, 775 F.Supp. 172. McCoy v. U.S., D.C.Pa.1991, 758 F.Supp. 299. Stobaugh v. Wallace, D.C.Pa.1990, 757 F.Supp. 653. Lutz v. Chromatex, Inc., D.C.Pa.1990, 730 F.Supp. 1328. Wood & Locker, Inc. v. Doran & Associates, D.C.Pa.1989, 708 F.Supp. 684. Scotch v. Moseley, Hallgarten, Estabrook & Weeden, Inc., D.C.Pa.1988, 709 F.Supp. 95. Adams v. Koppers Co., D.C.Pa.1988, 684 F.Supp. 399, 402, citing Wright & Miller. Metro Transp. Co. v. Balboa Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1988, 677 F.Supp. 376, 377–378 n. 2, citing Wright & Miller. “Because Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) results in a determination on the merits at such an early stage of the plaintiff's case, the court affords the plaintiff the safeguard of accepting all allegations of the complaint as true.” Kronmuller v. West End Fire Co. No. 3, D.C.Pa.1988, 123 F.R.D. 170, 173. Lukens Steel Co. v. Donovan, D.C.Pa.1981, 511 F.Supp. 463, 465, citing Wright & Miller. Chatterjee v. Due, D.C.Pa.1981, 511 F.Supp. 183, 185, citing Wright & Miller. Coggins v. Carpenter, D.C.Pa.1979, 468 F.Supp. 270, 279, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Marchwinski v. Oliver Tyrone Corp., D.C.Pa.1978, 461 F.Supp. 160. Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Tp. Civic Ass'n, D.C.Pa.1978, 443 F.Supp. 1268, affirmed without opinion C.A.3d, 1979, 595 F.2d 1213, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct. 86, 444 U.S. 843, 62 L.Ed.2d 56. Fannie v. Chamberlain Mfg. Corp., Derry Div., D.C.Pa.1977, 445 F.Supp. 65. Lewis v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, D.C.Pa.1977, 440 F.Supp. 887. Cap v. Lehigh Univ., D.C.Pa.1977, 433 F.Supp. 1275. MacMurry v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College, D.C.Pa.1977, 428 F.Supp. 1171. Fenton v. Stear, D.C.Pa.1976, 423 F.Supp. 767. Broyer v. B.F. Goodrich Co., D.C.Pa.1976, 415 F.Supp. 193. Padover v. Gimbel Bros., Inc., D.C.Pa.1976, 412 F.Supp. 920. Ash v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, D.C.Pa.1976, 410 F.Supp. 1129. Holiday v. Belle's Restaurant, D.C.Pa.1976, 409 F.Supp. 904. Kroungold v. Triester, D.C.Pa.1975, 407 F.Supp. 414. Wilkerson v. Mock, D.C.Pa.1975, 403 F.Supp. 971. Remington v. Remington, D.C.Pa.1975, 393 F.Supp. 898. Kao v. Red Lion Municipal Authority, D.C.Pa.1974, 381 F.Supp. 1163. Cubellis v. Costar, D.C.Pa.1974, 65 F.R.D. 49. Sansom Committee v. Lynn, D.C.Pa.1973, 366 F.Supp. 1271. Ammlung v. City of Chester, D.C.Pa.1973, 355 F.Supp. 1300. DiVito v. Greenstein, D.C.Pa.1972, 55 F.R.D. 58. Herman v. C.O. Porter Mach. Co., D.C.Pa.1971, 333 F.Supp. 416. U.S. ex rel. Smith v. Heil (PBP), D.C.Pa.1970, 308 F.Supp. 1063. U.S. ex rel. Brzozowski v. Randall, D.C.Pa.1968, 281 F.Supp. 306.

Virgin Islands Thomas v. Rijos, 780 F. Supp. 2d 376, 379 (D.V.I. 2011). Berrios v. Hovic, 2010 WL 3069480, *3 (D.V.I. 2010). In re Tutu Wells Contamination Litigation, D.C.Virgin Islands 1993, 846 F.Supp. 1243, 1257. Moorhead v. Farrelly, D.C.Virgin Islands 1989, 723 F.Supp. 1109, citing Wright & Miller.

Fourth Circuit Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365, 374-375 (4th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff could reasonably infer from defendant's written acknowledgement of her letter complaining about improper debt collection that defendant knowingly violated 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692c(a) (2)). Katyle v. Penn Nat. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 466 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 115, 181 L. Ed. 2d 39 (2011). E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011). Simmons v. United Mortg. and Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 768 (4th Cir. 2011). Bonham v. Weinraub, 413 Fed. Appx. 615, 616 (4th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)). Curley v. Adams Creek Associates, 409 Fed. Appx. 678, 679 (4th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)). CSX Transp., Inc. v. Gilkison, 406 Fed. Appx. 723, 728 (4th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)). Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). Monroe v. City of Charlotesville, Va., 579 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2009). Matrix Capital Management Fund, LP v. BearingPoint, Inc., 576 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2009). In re Mut. Funds Inv. Litigation, 566 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2009). Andrew v. Clark, 561 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2009). Pollard v. Pollard, 325 Fed. Appx. 270 (4th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)). Schweikert v. Bank Of America, N.A., 521 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2008). Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Young Express, Inc., C.A.4th, 2002, 43 Fed.Appx. 650 (unpublished). Smith v. Sydnor, C.A.4th, 1999, 184 F.3d 356, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 934, 528 U.S. 1116, 145 L.Ed.2d 813. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, C.A.4th, 1999, 177 F.3d 245. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., C.A.4th, 1999, 176 F.3d 776.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Anderson v. Foundation for Advancement, Educ. & Employment of American Indians, C.A.4th, 1998, 155 F.3d 500, appeal after remand C.A.4th, 1999, 187 F.3d 628. Milton v. IIT Research Institute, C.A.4th, 1998, 138 F.3d 519. Boring v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., C.A.4th, 1998, 136 F.3d 364, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 47, 525 U.S. 813, 142 L.Ed.2d 36. Martin Marietta Corp. v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, C.A.4th, 1992, 991 F.2d 94.

Maryland Adams v. Montgomery College, 2010 WL 2813346, *2 (D. Md. 2010). Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 89 v. Prince George's County, Md., 645 F. Supp. 2d 492 (D. Md. 2009). Abbott v. Gordon, 2009 WL 2426052 (D. Md. 2009). Beuster v. Equifax Information Servs., D.C.Md.2006, 435 F.Supp.2d 471. Onawola v. Johns Hopkins Univ., D.C.Md.2006, 412 F.Supp.2d 529, citing Wright & Miller. Brown v. McKesson Bioservices Corp., D.C.Md.2006, 2006 WL 616021. Miller v. Pacific Shore Funding, D.C.Md.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 977, affirmed C.A.4th, 2004, 92 Fed.Appx. 933. Kress v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, D.C.Md.2002, 217 F.Supp.2d 682. Eniola v. Leasecomm Corp., D.C.Md.2002, 214 F.Supp.2d 520. Gray v. Metts, D.C.Md.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 426. The court must disregard the contrary allegations of the party moving for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Swedish Civil Aviation Admin. v. Project Management Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 190 F.Supp.2d 785. Svezzese v. Duratek, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 2002 WL 1012967, affirmed C.A.4th, 2003, 67 Fed.Appx. 169. Rhee Bros., Inc. v. Han Ah Reum Corp., D.C.Md.2001, 178 F.Supp.2d 525. U.S. ex rel. Ackley v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., D.C.Md.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 395. Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., D.C.Md.2000, 193 F.R.D. 243, citing Wright & Miller. Smith-Berch, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, D.C.Md.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 602. Mates v. North American Vaccine, Inc., D.C.Md.1999, 53 F.Supp.2d 814, citing Wright & Miller. Toucheque v. Price Bros. Co., D.C.Md.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 341. Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass'n v. Glendening, D.C.Md.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 772, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.4th, 1999, 174 F.3d 180. Parker v. Prince George's County, Maryland Police Dep't, D.C.Md.1998, 995 F.Supp. 604. Ginsburg v. Agora, Inc., D.C.Md.1995, 915 F.Supp. 733. Humphrey v. National Flood Ins. Program, D.C.Md.1995, 885 F.Supp. 133. In re Medimmune, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Md.1995, 873 F.Supp. 953. Ammer v. U.S., D.C.Md.1994, 881 F.Supp. 1007, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.4th, 1995, 56 F.3d 60. Lust v. Burke, D.C.Md.1994, 876 F.Supp. 1474, citing Wright & Miller. Foxglenn Investors Ltd. Partnership v. Housing Authority For Prince George's County, D.C.Md.1993, 844 F.Supp. 1078, affirmed C.A.4th, 1994, 35 F.3d 947. Blackwell v. Mayor & Comm'rs of Delmar, D.C.Md.1993, 841 F.Supp. 151. Tischler v. Baltimore Bancorp, D.C.Md.1992, 801 F.Supp. 1493, 1498, citing Wright & Miller. EEOC v. Maryland Nat. Capital Park & Planning, D.C.Md.1987, 673 F.Supp. 746, 747, citing Wright & Miller. Grant v. Allison, D.C.Md.1985, 616 F.Supp. 1219, 1220, citing Wright & Miller. Morley v. Cohen, D.C.Md.1985, 610 F.Supp. 798, 806, citing Wright & Miller. Ficker v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., D.C.Md.1984, 596 F.Supp. 900, 901, citing Wright & Miller. When the defendant's version of the incident, stated in the motion to dismiss, was not supported by an affidavit or other relevant materials, it could not be considered by the court in accordance with proper standard procedures under Rule 12(b). Fitohette v. Collins, D.C.Md.1975, 402 F.Supp. 147, 150 n. 1.

North Carolina Adler v. Anchor Funding Services, LLC, 2011 WL 1843226 (W.D. N.C. 2011). Basnight v. Potter, 2011 WL 1366376 (E.D. N.C. 2011). Alexander v. City of Greensboro, 2011 WL 13857, *3 (M.D. N.C. 2011). White v. Van Duncan, 2010 WL 2813492, *1 (W.D. N.C. 2010).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Holman v. PK Management, LLC, 2010 WL 2813312, *1 (E.D. N.C. 2010). King v. United Way of Cent. Carolinas, Inc., 2009 WL 2432706 (W.D. N.C. 2009). Pettiford v. City of Greensboro, 556 F. Supp. 2d 512 (M.D. N.C. 2008). U.S. EEOC v. Bojangles Restaurants, Inc., D.C.N.C.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 320. Davis v. Dillard Nat. Bank, D.C.N.C.2003, 2003 WL 21297331, citing Wright & Miller. Arbia v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., D.C.N.C.2003, 2003 WL 21297330, citing Wright & Miller. Lemons v. US Air Group, Inc., D.C.N.C.1999, 43 F.Supp.2d 571, vacated per curiam on other grounds C.A.4th, 1999, 194 F.3d 1304. Wysong & Miles Co. v. Employers of Wausau, D.C.N.C.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 421. Clayton v. Stephens, D.C.N.C.1996, 6 F.Supp.2d 480, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 145 F.3d 1323. Pope v. Blue, D.C.N.C.1992, 809 F.Supp. 392, affirmed 1992, 113 S.Ct. 30, 506 U.S. 801, 121 L.Ed.2d 3. Coliseum Cartage Co. v. Continental Coffee Prods. Co., a Div. of Staley Continental, Inc., D.C.N.C.1989, 732 F.Supp. 1336. Simms Inv. Co. v. E.F. Hutton Co., D.C.N.C.1988, 688 F.Supp. 193.

South Carolina Taylor v. Ozmint, 424 Fed.Appx. 231 (D.S.C. 2011). Smith v. Cumulus Broadcasting, LLC, 2010 WL 2756999, *1 (D.S.C. 2010). American Southern Ins. Co. v. Conniff, 2010 WL 2710568, *4 (D.S.C. 2010). Signal v. Gonzales, D.C.S.C.2006, 430 F.Supp.2d 528. Sadighi v. Daghighfekr, D.C.S.C.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 279. Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.S.C.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 487. Bryant v. Food Lion, Inc. D.C.S.C.1991, 774 F.Supp. 1484. Cole v. Lane, D.C.S.C.1975, 67 F.R.D. 615. Long v. McGlon, D.C.S.C.1967, 263 F.Supp. 96.

Virginia Scheel v. Harris, 2011 WL 2559880 (W.D. Va. 2011). Leggat v. Equifax Information Services, Inc., 2009 WL 2432371 (E.D. Va. 2009). Torres v. Bowles, 20 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 1327, 2008 WL 2310689 (W.D. Va. 2008). Barr-Hairston v. U.S., D.C.Va.2007, 2007 WL 1574525. In re Estate of Grandy, D.C.Va.2006, 432 F.Supp.2d 630. Chase v. City of Portsmouth, D.C.Va.2006, 428 F.Supp.2d 487. Robins v. Moore, D.C.Va.2006, 2006 WL 1520573 (court should assume truth of all factual allegations in complaint as well as all facts that can be proven consistent with plaintiff's allegations). Sentara Virginia Beach Gen. Hosp. v. LeBeau, D.C.Va.2002, 182 F.Supp.2d 518. Frontline Test Equip., Inc. v. Greenleaf Software, Inc., D.C.Va.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 583. Norfolk Fed. of Bus. Dists. v. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Va.1996, 932 F.Supp. 730, affirmed C.A.4th, 1996, 103 F.3d 119. Mazur v. Woodson, D.C.Va.1996, 932 F.Supp. 144. Kentwood Ltd. v. U.S., D.C.Va.1996, 930 F.Supp. 227, vacated on other grounds D.C.Va.1997, 957 F.Supp. 799. Samuel v. Rose's Stores, Inc., D.C.Va.1995, 907 F.Supp. 159. Carolina Clipper, Inc. v. Axe, D.C.Va.1995, 902 F.Supp. 680. Lane v. David P. Jacobson & Co., Ltd., D.C.Va.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1091. Fratus v. U.S., D.C.Va.1994, 859 F.Supp. 991. Ocean Breeze Festival Park, Inc. v. Reich, D.C.Va.1994, 853 F.Supp. 906. Higgins v. Medical College of Hampton Roads, D.C.Va.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1113. American Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Lominac, D.C.Va.1994, 158 F.R.D. 376. B.M.H. by C.B. v. School Bd. of City of Chesapeake, Virginia, D.C.Va.1993, 833 F.Supp. 560. U.S. v. Olympic Marine Servs., Inc., D.C.Va.1993, 827 F.Supp. 1232, 1235 (“that plaintiff erroneously called the bond a ‘performance bond’ instead of a ‘payment bond’ will not alone support a motion to dismiss”) (Smith, J.). Terry v. Bobb, D.C.Va.1993, 827 F.Supp. 366 (liberal construction of pro se complaint). Portsmouth Redevelopment & Housing Authority v. BMI Apartments Associates, D.C.Va.1993, 827 F.Supp. 354.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Acorn Structures, Inc. v. Swantz, D.C.Va.1987, 657 F.Supp. 70, 72, citing Wright & Miller. Lee v. Baroski, D.C.Va.1975, 404 F.Supp. 1394. Canty v. City of Richmond, Virginia, Police Dep't, D.C.Va.1974, 383 F.Supp. 1396, affirmed C.A.4th, 1975, 526 F.2d 587, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 802, 423 U.S. 1062, 46 L.Ed.2d 654. Lucas v. Kale, D.C.Va.1973, 364 F.Supp. 1345. Grissom v. County of Roanoke, D.C.Va.1972, 348 F.Supp. 321. Jervey v. Martin, D.C.Va.1972, 336 F.Supp. 1350. Dunkley v. Thaxton, D.C.Va.1967, 274 F.Supp. 723.

West Virginia Corbett v. Duerring, 780 F. Supp. 2d 486, 491 (S.D. W. Va. 2011). Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc. v. Hobet Min., LLC, 723 F. Supp. 2d 886, 904 (S.D. W. Va. 2010). Wheeling Hosp., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Health Services and Educ. Corp., 2010 WL 4977987 (N.D. W. Va. 2010), citing Wright & Miller. Yarney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 3075460, *2 (W.D. Va. 2010). Ferrell v. Grange Ins., D.C.W.Va.2005, 354 F.Supp.2d 675, citing Wright & Miller. Valero Terrestrial v. McCoy, D.C.W.Va.1997, 36 F.Supp.2d 724, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.4th, 2000, 211 F.3d 112. Norris v. Detrick, D.C.W.Va.1996, 918 F.Supp. 977, affirmed C.A.4th, 1997, 108 F.3d 1373. Cromer v. Lounsbury Chiropractic Offices, Inc., D.C.W.Va.1994, 866 F.Supp. 960. Williams v. Board of Educ. of the County of Kanawha, D.C.W.Va.1975, 388 F.Supp. 93, 96, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.4th, 1975, 530 F.2d 972.

Fifth Circuit "Courts are required to accept the well-pleaded factual allegations of a complaint as true and determine whether those allegations state a plausible claim for relief. It follows that courts should not make factual determinations of their own or weigh evidence when considering a motion to dismiss. Precisely because the presumption of reasonableness is an evidentiary standard and concerns questions of fact, applying the presumption at the pleadings stage, and determining whether it was sufficiently rebutted, would be inconsistent with the Rule 12(b)(6) standard." Kopp v. Klein, 722 F.3d 327, 338-339 (5th Cir. 2013). Wilson v. Birnberg, 667 F.3d 591, 600 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 32, 183 L. Ed. 2d 678 (2012) (at motion to dismiss stage, court must accept plaintiff's allegation that he was eligible candidate for office even in face of defendant's contradictory affidavit). E.E.O.C. v. Philip Services Corp., 635 F.3d 164, 165 (5th Cir. 2011). Spectrum Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 632 F.3d 938, 948 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 367, 181 L. Ed. 2d 233 (2011). Amanduron v. American Airlines, 416 Fed. Appx. 421, 423 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148, 152 (5th Cir. 2010). Public Health Equipment & Supply Co., Inc. v. Clarke Mosquito Control Products, Inc., 410 Fed. Appx. 738, 740 (5th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009). True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2009). Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2009). Lexington Ins. Co. v. S.H.R.M. Catering Services, Inc., 567 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2009). Severance v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2009). Achee Holdings, LLC v. Silver Hill Financial, LLC, 342 Fed. Appx. 943 (5th Cir. 2009). Dunn v. Prince, 327 Fed. Appx. 452 (5th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Quinn v. Roach, 326 Fed. Appx. 280 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1050, 175 L.Ed.2d 882 (2010) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Puente v. Ridge, 324 Fed. Appx. 423 (5th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Sepulvado v. Louisiana Bd. of Pardons & Parole, C.A.5th, 2006, 171 Fed.Appx. 470, certiorari denied 127 S.Ct. 554, 549 U.S. 1014, 166 L.Ed.2d 412 (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Woodard v. Andrus, C.A.5th, 2005, 419 F.3d 348. Calhoun v. Hargrove, C.A.5th, 2002, 312 F.3d 730, on remand D.C.Tex.2003, 2003 WL 292140.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Hamilton v. United Healthcare of Louisiana, Inc., C.A.5th, 2002, 310 F.3d 385, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 2288, 339 U.S. 916, 156 L.Ed.2d 132. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., C.A.5th, 2002, 296 F.3d 376, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 1287, 537 U.S. 1200, 154 L.Ed.2d 1041. Hart v. Bayer Corp., C.A.5th, 2000, 199 F.3d 239. Spivey v. Robertson, C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 772, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2659, 530 U.S. 1229, 147 L.Ed.2d 274. Jones v. Greninger, C.A.5th, 1999, 188 F.3d 322. Leleux v. U.S., C.A.5th, 1999, 178 F.3d 750. Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc., C.A.5th, 1999, 164 F.3d 258. Colle v. Brazos County, Texas, C.A.5th, 1993, 981 F.2d 237. Mitchell v. McBryde, C.A.5th, 1991, 944 F.2d 229. Miller v. Stanmore, C.A.5th, 1981, 636 F.2d 986. Johnson v. Wells, C.A.5th, 1978, 566 F.2d 1016. Mann v. Adams Realty Co., C.A.5th, 1977, 556 F.2d 288. Patterson v. MacDougall, C.A.5th, 1975, 506 F.2d 1. McBeth v. United Press Int'l, Inc., C.A.5th, 1974, 505 F.2d 959. Campbell v. Beto, C.A.5th, 1972, 460 F.2d 765. Belt v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., C.A.5th, 1972, 458 F.2d 443. Hargrave v. McKinney, C.A.5th, 1969, 413 F.2d 320. Ward v. Hudnell, C.A.5th, 1966, 366 F.2d 247.

Louisiana Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F. Supp. 2d 691, 702 (E.D. La. 2013). Peppers v. Graves, 2011 WL 1775736 (M.D. La. 2011). T Moore Services, LLC v. Rentrop Tugs Inc., 2011 WL 976738 (W.D. La. 2011). In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 5056027 (E.D. La. 2010). Jones v. First Bank and Trust, 2010 WL 2836150, *5 (E.D. La. 2010). PHI, Inc. v. Office & Professional Employees Intern. Union, 2010 WL 2740066, *4 (W.D. La. 2010), order amended on other grounds, 2010 WL 2835540 (W.D. La. 2010). Bertaut v. Folger Coffee Co., D.C.La.2006, 2006 WL 2513175, citing Wright & Miller. Williams Land Co., LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., D.C.La.2005, 2005 WL 940564. Fields v. Stalder, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611597 (complaint liberally construed). The complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the original complaint must be taken as true. Louisiana-Mississippi Carpenters Regional Council & Carpenters Local 1846 v. Shepard Exposition Servs., Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611587. Trevino v. Boomtown Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1363891. Ingram v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1163613. Watson v. Prudential Ins. Co., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1159703. Matthews v. Social Sec. of Louisiana, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022267. Searcy v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022158. Wicks v. Coffrey, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1000975. Perrilloux v. BP Oil Co./Amoco, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 746349. Kane Enterprises v. MacGregor (U.S.A.), Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 523342, affirmed C.A.5th, 2003, 322 F.3d 371. Koerner v. Garden Dist. Ass'n, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 500815. Nabors Drilling U.S.A. LP v. Twister Exploration, LLC, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 287728. Castano v. American Tobacco Co., D.C.La.1994, 870 F.Supp. 1425. Rholdon v. Bio-Medical Applications, D.C.La.1994, 868 F.Supp. 179. Watermeier v. Continental Oil Co., D.C.La.1993, 818 F.Supp. 929. First Nat. Bank of Louisville v. Lustig, D.C.La.1992, 809 F.Supp. 444. Prudhomme v. Procter & Gamble Co., D.C.La.1992, 800 F.Supp. 390. Vanderwall v. Horner, D.C.La.1986, 635 F.Supp. 688, 693, citing Wright & Miller, appeal dismissed C.A.5th, 1987, 824 F.2d 970, certiorari denied 108 S.Ct. 1020, 484 U.S. 1062, 98 L.Ed.2d 985.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Gremillion v. Rinaudo, D.C.La.1971, 325 F.Supp. 375, 377.

Mississippi Harried v. Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy, 2011 WL 2728292 (S.D. Miss. 2011). Galada v. Gatson-Riley, 2010 WL 3120069, *3 (S.D. Miss. 2010). Dale v. Ala Acquisitions, Inc., D.C.Miss.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 694. Kinnison v. Mississippi Dep't of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks, D.C.Miss.1998, 990 F.Supp. 481. Citizens' Right to Vote v. Morgan, D.C.Miss.1996, 916 F.Supp. 601 Harper v. Forrest County, Mississippi, D.C.Miss.1994, 859 F.Supp. 251. California Union Ins. Co. v. City of Walnut Grove, Mississippi, D.C.Miss.1994, 857 F.Supp. 515. In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Miss.1993, 826 F.Supp. 1019. Mize v. Harvey Shapiro Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Miss.1989, 714 F.Supp. 220.

Texas Gallentine v. Housing Authority of City of Port Arthur, Tex., 919 F. Supp. 2d 787, 794 (E.D. Tex. 2013). Castillo v. Hernandez, 2011 WL 2489910 (W.D. Tex. 2011). Myers v. Kaufman County, 2010 WL 5480651 (N.D. Tex. 2010). Desperado Motor Racing & Motorcycles, Inc. v. Robinson, 2010 WL 2757523, *1 (S.D. Tex. 2010). Solis v. Time Warner Cable San Antonio, L.P., 2010 WL 2756800, *1 (W.D. Tex. 2010). Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Fitch, 643 F. Supp. 2d 902 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Crooks v. Wal-Mart Stores of Texas, LLC, 2009 WL 2422330 (N.D. Tex. 2009). Gonzalez v. Kay, 2008 WL 2405978 (S.D. Tex. 2008). Howard v. City of Kerrville, Texas, D.C.Tex.2006, 2006 WL 1073461. Garza v. Laredo Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.2006, 2006 WL 870423. Marshall v. McConnell, D.C.Tex.2006, 2006 WL 740081. Garza v. Rio Honda, Texas, D.C.Tex.2005, 2005 WL 1745453. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698, affirmed C.A.5th, 2004, 354 F.3d 411. Hutchison v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., D.C.Tex.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 629. Pivonka v. Collins, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1477455. Groceman v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1398559. Boundy v. Dolenz, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1160075. Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196. Sleather v. Boy Scouts of America, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 663563. Haack v. Max Internet Communications, Inc., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 511514. Clark v. Kick, D.C.Tex.2000, 79 F.Supp.2d 747. Griffin v. GK Intelligent Sys., Inc., D.C.Tex.1999, 87 F.Supp.2d 684. Puckett v. U.S., D.C.Tex.1999, 82 F.Supp.2d 660. Piraino v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tex.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 889 (material allegations). Connor v. WTI, D.C.Tex.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 690. Smith v. Blue, D.C.Tex.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 686. Korte v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Tex.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 647. Santerre v. Agip Petroleum Co., D.C.Tex.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 558. Robertson v. Strassner, D.C.Tex.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 443. J & J Manufacturing, Inc. v. Logan, D.C.Tex.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 692. Corporate Health Ins., Inc. v. Texas Dep't of Ins., D.C.Tex.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 597, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 2000, 215 F.3d 526. Frith v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Tex.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 734. Jenkins v. Board of Educ. of the Houston Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1996, 937 F.Supp. 608. Jolly v. Klein, D.C.Tex.1996, 923 F.Supp. 931. Patton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., D.C.Tex.1995, 910 F.Supp. 1250. Matta v. May, D.C.Tex.1995, 888 F.Supp. 808.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Mason v. FDIC, D.C.Tex.1995, 888 F.Supp. 799. Murphy v. Wal-Mart Associates' Group Health Plan, D.C.Tex.1995, 882 F.Supp. 95. Wilkerson v. U.S., D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 440 (complaint should not be dismissed because of disbelief of its factual allegations). DeFrancis v. Bush, D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 13. In re Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, D.C.Tex.1993, 830 F.Supp. 361. Lewis v. Law-Yone, D.C.Tex.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1247. Maritrend, Inc. v. Galveston Wharves, D.C.Tex.1993, 152 F.R.D. 543. Askanase v. Fatjo, D.C.Tex.1993, 148 F.R.D. 570. Lawal v. British Airways, PLC, D.C.Tex.1992, 812 F.Supp. 713. FDIC v. Nathan, D.C.Tex.1992, 804 F.Supp. 888. Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Computer Associates Int'l, Inc., D.C.Tex.1992, 802 F.Supp. 1463. Ramsey v. Arata, D.C.Tex.1975, 406 F.Supp. 435. Atchley v. Greenhill, D.C.Tex.1974, 373 F.Supp. 512.

Sixth Circuit Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 717 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2013), citing Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC, 700 F.3d 829, 835 (6th Cir. 2012). Wee Care Child Center, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 680 F.3d 841, 846 (6th Cir. 2012). Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F.3d 430, 444 (6th Cir. 2012). Pfeil v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 671 F.3d 585, 593 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 758, 184 L. Ed. 2d 519 (2012) ("[C]ourts should not make factual determinations of their own or weigh evidence when considering a motion to dismiss."). Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 846 (6th Cir. 2012). Frank v. Dana Corp., 646 F.3d 954, 958 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 559 (2011). Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673, 680 (6th Cir. 2011). Crawford v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 425 Fed. Appx. 445 (6th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (court must accept all factual allegations as true, even fantastic or delusional allegations). Hebron v. Shelby County Government, 406 Fed. Appx. 28, 30 (6th Cir. 2010) (this principle unchanged by Twombly and Iqbal) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Segal v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 581 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 2009). Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009). Hunter v. Secretary of U.S. Army, 565 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2009). Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2009). Source Associates, Inc. v. Valero Energy Corp., 273 Fed. Appx. 425 (6th Cir. 2008). Evans–Marshall v. Board of Educ. of the Tipp City Exempted Village School Dist., C.A.6th, 2005, 428 F.3d 223. Nuchols v. Berrong, C.A.6th, 2005, 141 Fed.Appx. 451 (not to be cited per Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Rossborough Mfg. Co. v. Trimble, C.A.6th, 2002, 301 F.3d 482, citing Wright & Miller. Goad v. Mitchell, C.A.6th, 2002, 297 F.3d 497. Pfennig v. Household Credit Servs., Inc., C.A.6th, 2002, 295 F.3d 522, reversed on other grounds 2004, 124 S.Ct. 1741, __ U.S. __, __ L.Ed.2d __. Robinson v. Township of Redford, C.A.6th, 2002, 48 Fed.Appx. 925 (unpublished). Fitts v. Monroe, C.A.6th, 2002, 47 Fed.Appx. 361 (unpublished). Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., C.A.6th, 2000, 210 F.3d 612, reversed en banc on other grounds C.A.6th, 2001, 251 F.3d 540, certiorari dismissed 122 S.Ct. 2616, 536 U.S. 935, 153 L.Ed.2d 800. Herron v. Harrison, C.A.6th, 2000, 203 F.3d 410. Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., C.A.6th, 1999, 196 F.3d 617. Jackson v. City of Columbus, C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737. Lawrence v. Chancery Ct. of Tennessee, C.A.6th, 1999, 188 F.3d 687. DePiero v. City of Macedonia, C.A.6th, 1999, 180 F.3d 770, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 844, 528 U.S. 1105, 145 L.Ed.2d 713. Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, C.A.6th, 1999, 177 F.3d 507. Nelson v. Miller, C.A.6th, 1999, 170 F.3d 641.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Williams v. WCI Steel Co., C.A.6th, 1999, 170 F.3d 598. Smith v. Computer Credit Inc., C.A.6th, 1999, 167 F.3d 1052. Wellons v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., C.A.6th, 1999, 165 F.3d 493, appeal after remand C.A.6th, 2001, 25 Fed.Appx. 214. Performance Contracting, Inc. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., C.A.6th, 1998, 163 F.3d 366. Hiser v. City of Bowling Green, C.A.6th, 1994, 42 F.3d 382, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 1984, 514 U.S. 1120, 131 L.Ed.2d 871. Vemco, Inc. v. Camardella, C.A.6th, 1994, 23 F.3d 129. Broyde v. Gotham Tower, Inc., C.A.6th, 1994, 13 F.3d 994, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 2137, 511 U.S. 1128, 128 L.Ed.2d 866. In re DeLorean Motor Co., C.A.6th, 1993, 991 F.2d 1236. Mayer v. Mylod, C.A.6th, 1993, 988 F.2d 635. Carver v. Bunch, C.A.6th, 1991, 946 F.2d 451. G.M. Engineers & Associates, Inc. v. West Bloomfield Tp., C.A.6th, 1990, 922 F.2d 328. Dana Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Northern Ohio, C.A.6th, 1990, 900 F.2d 882, on remand D.C.Ohio 1990, 1990 WL 264716. Craighead v. E.F. Hutton & Co., C.A.6th, 1990, 899 F.2d 485. Westlake v. Lucas, C.A.6th, 1976, 537 F.2d 857. L'Orange v. Medical Protective Co., C.A.6th, 1968, 394 F.2d 57.

Kentucky Morgan v. HSBC Mortg. Services, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 2d 833, 836 (E.D. Ky. 2013), citing Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). Ashland Hosp. Corp. v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers Local 575, 807 F. Supp. 2d 633 (E.D. Ky. 2011). Williams v. CIGNA Corp., 2010 WL 5147257 (W.D. Ky. 2010). Hashemian v. Louisville Regional Airport Authority, 2010 WL 3001972, *3 (W.D. Ky. 2010). Computer Consulting & Network Design, Inc. v. Universal Service Administrative Co., 2008 WL 2435932 (W.D. Ky. 2008) (mem. op.). Francis v. Barlow, D.C.Ky.2006, 2006 WL 1382216. Slappy v. Levell, D.C.Ky.2006, 2006 WL 83439. Duvall v. Cabinet for Human Resources, D.C.Ky.1996, 920 F.Supp. 111. Hearing Aid Ass'n of Kentucky, Inc. v. Bullock, D.C.Ky.1976, 413 F.Supp. 1032. Clark v. Board of Educ. of Shelbyville, Kentucky, D.C.Ky.1972, 350 F.Supp. 149.

Michigan Henson v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 5676259 (E.D. Mich. 2013), citing Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008). General Scientific Corp. v. SheerVision, Inc., 2011 WL 3880489 (E.D. Mich. 2011). Baker v. County of Missaukee, 2011 WL 1670953 (W.D. Mich. 2011). Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC, 2010 WL 2854303, *2 (E.D. Mich. 2010). Lipa v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 572 F. Supp. 2d 841 (E.D. Mich. 2008). Hendricks v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., D.C.Mich.2006, 444 F.Supp.2d 775. Sly v. DFCU Financial Fed. Credit Union, D.C.Mich.2006, 443 F.Supp.2d 885. Kellman v. Coca-Cola Co., D.C.Mich.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 670. Jersevic v. Kuhl, D.C.Mich.2002, 2002 WL 84624 (unpublished). Ericson v. Pollack, D.C.Mich.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 582. Akella v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, D.C.Mich.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 716. Ramik v. Darling Int'l, Inc., D.C.Mich.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 680. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Strand, D.C.Mich.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 993. Benedict v. Cooperstock, D.C.Mich.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 754. MacKay v. Grumman Allied Indus., Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 993 F.Supp. 1068. Emery v. U.S., D.C.Mich.1996, 920 F.Supp. 788. Guzinski v. Hasselbach, D.C.Mich.1996, 920 F.Supp. 762.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Fishbach-Natkin, Inc. v. Shimizu America Corp., D.C.Mich.1994, 854 F.Supp. 1294. Doran v. McGinnis, D.C.Mich.1994, 158 F.R.D. 383. Sheldon Co. Profit Sharing Plan & Trust v. Smith, D.C.Mich.1993, 828 F.Supp. 1262. Kelley ex rel. Michigan v. Kysor Indus. Corp., D.C.Mich.1993, 826 F.Supp. 1089. County of Oakland by Kuhn v. Vista Disposal, Inc., D.C.Mich.1993, 826 F.Supp. 218. Theuerkauf v. United Vaccines Div. of Harlan Sprague Dawley, D.C.Mich.1993, 821 F.Supp. 1238. Greenan v. Romeo Village Police Dep't, D.C.Mich.1993, 819 F.Supp. 658. Doe v. Johnson, D.C.Mich.1993, 817 F.Supp. 1382. Coker v. Henry, D.C.Mich.1993, 813 F.Supp. 567, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 25 F.3d 1047. Ballan v. Upjohn Co., D.C.Mich.1992, 814 F.Supp. 1375. Lindsey v. Jansante, D.C.Mich.1992, 806 F.Supp. 651. Haverstick Enterprises, Inc. v. Financial Fed. Credit, Inc., D.C.Mich.1992, 803 F.Supp. 1251, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 32 F.3d 989. Mercado v. Kingsley Area Schools/Traverse City Pub. Schools Adult Educ. Consortium, D.C.Mich.1989, 727 F.Supp. 335. Jones v. Michigan, D.C.Mich.1981, 525 F.Supp. 636, 638 n. 2, citing Wright & Miller. Harrison v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S., D.C.Mich.1977, 435 F.Supp. 281, 285, citing Wright & Miller. Financial House, Inc. v. Otten, D.C.Mich.1973, 369 F.Supp. 105.

Ohio Harris v. Smith, 2011 WL 2413490 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (allegations capable of more than one inference must be construed in plaintiff's favor). Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley, 728 F. Supp. 2d 928, 931 (S.D. Ohio 2010). Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Manges, 2010 WL 5394730 (S.D. Ohio 2010). Grattan v. Strickland, 2008 WL 2433829 (N.D. Ohio 2008). In re Cardinal Health Inc. Secs. Litigations, D.C.Ohio 2006, 426 F.Supp.2d 688. Geiger v. City of Upper Arlington, D.C.Ohio 2006, 2006 WL 1888877. Owner Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n Inc. v. Comerica Inc., D.C.Ohio 2006, 2006 WL 1339427. DeNune v. Consolidated Capital of No. America, Inc., D.C.Ohio 2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 844. Savage v. Hatcher, D.C.Ohio 2002, 2002 WL 484986. Edwards v. Physician's Credit Bureau, D.C.Ohio 2001, 2001 WL 1678783 (unpublished). Barrett v. Wallace, D.C.Ohio 2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 949. Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 815, affirmed on other grounds C.A.6th, 2003, 317 F.3d 646. Culberson v. Doan, D.C.Ohio 1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 701. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 35 F.Supp.2d 597. Harris v. City of Cleveland, D.C.Ohio 1999, 190 F.R.D. 215, affirmed C.A.6th, 2001, 7 Fed.Appx. 452. Jackson v. City of Columbus, D.C.Ohio 1998, 67 F.Supp.2d 839, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737. Cox v. Dubois, D.C.Ohio 1998, 16 F.Supp.2d 861, citing Wright & Miller. Brewery Dist. Soc. v. Federal Highway Admin., D.C.Ohio 1998, 996 F.Supp. 750, citing Wright & Miller. Orick v. Banziger, D.C.Ohio 1996, 945 F.Supp. 1084, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 178 F.3d 1295. Plant v. IRS, D.C.Ohio 1996, 943 F.Supp. 833. I-Star Communications Corp. v. City of East Cleveland, D.C.Ohio 1995, 885 F.Supp. 1035. U.S. v. Fairways Villas Condominium Ass'n, D.C.Ohio 1995, 879 F.Supp. 798, vacated on other grounds D.C.Ohio 1996, 920 F.Supp. 115. In re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation, D.C.Ohio 1995, 874 F.Supp. 796. U.S. ex rel. Roy v. Anthony, D.C.Ohio 1994, 914 F.Supp. 1504. Shuttlesworth v. Housing Opportunities Made Equal, D.C.Ohio 1994, 873 F.Supp. 1069. Johnson v. University Surgical Group Associates of Cincinnati, D.C.Ohio 1994, 871 F.Supp. 979. Federspiel v. Ohio Republican Party State Cent. Committee, D.C.Ohio 1994, 867 F.Supp. 617, affirmed C.A.6th, 1996, 85 F.3d 628. Heights Community Congress v. Smythe, Cramer Co., D.C.Ohio 1994, 862 F.Supp. 204. Wedding v. University of Toledo, D.C.Ohio 1994, 862 F.Supp. 201. Ohio ex rel. Fisher v. Louis Trauth Dairy, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1994, 856 F.Supp. 1229.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

RTC v. Zimmerman, D.C.Ohio 1994, 853 F.Supp. 1016. Crihfield v. Monsanto Co., D.C.Ohio 1994, 844 F.Supp. 371. Montgomery v. Carr, D.C.Ohio 1993, 848 F.Supp. 770. Martin v. Voinovich, D.C.Ohio 1993, 840 F.Supp. 1175, citing Wright & Miller. City of Heath, Ohio v. Ashland Oil, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1993, 834 F.Supp. 971. Pater v. Health Care & Retirement Corp., D.C.Ohio 1992, 808 F.Supp. 573. Ungrady v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., Inc., D.C.Ohio 1991, 767 F.Supp. 849, 851, citing Wright & Miller. Robinson v. N & C Construction Co., D.C.Ohio 1991, 767 F.Supp. 843, 847, citing Wright & Miller. Minatsis v. Brown, D.C.Ohio 1989, 713 F.Supp. 1056. Developer's Mortgage Co. v. TransOhio Savs. Bank, D.C.Ohio 1989, 706 F.Supp. 570. Lugo v. Simon, D.C.Ohio 1976, 426 F.Supp. 28. Alloy Cast Steel Co. v. United Steel Workers of America, D.C.Ohio 1976, 70 F.R.D. 687, supplemented on other grounds D.C.Ohio 1977, 429 F.Supp. 445. Tomlin v. U.S. Air Force Medical Center, D.C.Ohio 1974, 369 F.Supp. 353.

Tennessee Montesi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 4522905, *3 (W.D. Tenn. 2013). Henton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 111362 (E.D. Tenn. 2011). Savoie v. Martin, 2010 WL 4982543 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). Crawford v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc., 2010 WL 2901740, *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). Arnold v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 2009 WL 2430822 (M.D. Tenn. 2009). AGFA Photo USA Corp. v. Parham, D.C.Tenn.2007, 2007 WL 1655891. Freightliner of Knoxville, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Vans, LLC, D.C.Tenn.2006, 438 F.Supp.2d 869. Maxwell v. Stanley Works, D.C.Tenn.2006, 2006 WL 1967012. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 943. Hedgepeth v. Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 33 F.Supp.2d 668. Tennessee Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of Putnam County, Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 808 (well pleaded facts taken as true). WHS Entertainment Ventures v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, D.C.Tenn.1998, 997 F.Supp. 946. Grindstaff v. Green, D.C.Tenn.1996, 946 F.Supp. 540, affirmed C.A.6th, 1998, 133 F.3d 416. Lorain Div., Koehring Co. v. Walldorff, D.C.Tenn.1981, 522 F.Supp. 408, 409, citing Wright & Miller.

Seventh Circuit Burke v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, LLC, 714 F.3d 501, 504 (7th Cir. 2013). Adkins v. VIM Recycling, Inc., 644 F.3d 483, 492-493 (7th Cir. 2011). Cole v. Milwaukee Area Technical College Dist., 634 F.3d 901, 903 (7th Cir. 2011). Heyde v. Pittenger, 633 F.3d 512, 516 (7th Cir. 2011). Ray v. City of Chicago, 629 F.3d 660, 662 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 100, 181 L. Ed. 2d 28 (2011). Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 558 (7th Cir. 2010). Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2009). Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009). Rujawitz v. Martin, 561 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2009). White v. Monohan, 326 Fed. Appx. 385 (7th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Seventh Circuit Rule 53) (pro se plaintiff's complaint construed more liberally with all inferences in his favor). Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2008). County of McHenry v. Insurance Co. of the West, C.A.7th, 2006, 438 F.3d 813. Cler v. Illinois Educ. Ass'n, C.A.7th, 2005, 423 F.3d 726. Thompson v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, C.A.7th, 2002, 300 F.3d 750, citing Wright & Miller. Del Korth v. Supervalu, Inc., C.A.7th, 2002, 46 Fed.Appx. 846 (unpublished). Jacobs v. City of Chicago, C.A.7th, 2000, 215 F.3d 758. Marshall-Mosby v. Corporate Receivables, Inc., C.A.7th, 2000, 205 F.3d 323.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Looper Maintenance Serv. Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, C.A.7th, 1999, 197 F.3d 908. Hernandez v. Joliet Police Dep't, C.A.7th, 1999, 197 F.3d 256. Henderson v. Sheahan, C.A.7th, 1999, 196 F.3d 839, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2691, 530 U.S. 1244, 147 L.Ed.2d 962. Massey v. Helman, C.A.7th, 1999, 196 F.3d 727, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 2214, 532 U.S. 1065, 150 L.Ed.2d 208. Pleva v. Norquist, C.A.7th, 1999, 195 F.3d 905. Veazey v. Communications & Cable of Chicago, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 194 F.3d 850. Maple Lanes, Inc. v. Messer, C.A.7th, 1999, 186 F.3d 823, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 939, 528 U.S. 1118, 145 L.Ed.2d 817. Crenshaw v. Baynerd, C.A.7th, 1999, 180 F.3d 866, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 374, 528 U.S. 952, 145 L.Ed.2d 292. Ogden Martin Sys. of Indianapolis v. Whiting, C.A.7th, 1999, 179 F.3d 523. Jackson v. E.J. Brach Corp., C.A.7th, 1999, 176 F.3d 971. Harrell v. Cook, C.A.7th, 1999, 169 F.3d 428. Hentosh v. Herman M. Finch Univ. of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School, C.A.7th, 1999, 167 F.3d 1170. Martinez v. Hooper, C.A.7th, 1998, 148 F.3d 856. Eison v. McCoy, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 468. Ashafa v. City of Chicago, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 459. Baskin v. City of Des Plaines, C.A.7th, 1998, 138 F.3d 701. Duda v. Board of Educ. of Franklin Park Public School Dist. No. 84, C.A.7th, 1998, 133 F.3d 1054. Doe v. Sheriff of DuPage County, C.A.7th, 1997, 128 F.3d 586. Homeyer v. Stanley Tulchin Associates, Inc., C.A.7th, 1996, 91 F.3d 959. Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., C.A.7th, 1995, 52 F.3d 640. Palmer v. Board of Educ. of Community Unit School Dist. 201-U, Will County, Illinois, C.A.7th, 1995, 46 F.3d 682. American Inter-Fidelity Exchange v. American Re-Insurance Co., C.A.7th, 1994, 17 F.3d 1018 (district court erred in not accepting as true allegation in complaint). Hi-Lite Prods. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., C.A.7th, 1993, 11 F.3d 1402. Bontkowski v. First Nat. Bank of Cicero, C.A.7th, 1993, 998 F.2d 459, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 602, 510 U.S. 1012, 126 L.Ed.2d 567. Mid America Title Co. v. Kirk, C.A.7th, 1993, 991 F.2d 417, on remand D.C.Ill.1994, 867 F.Supp. 673, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 59 F.3d 719, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 520, 516 U.S. 990, 133 L.Ed.2d 428. Hrubec v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., C.A.7th, 1992, 981 F.2d 962, on remand D.C.Ill.1993, 829 F.Supp. 1502 (complaint should not be dismissed if relief may be granted under any facts that can be proven consistently with the allegations). Bowman v. City of Franklin, C.A.7th, 1992, 980 F.2d 1104, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 2417, 508 U.S. 940, 124 L.Ed.2d 639. Early v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., C.A.7th, 1992, 959 F.2d 75. Graue Mill Dev. Corp. v. Colonial Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, C.A.7th, 1991, 927 F.2d 988. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Bush, C.A.7th, 1990, 918 F.2d 1323. Gillman v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., C.A.7th, 1989, 878 F.2d 1020. Hampton v. City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, C.A.7th, 1973, 484 F.2d 602, appeal after remand C.A.7th, 1979, 600 F.2d 600. Harris v. Pate, C.A.7th, 1971, 440 F.2d 315, 319. Peterson Steels, Inc. v. Seidmon, C.A.7th, 1951, 188 F.2d 193.

Illinois Cohee v. Peoria County Sheriff's Dept., 2011 WL 1526722 (C.D. Ill. 2011). Reid v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., 2010 WL 5289108 (S.D. Ill. 2010). Multiut Corp v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 2010 WL 5018538 (N.D. Ill. 2010). James v. Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, 2009 WL 2567910 (S.D. Ill. 2009). Levy Restaurant Ltd. Partnership v. Williamson, 2009 WL 2409968 (N.D. Ill. 2009). In re McDonald's French Fries Litigation, D.C.Ill.2007, 2007 WL 1576550. Gates v. Towery, D.C.Ill.2006, 435 F.Supp.2d 794 Rogers v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., D.C.Ill.2006, 417 F.Supp.2d 974. Jones v. Shell Oil Co., D.C.Ill.2006, 2006 WL 1663701. Bishop v. PCS Administration (USA), Inc., D.C.Ill.2006, 2006 WL 1460032. Lauer v. Nakon, D.C.Ill.2006, 2006 WL 418676.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Remus v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.2006, 2006 WL 418654. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Vuk Builders, Inc., D.C.Ill.2005, 406 F.Supp.2d 899. Fedders Corp. v. Elite Classics, D.C.Ill.2003, 279 F.Supp.2d 965. Fairbanks Capital Corp. v. Jenkins, D.C.Ill.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 910. Grimes v. Navigant Consulting, Inc., D.C.Ill.2002, 185 F.Supp.2d 906. Smith v. Chicago Archdiocese, D.C.Ill.2002, 2002 WL 31049834. Boards of Trustees of Bricklayers Local 74 Fringe Benefit Funds v. Vorkapic, Inc., D.C.Ill.2002, 2002 WL 596357. Dornhecker v. Ameritech Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 918. Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' Nat. Pension Fund v. Illinois Range, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 864. When a qualified immunity defense is raised under Rule 12(b)(6), the court may consider the motion, but must accept the factual allegations of the complaint. Ruffino v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1999, 61 F.Supp.2d 764. Didzerekis v. Stewart, D.C.Ill.1999, 41 F.Supp.2d 840. Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., D.C.Ill.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 974. Rizzi v. Calumet City, D.C.Ill.1999, 183 F.R.D. 639. International Bhd. of Teamsters Local 734 Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 34 F.Supp.2d 656, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 196 F.3d 818, appeal after remand C.A.7th, 2000, 208 F.3d 579. Morgan v. Ameritech, D.C.Ill.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 1087. Roberts v. Board of Educ., D.C.Ill.1998, 25 F.Supp.2d 866. Abt v. Mazda American Credit, D.C.Ill.1998, 25 F.Supp.2d 860 (complaint not to be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if factual determinations must be made). Jones v. Edgar, D.C.Ill.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 979. Freeman v. Godinez, D.C.Ill.1998, 996 F.Supp. 822 (plaintiffs need not plead facts, so court considered plaintiff's allegations, not just plaintiff's factual allegations). Long v. Chicago Transit Authority, D.C.Ill.1997, 979 F.Supp. 1214. Towers v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1997, 979 F.Supp. 708, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 173 F.3d 619, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 178, 528 U.S. 874, 145 L.Ed.2d 150. Pyramid Controls, Inc. v. Siemens Industrial Automations, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 977 F.Supp. 892. Stepan Co. v. Winter Panel Corp., D.C.Ill.1996, 948 F.Supp. 802. R & V Pine Tree, Inc. v. Village of Forest Park, D.C.Ill.1996, 947 F.Supp. 342. Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach., Ltd., D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1358. Kastel v. Winnetka Bd. of Educ., Dist. 36, D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1329. Glass v. Kemper Corp., D.C.Ill.1996, 920 F.Supp. 928, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 133 F.3d 999. Williams v. Sabin, D.C.Ill.1995, 884 F.Supp. 294. Seber v. Unger, D.C.Ill.1995, 881 F.Supp. 323. Whirlpool Financial Corp. v. GN Holdings, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 873 F.Supp. 111, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 67 F.3d 605. DiBenedetto v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 873 F.Supp. 106. RTC v. S & K Chevrolet, D.C.Ill.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1047. Hodges by Hodges v. Public Bldg. Comm'n of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1493. Comite Pro-Celebracion v. Claypool, D.C.Ill.1994, 863 F.Supp. 682. Cass v. American Properties, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 861 F.Supp. 55. Estate of Cassara by Cassara v. Illinois, D.C.Ill.1994, 853 F.Supp. 273. Desnick v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 851 F.Supp. 303, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1995, 44 F.3d 1345. A.I. Credit Corp. v. Hartford Computer Group, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 847 F.Supp. 588. Genin, Trudeau & Co., Ltd. v. Integra Dev. Int'l, D.C.Ill.1994, 845 F.Supp. 611. KRW Sales, Inc. v. Kristel Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 154 F.R.D. 186. Knauz Continental Autos, Inc. v. Land Rover No. America, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 842 F.Supp. 1034. O'Hern v. Delta Airlines, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1264. Greenley v. Meersman, D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 381. U.S. v. $288,930.00 in U.S. Currency, D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 367.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. Edgar, D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 927. Great Lakes Higher Educ. Corp. v. Austin Bank of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 892. Ruich v. Ruff, Weidenaar & Reidy, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 881. AM International, Inc. v. Graphic Management Associates, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 836 F.Supp. 487, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 44 F.3d 572. Madden v. Country Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1081. Falk v. U.H.H. Home Servs. Corp., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1078. Napoli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1053, vacated on other grounds D.C.Ill.1996, 926 F.Supp. 780. Janopoulos v. Harvey L. Walner & Associates, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 459. Admiral Theatre v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1195. Chemical Futures & Options, Inc. v. RTC, D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1188. Wilson v. Formigoni, D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1152, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1994, 42 F.3d 1060. Matter v. Williams, D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 244. National Serv. Ass'n, Inc. v. Capitol Bankers Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 227. Douglas v. Tonigan, D.C.Ill.1993, 830 F.Supp. 457. Amati v. City of Woodstock, Illinois, D.C.Ill.1993, 829 F.Supp. 998. Stein v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook County, Illinois, D.C.Ill.1993, 829 F.Supp. 251. Dobiecki v. Palacios, D.C.Ill.1993, 829 F.Supp. 229. Allen v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1993, 828 F.Supp. 543. Neal v. Honeywell, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 826 F.Supp. 266, affirmed C.A.7th, 1994, 33 F.3d 860. Hengel, Inc. v. Hot 'N Now, D.C.Ill.1993, 825 F.Supp. 1311. Eberhardt v. O'Malley, D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1090, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1994, 17 F.3d 1023. Havey v. County of DuPage, D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 359. Bercoon, Weiner, Glick & Brook v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1152. Alber v. Illinois Dep't of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities, D.C.Ill.1993, 816 F.Supp. 1298. Flynn Beverage Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1174. Small v. Sullivan, D.C.Ill.1992, 820 F.Supp. 1098. Kas v. Caterpillar, Inc., D.C.Ill.1992, 815 F.Supp. 1158 (defendant may not present different set of allegations to refute plaintiff's complaint). Bailey v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., D.C.Ill.1992, 814 F.Supp. 37. Tektel, Inc. v. Maier, D.C.Ill.1992, 813 F.Supp. 1331. In re Abbott Labs. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ill.1992, 813 F.Supp. 1315. Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., D.C.Ill.1992, 812 F.Supp. 788, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1993, 987 F.2d 429, on remand D.C.Ill.1994, 1994 WL 71430. Johnson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Ill.1992, 809 F.Supp. 602, 604 n. 1, affirmed C.A.7th, 1993, 9 F.3d 112. Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc. v. CJR Processing, Inc., D.C.Ill.1992, 808 F.Supp. 652. Gadson v. Newman, D.C.Ill.1992, 807 F.Supp. 1412. Wright v. Bosch Trucking Co., D.C.Ill.1992, 804 F.Supp. 1069. Harris v. O'Grady, D.C.Ill.1992, 803 F.Supp. 1361. Illinois Constructors Corp. v. Morency & Associates, Inc., D.C.Ill.1992, 802 F.Supp. 185. Wright v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., D.C.Ill.1992, 796 F.Supp. 1120. Van Schouwen v. Connaught Corp., D.C.Ill.1991, 782 F.Supp. 1240, 1243, citing Wright & Miller. Seinfeld v. Hospital Corp. of America, D.C.Ill.1988, 685 F.Supp. 1057, 1058 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller. Flores v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1988, 682 F.Supp. 950. Sostrin v. Altschul, D.C.Ill.1980, 492 F.Supp. 486, 487, citing Wright & Miller. Hillebrand v. Sav-Co, D.C.Ill.1972, 353 F.Supp. 19. South East Chicago Comm'n v. Department of HUD, D.C.Ill.1972, 343 F.Supp. 62. Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., D.C.Ill.1969, 295 F.Supp. 139.

Indiana Nikolic v. St. Catherine Hosp., 2011 WL 4537911 (N.D. Ind. 2011).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

DKT v. City of Kokomo, 2011 WL 672626 (S.D. Ind. 2011). Black v. United Parcel Service, 2010 WL 2734772, *1 (S.D. Ind. 2010). Marion County Democratic Party v. Marion County Election Bd., D.C.Ind.2002, 2002 WL 1354717. Bricker v. Federal-Mogul Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 29 F.Supp.2d 508. Hurd v. Monsanto Co., D.C.Ind.1995, 908 F.Supp. 604, affirmed in part C.A.7th, 1997, 107 F.3d 873. Robinson v. Howell, D.C.Ind.1995, 902 F.Supp. 836. Stamatio v. Hurco Cos., D.C.Ind.1995, 885 F.Supp. 1180. Brown v. Secretary of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., D.C.Ind.1994, 874 F.Supp. 238, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 61 F.3d 905. West v. LTV Steel Co., D.C.Ind.1993, 839 F.Supp. 559. Tracy v. Bittles, D.C.Ind.1993, 820 F.Supp. 396. Washington v. Foresman, D.C.Ind.1993, 148 F.R.D. 241. Inner City Leasing & Trucking Co. v. City of Gary, Indiana, D.C.Ind.1990, 759 F.Supp. 461. Wiley v. Federal Land Bank, D.C.Ind.1987, 657 F.Supp. 964 (allegations of pro se complaint evaluated by even less stringent standard). Guernsey v. Rich Plan of the Midwest, D.C.Ind.1976, 408 F.Supp. 582.

Wisconsin Smith v. Encore Capital Group Inc., 2013 WL 4507855, *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013), citing Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Hy Cite Corp. v. Regal Ware, Inc., 2011 WL 1206768, *5 (W.D. Wis. 2011). Edgenet, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 148389, *1 (E.D. Wis. 2010). Perry v. Scaible, 2008 WL 2324641 (E.D. Wis. 2008). Hoffman v. Kelz, D.C.Wis.2006, 443 F.Supp.2d 1007. Northgate Motors, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Wis.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1071. Pleva v. Norquist, D.C.Wis.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 839, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 195 F.3d 905 (affidavits are not needed). Classon v. Shopko Stores, Inc., D.C.Wis.1977, 435 F.Supp. 1186. Sullivan v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1977, 428 F.Supp. 79. McKee v. Breier, D.C.Wis.1976, 417 F.Supp. 189. Wisniewski v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1976, 416 F.Supp. 599. Hayes v. Schmidt, D.C.Wis.1975, 69 F.R.D. 56. Guerrero v. Schmidt, D.C.Wis.1973, 352 F.Supp. 789.

Eighth Circuit Mulvenon v. Greenwood, 643 F.3d 653, 656 (8th Cir. 2011). Mathers v. Wright, 636 F.3d 396, 397 (8th Cir. 2011). Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, 635 F.3d 364, 365 (8th Cir. 2011). O'Neal v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 630 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2011). Shipp v. GfK NOP, LLC, 325 Fed. Appx. 481 (8th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Eighth Circuit Rule 32.1A). Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. 2008). In re K-tel Int'l, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.8th, 2002, 300 F.3d 881, citing Wright & Miller. Schaller Telephone Co. v. Golden Sky Sys., Inc., C.A.8th, 2002, 298 F.3d 736, citing Wright & Miller. Hanten v. School Dist. of Riverview Gardens, C.A.8th, 1999, 183 F.3d 799. De Llano v. Berglund, C.A.8th, 1999, 183 F.3d 780, on remand D.C.N.D.2001, 142 F.Supp.2d 1165. St. Croix Waterway Ass'n v. Meyer, C.A.8th, 1999, 178 F.3d 515. Gordon v. Hansen, C.A.8th, 1999, 168 F.3d 1109. Midwestern Machinery, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., C.A.8th, 1999, 167 F.3d 439. Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank of Poplar Bluff, C.A.8th, 1999, 167 F.3d 402, appeal after remand C.A.8th, 2000, 210 F.3d 380. Duffy v. Landberg, C.A.8th, 1998, 133 F.3d 1120, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 62, 525 U.S. 821, 142 L.Ed.2d 49. Hafley v. Lohman, C.A.8th, 1996, 90 F.3d 264, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 1081, 519 U.S. 1149, 137 L.Ed.2d 216. Hamm v. Groose, C.A.8th, 1994, 15 F.3d 110. Kosulandich v. Survival Technology, Inc., C.A.8th, 1993, 997 F.2d 431, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Davis v. Hall, C.A.8th, 1993, 992 F.2d 151 (per curiam). McCormack v. Citibank, N.A., C.A.8th, 1992, 979 F.2d 643, appeal after remand C.A.8th, 1996, 100 F.3d 532. A court cannot dismiss a complaint based on a disbelief of the factual allegations. Murphy v. Lancaster, C.A.8th, 1992, 960 F.2d 746. Park View Heights Corp. v. City of Black Jack, C.A.8th, 1972, 467 F.2d 1208.

Arkansas Kolbek v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church Inc., 2011 WL 2489953 (W.D. Ark. 2011). Callaghan v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2010 WL 4973731 (E.D. Ark. 2010). Fairless v. CJH, LLC, 2010 WL 2134225, *4 (W.D. Ark. 2010). Roy v. City of Little Rock, D.C.Ark.1995, 902 F.Supp. 871. Davis v. Fulton County, Arkansas, D.C.Ark.1995, 884 F.Supp. 1245, affirmed C.A.8th, 1996, 90 F.3d 1346. Chandler v. Fast Lane, Inc., D.C.Ark.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1138.

Iowa Holt v. Quality Egg, L.L.C., 777 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1168 (N.D. Iowa 2011). Mills v. Iowa Bd. of Regents, 770 F. Supp. 2d 986, 991 (S.D. Iowa 2011). Fesler v. Whelen Engineering Co., Inc., 716 F. Supp. 2d 831, 832-833 (S.D. Iowa 2010). Canterbury v. Federal–Mogul Ignition Co., D.C.Iowa 2006, 418 F.Supp.2d 1112. Stepp v. State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co., D.C.Iowa 2006, 2006 WL 2038596. Nuss v. Central Iowa Binding Corp., D.C.Iowa 2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 1187. Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, D.C.Iowa 2002, 212 F.Supp.2d 1034, affirmed C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Schultzen v. Woodbury Cent. Community School Dist., D.C.Iowa 2002, 187 F.Supp.2d 1099. Phillips Kiln Servs., Ltd. v. International Paper Co., D.C.Iowa 2002, 2002 WL 1712870. Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations. Iowa Health Sys. v. Trinity Health Corp., D.C.Iowa 2001, 177 F.Supp.2d 897. Thompson v. Thalacker, D.C.Iowa 1996, 950 F.Supp. 1440. Slycord v. Chater, D.C.Iowa 1996, 921 F.Supp. 631. Powell v. Tordoff, D.C.Iowa 1995, 911 F.Supp. 1184. Zamora v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., D.C.Iowa 1972, 336 F.Supp. 588. Patrick v. I.D. Packing Co., D.C.Iowa 1969, 308 F.Supp. 821.

Minnesota Gewecke v. US Bank N.A., 2011 WL 4538083, *2 (D. Minn. 2011). Christopher v. Hanson, 2010 WL 3023417, *2 (D. Minn. 2010). Sales Bd. v. Pfizer, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Minn. 2009). Motley v. Homecomings Financial, LLC, 557 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (D. Minn. 2008). Force v. ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., D.C.Minn.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 843. Midwestern Machinery Co. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., D.C.Minn.1998, 990 F.Supp. 1128, reversed on other grounds C.A.8th, 1999 167 F.3d 439 (court looks to complaint as pleaded). Thompson v. Olsten Kimberly Quality-Care, Inc., D.C.Minn.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1035. In re Temporomandibular Joint Implants Prods. Liability Litigation, D.C.Minn.1995, 872 F.Supp. 1019, affirmed C.A.8th, 1996, 97 F.3d 1050. James v. Ford Motor Credit Co., D.C.Minn.1994, 842 F.Supp. 1202, affirmed C.A.8th, 1995, 47 F.3d 961. In re U.S.A. ex rel. Hall Litigation, D.C.Minn.1993, 825 F.Supp. 1422, affirmed C.A.8th, 1994, 27 F.3d 572. Ossman v. Diana Corp., D.C.Minn.1993, 825 F.Supp. 870. Dou Yee Enterprises (S) PTE, Ltd. v. Advantek, Inc., D.C.Minn.1993, 149 F.R.D. 185. Richards v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co., D.C.Minn.1992, 804 F.Supp. 1101. Sixel v. Transportation Communications, D.C.Minn.1989, 708 F.Supp. 240. Scarrella v. Spannaus, D.C.Minn.1974, 376 F.Supp. 857.

Missouri Kramer v. America's Wholesale Lenders, 2011 WL 577390 (E.D. Mo. 2011).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bright v. U.S., 107 A.F.T.R.2d 2011-2473, 2010 WL 6823657 (W.D. Mo. 2010), aff'd, 418 Fed. Appx. 577 (8th Cir. 2011). Guarantee Co. of North America, USA v. Middleton Bros., Inc., 2010 WL 2801879, *2 (E.D. Mo. 2010). Hart v. U.S., 2010 WL 2720819, *2 (E.D. Mo. 2010). Keith v. Thompson, D.C.Mo.2006, 2006 WL 839193. Price v. Harrah's Maryland Heights Operating Co., D.C.Mo.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 919. Medlock v. City of St. Charles, D.C.Mo.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 1079. Filbern v. Habitat for Humanity, Inc., D.C.Mo.1999, 57 F.Supp.2d 833. Spinks v. City of St. Louis Water Div., D.C.Mo.1997, 176 F.R.D. 572. Lilley v. Missouri, D.C.Mo.1996, 920 F.Supp. 1035. Baucom v. DePaul Health Center, D.C.Mo.1996, 918 F.Supp. 288. Mann v. Duke Mfg. Co., D.C.Mo.1996, 166 F.R.D. 415. RTC v. Gershman, D.C.Mo.1993, 829 F.Supp. 1095. Kizer v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, D.C.Mo.1993, 816 F.Supp. 548. Tanner v. Presidents-First Lady Spa, Inc., D.C.Mo.1972, 345 F.Supp. 950. When the plaintiffs specifically alleged a taking within the meaning of the constitutional provisions, the allegations would be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and the action would not be dismissed on the theory that it was one in tort. Jim Young Dev. Corp. v. State Highway Comm'n of Missouri, D.C.Mo.1971, 56 F.R.D. 38.

Nebraska Holt v. Bose, 2011 WL 3679820 (D. Neb. 2011). Hawkins v. County of Lincoln, 2010 WL 2039656, *2 (D. Neb. 2010). Lemp v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2008 WL 2276935 (D. Neb. 2008). Ramos v. Crosby, D.C.Neb.2006, 2006 WL 1134909. Geir v. Educational Serv. Unit No. 16, D.C.Neb.1992, 144 F.R.D. 680 (Peister, M.J.).

North Dakota Graham Const. Services, Inc. v. Hammer & Steel, Inc., 2011 WL 3236083 (D.N.D. 2011). Peak North Dakota, LLC v. Wilkinson, 2010 WL 2813508, *3 (D.N.D. 2010). Thomson v. Olson, D.C.N.D.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1267.

South Dakota Alltell Communications, LLC v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 52 Communications Reg. (P & F) 712, 2011 WL 796409 (D.S.D. 2011). FGS Constructors, Inc. v. Carlow, D.C.S.D.1993, 823 F.Supp. 1508. Mousseaux v. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, D.C.S.D.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1433.

Ninth Circuit Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 850, 181 L. Ed. 2d 550 (2011). New Mexico State Investment Council v. Ernst & Young LLP, 641 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011). Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 629 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2010), reh'g en banc granted, 2011 WL 5336269 (9th Cir. 2011). William O. Gilley Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 588 F.3d 659, 662 (9th Cir. 2009). al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2009). Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG, 578 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 578 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2009), opinion amended and superseded on other grounds on other grounds on denial of reh'g en banc, 2010 WL 114959 (9th Cir. 2010). North County Community Alliance, Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2009). Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009). Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009). Northern Highlands I, II, LLC v. Comerica Bank, 328 Fed. Appx. 358 (9th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3). Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean, Geological Formation, 524 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008). National Audubon Soc., Inc. v. Davis, C.A.9th, 2002, 307 F.3d 835, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., C.A.9th, 2002, 301 F.3d 1163, citing Wright & Miller. Gompper v. VISX, Incorporated, C.A.9th, 2002, 298 F.3d 893, citing Wright & Miller. Oki Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n, C.A.9th, 2002, 298 F.3d 768, citing Wright & Miller. Lapidus v. Hecht, C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 679. DeGrassi v. City of Glendora, C.A.9th, 2000, 207 F.3d 636. WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, C.A.9th, 1999, 197 F.3d 367. Bollard v. California Province of the Soc. of Jesus, C.A.9th, 1999, 196 F.3d 940. Maktab Tarighe Oveyssi Shah Maghsoudi, Inc. v. Kianfar, C.A.9th, 1999, 179 F.3d 1244. Tworivers v. Lewis, C.A.9th, 1999, 174 F.3d 987. Graham v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, C.A.9th, 1998, 149 F.3d 997. Geweke Ford v. St. Joseph's Omni Preferred Care Inc., C.A.9th, 1997, 130 F.3d 1355. Stone v. Writer's Guild of America West, Inc., C.A.9th, 1996, 101 F.3d 1312. Iolab Corp. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., C.A.9th, 1994, 15 F.3d 1500. In re Wells Fargo Secs. Litigation, C.A.9th, 1993, 12 F.3d 922. Westlands Water Dist. v. Firebaugh Canal, C.A.9th, 1993, 10 F.3d 667. Figueroa v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1993, 7 F.3d 1405, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 1537, 511 U.S. 1030, 128 L.Ed.2d 190. Pack v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1993, 992 F.2d 955. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., C.A.9th, 1993, 992 F.2d 932 (failure to read complaint in light most favorable to plaintiff is reversible error). Abramson v. Brownstein, C.A.9th, 1990, 897 F.2d 389. Mark v. Groff, C.A.9th, 1975, 521 F.2d 1376. Dodd v. Spokane County, Washington, C.A.9th, 1968, 393 F.2d 330. Brown v. Brown, C.A.9th, 1966, 368 F.2d 992, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 133, 385 U.S. 868, 17 L.Ed.2d 95. Liberal construction of the pleadings is especially called for when they are prepared by a layman. DeWitt v. Pail, C.A.9th, 1966, 366 F.2d 682.

Alaska Alaska Cargo Transp., Inc. v. Alaska R.R. Corp., D.C.Alaska 1991, 834 F.Supp. 1216, citing Wright & Miller.

Arizona M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Lerner, 2010 WL 5232970 (D. Ariz. 2010). Baca ex rel. Nominal Defendant Insight Enterprises, Inc. v. Crown, 2010 WL 2812712, *3 (D. Ariz. 2010). Phoenix Payment Solutions, Inc. v. Towner, 2008 WL 2263765 (D. Ariz. 2008). Hisel v. Spencer, D.C.Ariz.2006, 2006 WL 2091666. Medina v. Chas Roberts Air Conditioning, Inc., D.C.Ariz.2006, 2006 WL 2091665. Bailey v. IRS, D.C.Ariz.1999, 188 F.R.D. 346. RTC v. Dean, D.C.Ariz.1994, 854 F.Supp. 626. Espinoza v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc., D.C.Ariz.1990, 806 F.Supp. 855.

California Taylor v. Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, 2011 WL 1303430 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Manestar v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 686252 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Zepeda v. Tate, 2010 WL 4977596 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Escalante v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4975658 (S.D. Cal. 2010). Kingsburg Apple Packers, Inc. v. Ballantine Produce Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2817056, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."). Young v. City of Visalia, 2009 WL 2567847 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Anderson v. Fishback, 2009 WL 2423327 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Nera v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 2009 WL 2423109 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Uptergrove v. U.S., 2008 WL 2413182 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (mem. op.).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Consiglio v. Woodford, D.C.Cal.2007, 2007 WL 1655496. Ellis v. Hollister, Inc., D.C.Cal.2006, 2006 WL 988529. Laster v. T–Mobile USA, Inc., D.C.Cal.2005, 407 F.Supp.2d 1181. 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., D.C.Cal.2004, 307 F.Supp.2d 1085. Foley v. Marquez, D.C.Cal.2003, 2003 WL 22288160. Gallardo v. DiCarlo, D.C.Cal.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 1160. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., D.C.Cal.2002, 194 F.Supp.2d 1040. Van Hulle v. Pacific Telesis Corp., D.C.Cal.2000, 124 F.Supp.2d 642. Scherz v. South Carolina Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 1000. Guerrero v. Gates, D.C.Cal.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 1287. Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino, D.C.Cal.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 1239 (material allegations). Migliori v. Boeing No. American, Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 1001 (material allegations). Smeltzer v. Slater, D.C.Cal.2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 1095. Barapind v. Reno, D.C.Cal.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132. Roe v. Unocal Corp., D.C.Cal.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1073 (material allegations). Nuno v. County of San Bernardino, D.C.Cal.1999, 58 F.Supp.2d 1127. York v. Huerta-Garcia, D.C.Cal.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 1231. Pegasus Holdings v. Veterinary Centers of America, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 38 F.Supp.2d 1158. Silva v. M/V First Lady, D.C.Cal.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 581. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., D.C.Cal.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 1013. Utility Reform Network v. California Public Utils. Comm'n, D.C.Cal.1997, 26 F.Supp.2d 1208. Diaz v. Carlson, D.C.Cal.1997, 5 F.Supp.2d 809, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 142 F.3d 443, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 225, 525 U.S. 898, 142 L.Ed.2d 185. Fontanilla v. City & County of San Francisco, D.C.Cal.1997, 987 F.Supp. 1206, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 205 F.3d 1351 (material allegations). Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1303. Brenizer v. Ray, D.C.Cal.1996, 915 F.Supp. 176. Cevallos v. City of Los Angeles, D.C.Cal.1996, 914 F.Supp. 379. Himaka v. Buddhist Churches of America, D.C.Cal.1995, 917 F.Supp. 698. Bates v. Jones, D.C.Cal.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1080. Grace v. Federal Emergency Management, D.C.Cal.1995, 889 F.Supp. 394, citing Wright & Miller. General Star Indem. Co. v. Schools Excess Liability Fund, D.C.Cal.1995, 888 F.Supp. 1022. DePaoli v. Carlton, D.C.Cal.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1351. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, D.C.Cal.1994, 871 F.Supp. 381. Steiner v. Hale, D.C.Cal.1994, 868 F.Supp. 284 (material allegations of fact). Trenton v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., D.C.Cal.1994, 865 F.Supp. 1416. Bloom v. Martin, D.C.Cal.1994, 865 F.Supp. 1377, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 77 F.3d 318. Independent Cellular Telephone, Inc. v. Daniels & Associates, D.C.Cal.1994, 863 F.Supp. 1109. Haskell v. Time, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1392. In re Teledyne Defense Contracting Derivative Litigation, D.C.Cal.1993, 849 F.Supp. 1369. Haltman v. Aura Sys., Inc., D.C.Cal.1993, 844 F.Supp. 544. Palm v. U.S., D.C.Cal.1993, 835 F.Supp. 512. Baugh v. CBS, Incorporated, D.C.Cal.1993, 828 F.Supp. 745. Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1993, 823 F.Supp. 715. Kaufman & Broad-South Bay v. Unisys Corp., D.C.Cal.1993, 822 F.Supp. 1468. Van Dyke v. Regents of Univ. of California, D.C.Cal.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1341. Rose v. City of Los Angeles, D.C.Cal.1993, 814 F.Supp. 878. Cabo Distributing Co. v. Brady, D.C.Cal.1992, 821 F.Supp. 601. Wanetick v. Mel's of Modesto, D.C.Cal.1992, 811 F.Supp. 1402. Rintel v. Wathen, D.C.Cal.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1467.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1503, affirmed C.A.9th, 1993, 10 F.3d 667. Doe v. Schachter, D.C.Cal.1992, 804 F.Supp. 53. Lindsey v. Admiral Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1992, 804 F.Supp. 47. Whitman v. Schlumberger Ltd., D.C.Cal.1992, 793 F.Supp. 228, 230, quoting Wright & Miller. Swensen v. Murchison, D.C.Cal.1981, 507 F.Supp. 509. Sanfilippo v. County of Santa Cruz, D.C.Cal.1976, 415 F.Supp. 1340. Crofoot v. Sperry Rand Corp., D.C.Cal.1976, 408 F.Supp. 1154. Keker v. Procunier, D.C.Cal.1975, 398 F.Supp. 756. Hagan v. California, D.C.Cal.1967, 265 F.Supp. 174.

Hawaii Levy v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 WL 2493055 (D. Haw. 2011). Herschelman v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 2010 WL 4448224, *2 (D. Haw. 2010). Kapu v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2010 WL 2943339, *2 (D. Haw. 2010). Davis v. Evangelist, 2009 WL 2447897 (E.D. La. 2009). Hawaii Forest & Trial Ltd. v. Davey, 556 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (D. Haw. 2008). Deck v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., D.C.Haw.2000, 121 F.Supp.2d 1292. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Andraea Partners, D.C.Haw.2000, 197 F.R.D. 424. Coulter v. Bronster, D.C.Haw.1999, 57 F.Supp.2d 1028. Burns-Vidlak by Burns v. Chandler, D.C.Haw.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1144. Sloan v. West, D.C.Haw.1996, 8 F.Supp.2d 1207. Moore v. Kamikawa, D.C.Haw.1995, 940 F.Supp. 260. Forsyth v. Eli Lilly & Co., D.C.Haw.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1153. Covington v. U.S., D.C.Haw.1995, 902 F.Supp. 1207. Erickson v. West, D.C.Haw.1995, 876 F.Supp. 239 (material facts). Kersting v. U.S., D.C.Haw.1992, 818 F.Supp. 297, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 206 F.3d 817. Paulson, Inc. v. Bromar, Inc., D.C.Haw.1992, 808 F.Supp. 736. Smith v. Hurd, D.C.Haw.1988, 699 F.Supp. 1433.

Idaho Denton v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Idaho, 2011 WL 1584833 (D. Idaho 2011) (non-conclusory, factual allegations must be accepted as true). Bauer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2595291, *4 (D. Idaho 2010) ("First, a district court must accept as true all non- conclusory, factual allegations made in the complaint."). Samuel v. Michaud, D.C.Idaho 1996, 980 F.Supp. 1381, affirmed C.A.9th, 1997, 129 F.3d 127. Santana v. Zilog, Inc., D.C.Idaho 1995, 878 F.Supp. 1373. Erickson v. Luke, D.C.Idaho 1995, 878 F.Supp. 1364.

Montana Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library, 2011 WL 4499043 (D. Mont. 2011). Engebretson v. Mahoney, 2010 WL 2683202, *2 (D. Mont. 2010). Knievel v. ESPN, Incorporated, D.C.Mont.2002, 223 F.Supp.2d 1173.

Nevada Martinez v. Bank of America, 2011 WL 1740146 (D. Nev. 2011). Wheeler v. Terrible Herbst, 2010 WL 4983302 (D. Nev. 2010). Robins v. Wolf Firm, 2010 WL 2817202, *1 (D. Nev. 2010). Crockett & Myers, Ltd. v. Napier, Fitzgerald & Kirby, LLP., D.C.Nev.2006, 430 F.Supp.2d 1157. In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Nev.2005, 408 F.Supp.2d 1055. Pesci v. IRS, D.C.Nev.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 1189 (material allegations). In re Anchor Gaming Secs. Litigation, D.C.Nev.1999, 33 F.Supp.2d 889.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Atilano v. U.S., D.C.Nev.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 1276. Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, D.C.Nev.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1474, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1994, 34 F.3d 753.

Oregon Dauven v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 2010 WL 2640119, *3 (D. Or. 2010). U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Franulovic, D.C.Ore.2007, 2007 WL 1598091. Garcia v. Washington County Dep't of Housing Servs., D.C.Ore.2006, 2006 WL 897984. Simson v. U.S., D.C.Ore.1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 1193. U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. TCG Oregon, D.C.Ore.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 1237. U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. MFS Intelenet, Inc., D.C.Ore.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 1221. Upchurch v. USTNet, Inc., D.C.Ore.1993, 836 F.Supp. 737. Johnson v. Con-Vey/Keystone, Inc., D.C.Ore.1993, 814 F.Supp. 931. Oregon Environmental Council v. Oregon Dep't of Environmental Quality, D.C.Ore.1991, 775 F.Supp. 353.

Washington Phillips v. World Pub. Co., 2011 WL 4899973 (W.D. Wash. 2011). Parker v. Barclays Bank Delaware, 2011 WL 2709407 (E.D. Wash. 2011). Old Republic Title, Ltd. v. Kelley, 2010 WL 4259599, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2010). National City Bank, N.A. v. Prime Lending, Inc., 2010 WL 2854247, *2 (E.D. Wash. 2010) ("In ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b) (6), a court must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and must accept all material factual allegations in the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom."). Wapato Heritage, LLC v. Evans, 2008 WL 2403653 (E.D. Wash. 2008). Pierce v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., D.C.Wash.2006, 422 F.Supp.2d 1230. Sayers v. Bam Margera, Inc., D.C.Wash.2005, 2005 WL 2789051. Association of Washington Public Hosp. Dists. v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Wash.1999, 79 F.Supp.2d 1219. In re Boeing Secs. Litigation, D.C.Wash.1998, 40 F.Supp.2d 1160 (standard not changed by application of Rule 9(b)). Ziegler v. Ziegler, D.C.Wash.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 601.

Tenth Circuit Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 653 F.3d 1281, 1285-1286 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1574, 182 L.Ed.2d 171 (2012). Kerber v. Qwest Group Life Ins. Plan, 647 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2011). Leverington v. City of Colorado Springs, 643 F.3d 719 (10th Cir. 2011). Fournerat v. Wisconsin Law Review, 420 Fed. Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 290, 181 L. Ed. 2d 175 (2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Marshall v. Milyard, 415 Fed. Appx. 850, 852 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Edge v. Payne, 342 Fed. Appx. 395 (10th Cir. 2009). Larsen v. Johnston, 327 Fed. Appx. 53 (10th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1). Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 324 Fed. Appx. 717 (10th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1). Thomas v. New Mexico Corrections Dept., 272 Fed. Appx. 727 (10th Cir. 2008). Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corp., C.A.10th, 2005, 425 F.3d 1249. MacArthur v. San Juan County, C.A.10th, 2002, 309 F.3d 1216. Robbins v. Wilkie, C.A.10th, 2002, 300 F.3d 1208, citing Wright & Miller. Ruiz v. McDonnell, C.A.10th, 2002, 299 F.3d 1173, citing Wright & Miller. Taylor v. Stewart, C.A.10th, 2002, 49 Fed.Appx. 262 (unpublished). Elliott v. Cummings, C.A.10th, 2002, 49 Fed.Appx. 220 (unpublished). Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep't, C.A.10th, 1999, 195 F.3d 553. Calderon v. Kansas Dep't of Social & Rehabilitation Servs., C.A.10th, 1999, 181 F.3d 1180. Prager v. LaFaver, C.A.10th, 1999, 180 F.3d 1185. Sutton v. Utah State School for the Deaf & Blind, C.A.10th, 1999, 173 F.3d 1226. Ordinance 59 Ass'n v. U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary, C.A.10th, 1998, 163 F.3d 1150.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Leonhardt v. Western Sugar Co., C.A.10th, 1998, 160 F.3d 631. David v. City of Denver, C.A.10th, 1996, 101 F.3d 1344, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 157, 522 U.S. 858, 139 L.Ed.2d 102. Gagan v. Norton, C.A.10th, 1994, 35 F.3d 1473, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 1175, 513 U.S. 1183, 130 L.Ed.2d 1128. Graham v. Independent School Dist. No. I-89, C.A.10th, 1994, 22 F.3d 991. Lafoy v. HMO Colorado, C.A.10th, 1993, 988 F.2d 97. Dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted presents a question of law that a court of appeals reviews de novo; in doing so, the court accepts all factual allegations of the plaintiff as true. Zilkha Energy Co. v. Leighton, C.A.10th, 1990, 920 F.2d 1520. Olpin v. Ideal Nat. Ins. Co., C.A.10th, 1969, 419 F.2d 1250, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 1522, 397 U.S. 1074, 25 L.Ed.2d 809. On review after a dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief, the complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Martin v. King, C.A.10th, 1969, 417 F.2d 458. Ryan v. Scoggin, C.A.10th, 1957, 245 F.2d 54.

Colorado Katz v. Gerardi, 2010 WL 3034358, *3 (D. Colo. 2010). Blackburn v. City of Arvada, Colorado, 2008 WL 2441987 (D. Colo. 2008). Hurtado v. Reno, D.C.Colo.1999, 34 F.Supp.2d 1261. Amoco Production Co. v. Aspen Group, D.C.Colo.1998, 25 F.Supp.2d 1162 (crosscomplaint). Bowe v. SMC Electrical Prods., Inc., D.C.Colo.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1066. Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., D.C.Colo.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1191, reversed C.A.10th, 1997, 124 F.3d 1246. Burkins v. U.S., D.C.Colo.1994, 865 F.Supp. 1480. Allstate Ins. Co. v. U.S., D.C.Colo.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1015. Larsen v. Early, D.C.Colo.1994, 842 F.Supp. 1310. Haney v. Castle Meadows, Inc., D.C.Colo.1993, 839 F.Supp. 753. Sierra Club v. Colorado Refining Co., D.C.Colo.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1428. Fostvedt v. U.S., IRS, D.C.Colo.1993, 824 F.Supp. 978. In re Exabyte Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Colo.1993, 823 F.Supp. 866. First Bet Joint Venture v. City of Cent. City, D.C.Colo.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1409. Mass v. Martin Marietta Corp., D.C.Colo.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1530. American Cas. Co. v. Glaskin, D.C.Colo.1992, 805 F.Supp. 866. Fry v. Board of County Comm'rs of the County of Baca, D.C.Colo.1991, 837 F.Supp. 330. White v. Talboys, D.C.Colo.1986, 635 F.Supp. 505, 507, citing Wright & Miller. Upah v. Thornton Dev. Authority, D.C.Colo.1986, 632 F.Supp. 1279, 1281, quoting Wright & Miller. Geralnes B.V. v. City of Greenwood Village, D.C.Colo.1986, 630 F.Supp. 644, 650–651 n. 8, citing Wright & Miller. Brezinski v. F.W. Woolworth Co., D.C.Colo.1986, 626 F.Supp. 240, 241, citing Wright & Miller. Trejo v. Wattles, D.C.Colo.1985, 636 F.Supp. 992, 995, citing Wright & Miller. Geralnes B.V. v. City of Greenwood Village, Colorado, D.C.Colo.1984, 583 F.Supp. 830, 837, citing Wright & Miller. Martinez v. Winner, D.C.Colo.1982, 548 F.Supp. 278, 286, citing Wright & Miller. Powers v. Mancos School Dist. Re-6 Montezuma County, Colorado, D.C.Colo.1973, 369 F.Supp. 648.

Kansas Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 1457950 (D. Kan. 2011), aff'd, 436 Fed. Appx. 835 (10th Cir. 2011). Shepard v. Applebee's Intern., Inc., 2010 WL 1418588, *1 (D. Kan. 2010). Ice Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Inc., D.C.Kan.2006, 444 F.Supp.2d 1165. Full Faith Church of Love West, Inc. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., Inc., D.C.Kan.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 1285. Marrie v. Nickels, D.C.Kan.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1252. Graham v. Prudential Home Mortgage Co., D.C.Kan.1999, 186 F.R.D. 651. IMC Chemicals, Inc. v. Niro, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 1328. Reidenbach v. U.S.D. #437, D.C.Kan.1995, 878 F.Supp. 178. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1995, 874 F.Supp. 332. Parsons v. Board of County Comm'rs of Marshall County, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1994, 873 F.Supp. 542.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Gilmore v. List & Clark Constr. Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1310. Barton Solvents, Inc. v. Southwest Petro-Chem, Inc., D.C.Kan.1993, 836 F.Supp. 757. Kaul v. Stephan, D.C.Kan.1993, 828 F.Supp. 1504. Monarch Normandy Square Partners v. Normandy Square Associates Ltd. Partnership, D.C.Kan.1993, 817 F.Supp. 899.

New Mexico Simon v. Taylor, 2013 WL 5934024, *22 (D.N.M. 2013). Sundance Services, Inc. v. Roach, 2011 WL 3608014 (D.N.M. 2011). Lopez v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1239. Benavidez v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1997, 998 F.Supp. 1225.

Oklahoma Michael v. Newton-Embry, 2011 WL 4007335 (W.D. Okla. 2011). Southcrest, L.L.C. v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 2011 WL 3881495 (N.D. Okla. 2011). Shelton-Heppel v. Parker Pest Control, Inc., 2010 WL 2737130, *1 (W.D. Okla. 2010). Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., D.C.Okl.1976, 74 F.R.D. 357. Hatridge v. Seaboard Sur., D.C.Okl.1976, 74 F.R.D. 6. Niece v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Okl.1968, 293 F.Supp. 792.

Utah Holgers v. South Salt Lake City, 2011 WL 98488 (D. Utah 2011). Rodeback v. Utah Financial, 2010 WL 2757243, *1 (D. Utah 2010). Larson v. Snow College, D.C.Utah 2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 1296. Coalition for Sustainable Resources v. U.S. Forest Serv., D.C.Wyo.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 1303. Jensen v. Reeves, D.C.Utah 1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 1265. In re Commercial Explosives Litigation, D.C.Utah 1996, 945 F.Supp. 1489. Arena Land & Inv. Co. v. Petty, D.C.Utah 1994, 906 F.Supp. 1470. Goodnight v. Shalala, D.C.Utah 1993, 837 F.Supp. 1564. Iadanza v. Mather, D.C.Utah 1993, 820 F.Supp. 1371.

Wyoming Konigsberg v. Mullikin, Larson & Swift LLC, 2011 WL 4929109 (D. Wyo. 2011). Marshall v. Board of County Comm'rs for Johnson County, Wyoming, D.C.Wyo.1996, 912 F.Supp. 1456. Duart v. FMC Wyoming Corp., D.C.Wyo.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1447, affirmed C.A.10th, 1995, 72 F.3d 117. Goss v. Sullivan, D.C.Wyo.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1532. Hirsch v. Copenhaver, D.C.Wyo.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1524, 1528, citing Wright & Miller. White v. Continental Gen. Ins. Co., D.C.Wyo.1993, 831 F.Supp. 1545. Bussell v. Stahl, D.C.Wyo.1987, 669 F.Supp. 381, 383, citing Wright & Miller.

Eleventh Circuit F.T.C. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 677 F.3d 1298, 1306 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 787 (2012). Lord Abbett Mun. Income Fund, Inc. v. Tyson, 671 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 126, 184 L. Ed. 2d 27 (2012). Ganstine v. Williams, 476 Fed. Appx. 361 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Kivisto v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, 413 Fed. Appx. 136, 138 (11th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 577, 181 L.Ed.2d 441 (2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Duru v. HSBC Card Services, Inc., 411 Fed. Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Nettles v. City of Leesburg—Police Dept., 415 Fed. Appx. 116, 120 (11th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Porter v. Duval County School Bd., 406 Fed. Appx. 460, 462 (11th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Carvel v. Godley, 404 Fed. Appx. 359, 361 (11th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Redland Co., Inc. v. Bank of America Corp., 568 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2009). Peart v. Shippie, 345 Fed. Appx. 384 (11th Cir. 2009). Novoneuron Inc. v. Addiction Research Institute, Inc., 326 Fed. Appx. 505 (11th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Bell v. Florida Highway Patrol, 325 Fed. Appx. 758 (11th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Serpentfoot v. Rome City Com'n, 322 Fed. Appx. 801 (11th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment CSX Transp. Northern Lines v. CSX Transp., Inc., 522 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). Hoffman-Pugh v. Ramsey, C.A.11th, 2002, 312 F.3d 1222. Covad Communications Co. v. BellSouth Corp., C.A.11th, 2002, 299 F.3d 1272, citing Wright & Miller. Oxford Asset Management, Ltd. v. Jaharis, C.A.11th, 2002, 297 F.3d 1182. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., C.A.11th, 2000, 208 F.3d 1308. Murphy v. FDIC, C.A.11th, 2000, 208 F.3d 959. Kyle K. v. Chapman, C.A.11th, 2000, 208 F.3d 940. Kirby v. Siegelman, C.A.11th, 1999, 195 F.3d 1285. U.S. v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., C.A.11th, 1999, 195 F.3d 1234. Mesocap Indus. Ltd. v. Torm Lines, C.A.11th, 1999, 194 F.3d 1342. White v. Lemacks, C.A.11th, 1999, 183 F.3d 1253. U.S. v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., C.A.11th, 1999, 166 F.3d 1311, rehearing granted and opinion vacated on other grounds C.A.11th, 1999, 179 F.3d 1327. Kobatake v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., C.A.11th, 1998, 162 F.3d 619. Ellis v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., C.A.11th, 1998, 160 F.3d 703. Hall v. Coram Healthcare Corp., C.A.11th, 1998, 157 F.3d 1286. Roberts v. Florida Power & Light Co., C.A.11th, 1998, 146 F.3d 1305, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1027, 525 U.S. 1139, 143 L.Ed.2d 38. GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Florida, C.A.11th, 1998, 132 F.3d 1359. Lopez v. First Union Nat. Bank of Florida, C.A.11th, 1997, 129 F.3d 1186. In re Southeast Banking Corp., C.A.11th, 1996, 93 F.3d 750. In re Johannessen, C.A.11th, 1996, 76 F.3d 347. Blackston v. Alabama, C.A.11th, 1994, 30 F.3d 117. Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., C.A.11th, 1994, 29 F.3d 1480. Powell v. U.S., C.A.11th, 1991, 945 F.2d 374. Municipal Utils. Bd. v. Alabama Power Co., C.A.11th, 1991, 934 F.2d 1493, opinion after remand in part C.A.11th, 1994, 21 F.3d 384. Harris v. Menendez, C.A.11th, 1987, 817 F.2d 737, 739.

Alabama Ford v. Central Loan Admin., 2011 WL 4702912 (S.D. Ala. 2011). Davis v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp., 2011 WL 3489886 (N.D. Ala. 2011). Pickering v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., 2011 WL 111730 (M.D. Ala. 2011). Love v. City of Mobile, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1210 (S.D. Ala. 2010). Romero v. City of Clanton, D.C.Ala.2002, 220 F.Supp.2d 1313. Edwards v. Alabama Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ala.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 1242. Blalock v. Dale County Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ala.1998, 33 F.Supp.2d 995. Helton v. Hawkins, D.C.Ala.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1276. Willis v. Quality Mortgage USA, Inc., D.C.Ala.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 1306. Smith v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1203. Toole v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.C.Ala.1997, 980 F.Supp. 419. Briggs v. Countrywide Funding Corp., D.C.Ala.1996, 931 F.Supp. 1545, vacated on other grounds on reconsideration D.C.Ala.1996, 949 F.Supp. 812. Gorman v. Roberts, D.C.Ala.1995, 909 F.Supp. 1493. Knox v. U.S., D.C.Ala.1995, 874 F.Supp. 1282.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Malone v. Chambers County Bd. of Comm'rs, D.C.Ala.1994, 875 F.Supp. 773. Brogdon v. Alabama Dep't of Economic & Community Affairs, D.C.Ala.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1161. Johnston v. Foster-Wheeler Constructors, Inc., D.C.Ala.1994, 158 F.R.D. 496. Holcomb v. Monahan, D.C.Ala.1992, 807 F.Supp. 1526.

Florida U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Aliaga, 2011 WL 941373 (S.D. Fla. 2011). Luke v. Residential Elevators, Inc., 2011 WL 311370 (N.D. Fla. 2011). U.S. v. Assets Described in Attachment A to the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem, 2010 WL 6593942 (M.D. Fla. 2010). Osorio v. U.S., 2009 WL 2430889 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Videojet Technologies Inc. v. Garcia, 2008 WL 2415042 (M.D. Fla. 2008). Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Group, Inc., D.C.Fla.2006, 431 F.Supp.2d 1290. Belin v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, D.C.Fla.2006, 2006 WL 1992410. Inter–Tel, Inc. v. West Coast Aircraft Engineering, Inc., D.C.Fla.2006, 2006 WL 890010. Lifetime Homes, Inc. v. Walker Homes, Inc., D.C.Fla.2006, 2006 WL 889986. Ziruolo v. Moreland, D.C.Fla.2006, 2006 WL 314509. Hodges v. Buzzeo, D.C.Fla.2002, 193 F.Supp.2d 1279. SEC v. Dunlap, D.C.Fla.2002, 2002 WL 1007626. Gill v. Three Dimension Sys., Inc., D.C.Fla.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 1278 (material allegations). SEC v. Physicians Guardian Unit Inv. Trust, D.C.Fla.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1342. Kissimmee River Valley Sportsmans Ass'n v. City of Lakeland, D.C.Fla.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 1289. In re Physician Corp. of America Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1999, 50 F.Supp.2d 1304. Hare v. Citrus World Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 1365. Rhodes v. Omega Research, Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 1353. SEC v. Lambert, D.C.Fla.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 1348. Burns v. Rice, D.C.Fla.1998, 39 F.Supp.2d 1350. Campos v. INS, D.C.Fla.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 1337. Weld v. Southeastern Cos., D.C.Fla.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 1318. Woods v. Commissioner, IRS, D.C.Fla.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 1357. Haskin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1437. Chumbley v. Gashinski, D.C.Fla.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1406. Saunders v. Hunter, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1236. Dr. Fred Hatfield's Sportstrength Training Equip. Co. v. Balik, D.C.Fla.1997, 174 F.R.D. 496. Hollingsworth v. Iwerks Entertainment, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 947 F.Supp. 473. Tevini v. CHC International, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 946 F.Supp. 985. Hunter v. Chiles, D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 914. Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 876. Battista v. Cannon, D.C.Fla.1996, 934 F.Supp. 400. Betancourt v. Marine Cargo Management, D.C.Fla.1996, 930 F.Supp. 606. Harris v. Iorio, D.C.Fla.1996, 922 F.Supp. 588. Harvey M. Jasper Retirement Trust v. Ivax Corp., D.C.Fla.1995, 920 F.Supp. 1260. Nussbaum v. Mortgage Serv. America Co., D.C.Fla.1995, 913 F.Supp. 1548. Roberts v. Walt Disney World Co., D.C.Fla.1995, 908 F.Supp. 913. Italiano v. Jones Chems., Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 908 F.Supp. 904. Medina v. Minerva, D.C.Fla.1995, 907 F.Supp. 379, 381, citing Wright & Miller. Vaughn v. Kerley, D.C.Fla.1995, 897 F.Supp. 1413, quoting Wright & Miller. Klaskala v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Servs., D.C.Fla.1995, 889 F.Supp. 480. Parsons v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Fla.1995, 889 F.Supp. 465. Gangloff v. Poccia, D.C.Fla.1995, 888 F.Supp. 1549, citing Wright & Miller. Lajos v. duPont Publishing, Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 888 F.Supp. 143. Cramer v. Florida, D.C.Fla.1995, 885 F.Supp. 1545.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Ware v. Barr, D.C.Fla.1995, 883 F.Supp. 654. Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., D.C.Fla.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1024. Braddock v. Orlando Regional Health Care Sys., Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 881 F.Supp. 580. Trustees of the Hotel Indus. Pension Fund v. Carol Management Corp., D.C.Fla.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1548. Zombori v. Digital Equip. Corp., D.C.Fla.1995, 878 F.Supp. 207. Marshall v. Miller, D.C.Fla.1995, 873 F.Supp. 628. Burnett v. A. Bottacchi S.A. de Navegacion, D.C.Fla.1994, 882 F.Supp. 1050. Albert v. National Cash Register Co., D.C.Fla.1994, 874 F.Supp. 1328. Ellen S. v. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners, D.C.Fla.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1489. In re Southeast Banking Corp., D.C.Fla.1994, 855 F.Supp. 353. Hillsborough County v. A & E Road Oiling Serv., Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 853 F.Supp. 1402. Bunger v. Hartman, D.C.Fla.1994, 851 F.Supp. 461. Mann v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, D.C.Fla.1994, 848 F.Supp. 990. Jankovich v. Bowen, D.C.Fla.1994, 844 F.Supp. 743, citing Wright & Miller. Borges v. City of West Palm Beach, D.C.Fla.1993, 858 F.Supp. 174. Burger King Corp. v. Holder, D.C.Fla.1993, 844 F.Supp. 1528. Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Atlantic Travel Serv., Inc., D.C.Fla.1993, 841 F.Supp. 1166. In re Cascade Int'l Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1993, 840 F.Supp. 1558. Cooper v. Gulf Breeze Hosp., Inc., D.C.Fla.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1538. Colodny v. Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch, D.C.Fla.1993, 838 F.Supp. 572. Dibernardo v. Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 838 F.Supp. 567. DiDomenico v. New York Life Ins. Co., D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1203. Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, D.C.Fla.1993, 836 F.Supp. 833. Gersten v. Rundle, D.C.Fla.1993, 833 F.Supp. 906, citing Wright & Miller. Hodges v. Gellerstedt, D.C.Fla.1993, 833 F.Supp. 898. Venero v. City of Tampa, Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 830 F.Supp. 1457. National Alcoholism Programs/Cooper City, Florida, Inc. v. Palm Springs Hosp. Employee Benefits Plan, D.C.Fla.1993, 825 F.Supp. 299. Ippolito v. Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 824 F.Supp. 1562. Perez v. City of Key West, Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 823 F.Supp. 934. Larson v. School Bd. of Pinellas County, Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 820 F.Supp. 596. Schlosser v. Coleman, D.C.Fla.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1534, citing Wright & Miller. Woodbury v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Fla.1993, 152 F.R.D. 229. Bender v. CenTrust Mortgage Corp., D.C.Fla.1992, 833 F.Supp. 1525. Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Value Rent-A-Car Inc., D.C.Fla.1992, 814 F.Supp. 1084. Burger King Corp. v. Austin, D.C.Fla.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1007. M.G.J. Industries, Inc. v. Greyhound Financial Corp., D.C.Fla.1992, 801 F.Supp. 614. FDIC v. Haddad, D.C.Fla.1991, 778 F.Supp. 1559. Mowrey v. Romero, D.C.Fla.1990, 749 F.Supp. 1097, 1099, citing Wright & Miller, reversed in part, vacated in part without published opinion C.A.11th, 1992, 963 F.2d 384. Linder v. Calero Portocarrero, D.C.Fla.1990, 747 F.Supp. 1452, 1454 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller, reversed on other grounds C.A.11th, 1992, 963 F.2d 332.

Georgia Hennington v. Bank of America, 2010 WL 5860296 (N.D. Ga. 2010). Rosen v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2014657, *4 (N.D. Ga. 2010). Powell v. Barrett, D.C.Ga.2005, 376 F.Supp.2d 1340. FTC v. Citigroup Inc., D.C.Ga.2001, 2001 WL 1763439 (unpublished). Pedraza v. United Guar. Corp., D.C.Ga.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 1347. Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., D.C.Ga.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1356. Sherman ex rel. Sherman v. Helms, D.C.Ga.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 1365.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Agricredit Acceptance, LLC v. Hendrix, D.C.Ga.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 1361. Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., D.C.Ga.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 1358. Aurelia D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ga.1994, 862 F.Supp. 363, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.11th, 1996, 74 F.3d 1186. Stiller v. Sumter Bank & Trust Co., D.C.Ga.1994, 860 F.Supp. 835. Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts County, Georgia, D.C.Ga.1994, 855 F.Supp. 1264. Mastroianni v. Deering, D.C.Ga.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1577. Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, D.C.Ga.1993, 813 F.Supp. 821. Reeves v. U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, D.C.Ga.1992, 809 F.Supp. 92. Hickson v. Home Fed. of Atlanta, D.C.Ga.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1567.

D.C. Circuit Hettinga v. U.S., 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 860, 184 L.Ed.2d 658 (2013). Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246, 1248 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Sierra Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Navab-Safavi v. Glassman, 637 F.3d 311, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In re Interbank Funding Corp. Securities Litigation, 629 F.3d 213, 216 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Ortiz-Diaz v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 97 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 44902, 2013 WL 4400386, *2 (D.D.C. 2013), citing Wright & Miller. Diaby v. Bierman, 795 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2011). Toxco Inc. v. Chu, 724 F. Supp. 2d 16, 22 (D.D.C. 2010) ("In resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must treat the complaint's factual allegations-including mixed questions of law and fact-as true and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiff's favor."). Partovi v. Matuszewski, 647 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009). Williams v. Dodaro, 576 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2008). Green v. Intersolutions, Inc., D.C.D.C.2007, 2007 WL 1656280. Hunter v. Corrections Corp. of America, D.C.D.C.2006, 441 F.Supp.2d 78. Rasul v. Rumsfeld, D.C.D.C.2006, 433 F.Supp.2d 58. Mansfield v. Billington, D.C.D.C.2006, 432 F.Supp.2d 64. Gilmore v. The Palestinian Interim Self–Government Authority, D.C.D.C.2006, 422 F.Supp.2d 96. Rasul v. Rumsfeld, D.C.D.C.2006, 414 F.Supp.2d 26. Guam Industrial Servs., Inc. v. Rumsfeld, D.C.D.C.2006, 405 F.Supp.2d 16. Zhu v. Gonzales, D.C.D.C.2006, 2006 WL 1274767. Browning v. Clinton, C.A.2002, 292 F.3d 235, 352 U.S.App.D.C. 4. Croixland Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Corcoran, C.A.1999, 174 F.3d 213, 335 U.S.App.D.C. 377, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 531, 528 U.S. 1021, 145 L.Ed.2d 411. Lepelletier v. FDIC, C.A.1999, 164 F.3d 37, 334 U.S.App.D.C. 37. LaRouche v. Fowler, C.A.1998, 152 F.3d 974, 332 U.S.App.D.C. 25, on remand D.C.D.C.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 80, affirmed 2000, 120 S.Ct. 1529, 529 U.S. 1035, 146 L.Ed.2d 344. Taylor v. FDIC, C.A.1997, 132 F.3d 753, 328 U.S.App.D.C. 52. Shear v. National Rifle Ass'n of America, C.A.1979, 606 F.2d 1251, 196 U.S.App.D.C. 344. U.S. v. Kearns, C.A.1978, 595 F.2d 729, 731, 193 U.S.App.D.C. 344, citing Wright & Miller. Keith v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., D.C.D.C.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 31. Artis v. Greenspan, D.C.D.C.2002, 223 F.Supp.2d 149. Campbell v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., D.C.D.C.2002, 222 F.Supp.2d 8. Scolaro v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, D.C.D.C.2000, 104 F.Supp.2d 18. Service Employees Int'l Union Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.D.C.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 70 (material allegations). Wai v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.D.C.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 1. Price v. Phoenix Home Life Ins. Co., D.C.D.C.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 28, affirmed C.A.1999, 203 F.3d 53, 340 U.S.App.D.C. 183, opinion at 1999 WL 1021927. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.D.C.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 15.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Page v. Shelby, D.C.D.C.1998, 995 F.Supp. 23, citing Wright & Miller. Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. & Training, Inc., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 53, affirmed C.A.1999, 168 F.3d 1362, 335 U.S.App.D.C. 62. Hyman v. First Union Corp., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 38. Bridges v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, D.C.D.C.1996, 935 F.Supp. 37. Williams v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1, 4, citing Wright & Miller. Mobile Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc. v. Babbitt, D.C.D.C.1995, 913 F.Supp. 5. Caliendo v. Bentsen, D.C.D.C.1995, 881 F.Supp. 44. Campbell-El v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1995, 881 F.Supp. 42. Mills v. Home Equity Group, Inc., D.C.D.C.1994, 871 F.Supp. 1482. NVMercure Ltd. Partnership v. RTC, D.C.D.C.1994, 871 F.Supp. 488. Dickson v. U.S., D.C.D.C.1993, 831 F.Supp. 893. Guzel v. State of Kuwait, D.C.D.C.1993, 818 F.Supp. 6, citing Wright & Miller. Tobey v. NLRB, D.C.D.C.1992, 807 F.Supp. 798, 799 n. 2, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.1994, 40 F.3d 469, 309 U.S.App.D.C. 213. Peterson Farms I v. Madigan, D.C.D.C.1991, 782 F.Supp. 1, 3, citing Wright & Miller. McGowan v. Warnecke, D.C.D.C.1990, 739 F.Supp. 662. Steffan v. Cheney, D.C.D.C.1989, 733 F.Supp. 115. Clouser v. Temporaries, Inc., D.C.D.C.1989, 730 F.Supp. 1127. District of Columbia Retirement Bd. v. U.S., D.C.D.C.1987, 657 F.Supp. 428. Barr v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1962, 202 F.Supp. 260.

Federal Circuit In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation, 681 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Leider v. U.S., C.A.Fed., 2002, 301 F.3d 1290, citing Wright & Miller. Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Sys., Inc., C.A.Fed., 2000, 203 F.3d 790.

See also Boland v. Holder, 682 F.3d 531, 534 (6th Cir. 2012), citing League of United Latin American Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007) (court must accept all factual allegations as true, but may dismiss when facts do not support any viable legal theory). Hlavacek v. Boyle, 665 F.3d 823, 825 (7th Cir. 2011) (Wood, J.) (court gives plaintiff "benefit of the doubt" on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Dunson v. Friedlander Realty, S.Ct.Ala.1979, 369 So.2d 792, 796, citing Wright & Miller. Waikiki Discount v. City & County of Honolulu, 1985, 706 P.2d 1315, 1320, 5 Haw.App. 635, citing Wright & Miller. Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co., 1972, 297 A.2d 721, 732, 267 Md. 149, citing Wright & Miller. Beasley v. National Sav. Life Ins. Co., 1985, 330 S.E.2d 207, 208, 75 N.C.App. 104, quoting Wright & Miller. Payne v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 1984, 313 S.E.2d 912, 913, 67 N.C.App. 692, quoting Wright & Miller. Slife v. Kundtz Properties, Inc., 1974, 318 N.E.2d 557, 560, 40 Ohio App.2d 179, citing Wright & Miller.

Compare The court is not required to draw unreasonable inferences or "to accept as plausible wholly unrealistic assertions." Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., 628 F.3d 451, 461 (8th Cir. 2010). Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 239 (5th Cir. 2009) ("Usually, under Rule 12(b)(6), we must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. However, for scienter only, as required by the PSLRA, 'a court must take into account plausible inferences opposing as well as supporting a strong inference of scienter.’”), quoting Indiana Elec. Workers' Pension Trust Fund IBEW v. Shaw Group, Inc., 537 F.3d 527, 533 (5th Cir. 2008).

But see Under the PSLRA, a court considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must draw all reasonable inferences from the allegations, including inferences unfavorable to the plaintiff, in determining whether or not the plaintiff has pled scienter sufficiently. In re Metricom Secs. Litigation, D.C.Cal.2004, 2004 WL 966291. On a motion to dismiss, in the event of an inconsistency between averments in the complaint and the actual provisions in the parties' agreements, the agreements would prevail. Pell v. Weinstein, D.C.Pa.1991, 759 F.Supp. 1107, affirmed C.A.3d, 1992, 961 F.2d 1568.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

12 Heightened pleading requirements Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc., 723 F.3d 192, 197-198 (2d Cir. 2013). Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., 719 F.3d 498, 502-503 (6th Cir. 2013). Morris Aviation, LLC v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., 536 Fed. Appx. 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2013) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28). In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, 704 F.3d 694, 701 (9th Cir. 2012) (securities fraud). Crichton v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 576 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2009). Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund, Inc. v. TXU Corp., 565 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 873, 130 S. Ct. 199, 175 L. Ed. 2d 125 (2009). Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2009). U.S. ex rel. Marlar v. BWXT Y-12, L.L.C., 525 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2008). Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Medical Center, 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (FCA violation claims must be pled with particularity under Rule 9(b); however, FCA retaliation claims do not require heightened pleading). Mostowfi v. i2 Telecom Intern., Inc., 269 Fed. Appx. 621 (9th Cir. 2008). U.S. ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., C.A.2004, 389 F.3d 1251, 363 U.S.App.D.C. 419. Lum v. Bank of America, C.A.3d, 2004, 361 F.3d 217, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 271, 543 U.S. 918, 160 L.Ed.2d 203 (fraud and fraud-based RICO claims dismissed because they did not identify date, time, or place of any misrepresentation and had no alternative source of precision). Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., C.A.5th, 1994, 14 F.3d 1061. Janney v. Mills, 944 F. Supp. 2d 806, 810 (N.D. Cal. 2013), citing Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764 (9th Cir. 2007). Raul v. Rynd, 929 F. Supp. 2d 333, 341 (D. Del. 2013) (in actions under Securities Act, heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) apply when plaintiffs ground Securities Act claims in allegations of fraud and claims "sound in fraud"), citing In re Supr ema Specialties, Inc. Securities Litigation, 438 F.3d 256, 270 (3d Cir. 2006). U.S. ex rel. Palmieri v. Alpharma, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 2d 840, 853 (D. Md. 2013), citing Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783-784 (4th Cir. 1999). Pena v. Greffet, 922 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1217 (D.N.M. 2013) (for claims in prison context, Tenth Circuit requires plaintiff to include facts to indicate plausibility that actions of which complained were not reasonably related to penological interests), citing Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1188 (10th Cir. 2010). Iowa Public Employee's Retirement System v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 919 F. Supp. 2d 321, 329-332 (S.D. N.Y. 2013) (securities- fraud claim). Morris v. Town of Lexington, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250-1251 (N.D. Ala. 2013) ("Even though the Eleventh Circuit long held claims asserted under § 1983 against individual officers to a higher-than-usual standard—* * * —the Circuit's opinion in Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010), observes that utilization of such a heightened pleading standard is no longer warranted, in light of the plausibility requirement articulated in the Supreme Court's Iqbal opinion."). Croteau v. National Better Living Ass'n, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 521, 526-527 (D. Mont. 2013) (fraud, constructive fraud, and RICO claims sufficiently plead). "Rule 9(b) requires that Plaintiff must allege 'the time, place and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby.'" Bhari Information Technology System Private Ltd. v. Sriram, 2013 WL 5811468, *2 (D. Md. 2013), opinion vacated and superseded, 2013 WL 6231389 (D. Md. 2013), quoting Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 (4th Cir. 1999), and citing Wright & Miller. City of Austin Police Retirement System v. Kinross Gold Corp., 2013 WL 1174017, *8-9 (S.D. N.Y. 2013) (securities-fraud claim). In re Nuvaring Products Liability Litigation, 2009 WL 2425391 (E.D. Mo. 2009). Knowles v. Hopson, 2008 WL 2414849 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (mem. op.). Gallaher v. Salem, 2008 WL 2404232 (W.D. Okla. 2008). In re McDonald's French Fries Litigation, D.C.Ill.2007, 2007 WL 1576550. Bishop v. PCS Administration (USA), Inc., D.C.Ill.2006, 2006 WL 1460032. Marks v. Struble, D.C.N.J.2004, 347 F.Supp.2d 136, 2004 WL 2785264. Volunteer Firemen's Ins. Servs., Inc. v. McNeil & Co., D.C.N.Y.2004, 221 F.R.D. 388. Do It Best Corp. v. Passport Software, Inc., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 1660814.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bosch v. Tessa Complete Health Care, Inc., D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 1278225 (motion to dismiss granted because plaintiff failed to plead who, what, when, where, and how of alleged fraud with particularity required by Rule 9(b)). Admiral Ins. Co. v. Heath Holdings USA, Inc., D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 1144062. CILP Associates, L.P. v. Lipper Convertibles, L.P., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 1077991. In re Metricom Secs. Litigation, D.C.Cal.2004, 2004 WL 966291. Morris v. Fordham Univ., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 906248. SMC Corporation v. PeopleSoft USA, Inc., D.C.Ind.2004, 2004 WL 828226. Chambers v. Holsten Management Corp., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 723655. Herrington v. Household Int'l, Inc., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 719355. Hutchinson v. Andrulis Corp., D.C.Fla.2004, 2004 WL 691790. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ravannack, D.C.La.2004, 2004 WL 612962. Perma-Vault Safe Co. v. Keep-It-Safe, Inc., D.C.Pa.2004, 2004 WL 603392. Gadzooks, Inc. v. Evolutions Footwear, Inc., D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 389100. SEC v. U.S. Environmental, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 897 F.Supp. 117. Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund v. De-Con Mechanical Contractors, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 896 F.Supp. 342. Brooks v. Bank of Boulder, D.C.Colo.1995, 891 F.Supp. 1469. Whelan v. Intergraph Corp., D.C.Mass.1995, 889 F.Supp. 15. Stamatio v. Hurco Cos., D.C.Ind.1995, 885 F.Supp. 1180. Adam v. Silicon Valley Bancshares, D.C.Cal.1995, 884 F.Supp. 1398. Lavian v. Haghnazari, D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 670. RMED International, Inc. v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 878 F.Supp. 16. Kriendler v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 1140. Cashman v. Coopers & Lybrand, D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 425. Goebel v. Schmid Bros., Inc., D.C.Mass.1994, 871 F.Supp. 68. In re Computervision Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mass.1994, 869 F.Supp. 56. Strange v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 867 F.Supp. 1209. MTV Networks v. Curry, D.C.N.Y.1994, 867 F.Supp. 202. Barsam v. Pure Tech Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1440. Great West Life Assur. Co. v. Levithan, D.C.Pa.1993, 834 F.Supp. 858.

See also See the text accompanying nn. 86 to 93 for a discussion of attempts by lower courts to impose heightened scrutiny through Rule 12(b)(6) and the Supreme Court's renunciation of the doctrine. Alternative Sys. Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsis, Inc., C.A.1st, 2004, 374 F.3d 23.

But see Perez v. School Bd. of Miami-Dade County, Fla., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ("Prior to Twombly and Iqbal, the Eleventh Circuit imposed a heightened pleading standard on civil-rights complaints that implicated qualified immunity. * * * But the Eleventh Circuit has since dispensed with that requirement, and held that civil-rights complaints, like all others governed by Rule 8, must comply with the plausibility standard of Twombly and Iqbal."), citing Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 716 (11th Cir. 2010). 13 Statement of claim

First Circuit Manning v. Boston Medical Center Corp., 725 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013), citing Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). Abdallah v. Bain Capital LLC, 880 F. Supp. 2d 190 (D. Mass. 2012). Pan Am Systems, Inc. v. Hardenbergh, 871 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D. Me. 2012). Sanchez-Arroyo v. Department of Educ. of Puerto Rico, 842 F. Supp. 2d 416, 428 (D.P.R. 2012). MacDonald v. Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3090045, *2 (D. Mass. 2012). Nieves–Hernandez v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority, D.C.Puerto Rico 2006, 2006 WL 1704572.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Sebago, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 18 F.Supp.2d 70 (plaintiff must set forth factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory). The court must look leniently at the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and determine if those allegations reasonably can admit of a claim. Martinez Colon v. Santander Nat. Bank, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 53. Lebron v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hosp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 995 F.Supp. 241. Goodrich v. CML Fiberoptics, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 990 F.Supp. 48. U.S. v. Pesquera, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 995 F.Supp. 235. In re Fidelity/Apple Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mass.1997, 986 F.Supp. 42. Acciavatti v. Professional Servs. Group, Inc., D.C.Mass.1997, 982 F.Supp. 69. Kmart Corp. v. Rivera-Alejandro Architects & Engineers, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 174 F.R.D. 242. American Glue & Resin, Inc. v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., D.C.Mass.1993, 835 F.Supp. 36. Avery v. Powell, D.C.N.H.1992, 806 F.Supp. 7. International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180.

Second Circuit A complaint that is long or confusing should not be dismissed if the defendant has meaningful notice of the plaintiff's claims. Foreman v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 385114. Wait v. Beck's No. America, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2003, 241 F.Supp.2d 172 (dismissal only appropriate if there is failure to comply with Rule 8's notice pleading requirements). In antitrust cases, in which the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators, dismissals for failure to state a claim, prior to giving the plaintiff ample opportunity for discovery, should be granted very sparingly. Invamed, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 22 F.Supp.2d 210. Dismissal is reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised. Ross v. Mitsui Fudosan, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 522. A complaint containing only conclusory, vague, or general allegations of conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights cannot withstand a motion to dismiss. De Jesus-Keolamphu v. Village of Pelham Manor, D.C.N.Y.1998, 999 F.Supp. 556, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 166 F.3d 1199. Beggs v. Rossi, D.C.Conn.1997, 994 F.Supp. 114, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 145 F.3d 511. Press v. Chemical Inv. Servs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 375. Halas v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 987 F.Supp. 227. Madison Restoration Corp. v. Smithsonian Institute, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 434. Doe by Hickey v. Jefferson County, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 66. Monokrousos v. Computer Credit, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 984 F.Supp. 233. Craft v. McNulty, D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 121. Hall v. Ruggeri, D.C.N.Y.1994, 841 F.Supp. 484. Segarra v. Messina, D.C.N.Y.1994, 153 F.R.D. 22. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. v. Cybo Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 833 F.Supp. 189. “[T]he fact that plaintiff seeks to prosecute direct class and derivative actions simultaneously does not provide a basis for dismissal for failure to state a claim ….” Brickman v. Tyco Toys, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1990, 731 F.Supp. 101, 104.

Third Circuit Siwulec v. J.M. Adjustment Services, LLC, 465 Fed. Appx. 200, 202 (3d Cir. 2012). Gilarno v. Borough of Freedom, 462 Fed. Appx. 177, 179 (3d Cir. 2012). Garraway v. Lappin, 2012 WL 3090945, *1 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 876, 184 L.Ed.2d 687 (2013) (per curiam). A court cannot assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that it has not alleged. City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co., C.A.3d, 1998, 147 F.3d 256. Popovice v. Milides, D.C.Pa.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 638. The court must look to whether sufficient facts are pleaded to determine that the complaint is not frivolous, and to provide defendants with adequate notice to frame an answer. Hughes v. Halbach & Braun Indus., Ltd., D.C.Pa.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 491. The court looks to whether sufficient facts are pleaded to determine that the complaint is not frivolous, and to provide the defendants with adequate notice to frame an answer. Aronson v. Creditrust Corp., D.C.Pa.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 589.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Jean Anderson Hierarchy of Agents v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 688. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Trump, D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 489, affirmed C.A.3d, 1999, 182 F.3d 183. Stewart v. Associates Consumer Discount Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 469. Kuhns v. CoreStates Financial Corp., D.C.Pa.1998, 998 F.Supp. 573. Although a plaintiff need not plead evidence, he must state facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief. Green v. William Mason & Co., D.C.N.J.1998, 996 F.Supp. 394. Tyler v. O'Neill, D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 603. Mruz v. Caring, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 991 F.Supp. 701. Avellino v. Herron, D.C.Pa.1997, 991 F.Supp. 722. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. Leslie v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1997, 986 F.Supp. 900. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Tridair Helicopters, Inc., D.C.Del.1997, 982 F.Supp. 318. Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, D.C.Pa.1997, 176 F.R.D. 132. Loftus v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, D.C.Pa.1994, 843 F.Supp. 981, 986, quoting Wright & Miller. Boyce v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 842 F.Supp. 822. Elliott v. Bloor, D.C.Pa.1976, 425 F.Supp. 1140.

Fourth Circuit In construing a recent Supreme Court decision, the court concluded that a Section 1983 plaintiff seeking municipal liability need only meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8, and ruled on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion accordingly. Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson, C.A.4th, 1994, 15 F.3d 333. Republican Party of No. Carolina v. Martin, C.A.4th, 1992, 980 F.2d 943. Clay v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co., LLC, 955 F. Supp. 2d 588, 593 (N.D. W. Va. 2013), citing Wright & Miller. Paukstis v. Kenwood Golf & Country Club, Inc., D.C.Md.2003, 241 F.Supp.2d 551 (neither vagueness nor lack of detail is sufficient ground on which to grant motion to dismiss). Eniola v. Leasecomm Corp., D.C.Md.2002, 214 F.Supp.2d 520. Neither vagueness nor lack of detail is a sufficient ground on which to grant a motion to dismiss. Gray v. Metts, D.C.Md.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 426. Jetform Corp. v. Unisys Corp., D.C.Va.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 788. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shulimson Bros. Co., D.C.N.C.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 553. As long as the plaintiff colorably states facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief, a motion to dismiss should not be granted. Settle v. S.W. Rodgers, Co., D.C.Va.1998, 998 F.Supp. 657, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 182 F.3d 909.

Fifth Circuit Bashore v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., 452 Fed. Appx. 522 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Colle v. Brazos County, Texas, C.A.5th, 1993, 981 F.2d 237. Investors Syndicate of America, Inc. v. City of Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, C.A.5th, 1970, 434 F.2d 871, 879, citing Wright & Miller. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Consolidated Fibers, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 822. Romero v. Witherspoon, D.C.La.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 808 (face of pleadings). Kinnison v. Mississippi Dep't of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks, D.C.Miss.1998, 990 F.Supp. 481. It is not required that the complaint outline all the elements of a claim; it is sufficient if inferences may be drawn that these elements exist. Willis-Knighton Medical v. City of Bossier City, Louisiana, D.C.La.1997, 2 F.Supp.2d 842. Citrano v. Allen Correctional Center, D.C.La.1995, 891 F.Supp. 312, citing Wright & Miller.

Sixth Circuit Northampton Restaurant Group, Inc. v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 2608807, *2 (6th Cir. 2012). Fitts v. Monroe, C.A.6th, 2002, 47 Fed.Appx. 361 (unpublished). Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., C.A.6th, 1998, 135 F.3d 389. WHS Entertainment Ventures v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, D.C.Tenn.1998, 997 F.Supp. 946. Hamilton v. York, D.C.Ky.1997, 987 F.Supp. 953.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Goins v. Ajax Metal Processing, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1057. Randolph County Fed. Savs. & Loan Assoc. v. Sutliffe, D.C.Ohio 1991, 775 F.Supp. 1113. Housing Opportunities Made Equal v. Cincinnati Enquirer, D.C.Ohio 1990, 731 F.Supp. 801. CPC International, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corp., D.C.Mich.1989, 731 F.Supp. 783. Ecclesiastical Order of ISM of Am, Inc. v. Chasin, D.C.Mich.1986, 653 F.Supp. 1200, affirmed C.A.6th, 1988, 845 F.2d 113. Smith v. Wunker, D.C.Ohio 1972, 356 F.Supp. 44, 45, citing Wright & Miller.

Seventh Circuit Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc., 673 F.3d 609, 622 (7th Cir. 2012). Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547, 555 (7th Cir. 2012). Independent Trust Corp. v. Stewart Information Services Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934 (7th Cir. 2012). When pleading a new or novel legal theory, a plaintiff is still only required to plead a short and plain statement showing that he or she is entitled to relief. When facing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), however, the plaintiff must present an argument that the theory is the natural progression of the law, and should presently be recognized as valid. Kirksey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., C.A.7th, 1999, 168 F.3d 1039. Herdrich v. Pegram, C.A.7th, 1998, 154 F.3d 362 (complaint need not plead facts or legal theories). The district court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint because it failed to state a claim and because it was not a “short and plain statement,” but rather was repetitious, rambling, and disorganized. Given the tension between these two reasons—which implied that the complaint was simultaneously too long and too short—the court of appeals reviewed the district court's decision, vacated, and remanded. A requirement that complaints contain all of the evidence needed to prevail at trial, or at least all the facts that would have been required under the pre-1938 system of code pleading, would induce plaintiffs to violate Rule 8(e) by larding their complaints with facts and legal theories. Bennett v. Schmidt, C.A.7th, 1998, 153 F.3d 516, on remand D.C.Ill.2000, 2000 WL 1161073. Although a superseded pleading sometimes may be offered as evidence, a false step early in a case does not blot out the opportunity to prevail on a claim that is sound factually and legally. Moriarty v. Larry G. Lewis Funeral Directors Ltd., C.A.7th, 1998, 150 F.3d 773 (reversing dismissal), on remand D.C.Ill.1999, 1999 WL 971286, vacated on other grounds C.A.7th, 2000, 210 F.3d 375. Fries v. Helsper, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 452, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 337, 525 U.S. 930, 142 L.Ed.2d 278. Duda v. Board of Educ. of Franklin Park Public School Dist. No. 84, C.A.7th, 1998, 133 F.3d 1054. Stevens v. Umsted, C.A.7th, 1997, 131 F.3d 697. A complaint may not be dismissed for a failure to state a claim just because it omits factual allegations, but it may be dismissed when plaintiffs make it clear that they do not plan to prove an essential element of their case. La Porte County Republican Cent. Committee v. Board of Comm'rs of the County of La Porte, C.A.7th, 1994, 43 F.3d 1126. Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., C.A.7th, 1993, 987 F.2d 429, on remand D.C.Ill.1994, 1994 WL 71430. To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must state sufficient allegations to establish the necessary elements for recovery under whatever legal theory the plaintiff has chosen. Thomas v. L'Eggs Prods., Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 13 F.Supp.2d 806. The plaintiff must set out facts sufficient to outline or adumbrate the basis for his claims. Coats v. Kraft Foods, Inc., D.C.Ind.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 862. The complaint must include either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements of the claim asserted. Jones v. Detella, D.C.Ill.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 824. A complaint must allege facts sufficiently setting forth the essential elements of the cause of action. However, mere vagueness or lack of detail does not constitute sufficient grounds for a motion to dismiss. Cunningham v. Eyman, D.C.Ill.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 969. MJ & Partners Restaurant Ltd. Partnership v. Zadikoff, D.C.Ill.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 922. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 994 (mere vagueness or lack of detail does not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal). A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to outline a cause of action, proof of which is essential to recovery. Vakharia v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care Centers, D.C.Ill.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1028. The complaint must allege facts that would provide an adequate basis for each claim. Jackson v. DeTella, D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 901. In order to withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege facts that sufficiently set forth the essential elements of the cause of action. Generally, mere vagueness does not constitute sufficient grounds for a motion to dismiss. DeLeon v. Beneficial Constr. Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 859. Glutzer v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Ill.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1070.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

A plaintiff need not set out in detail the facts upon which a claim is based, but the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to outline the cause of action. Town of Ogden Dunes v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 996 F.Supp. 850. Fremont Financial Corp. v. IPC/Levy, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 994 F.Supp. 988. McLaughlin v. Cook County Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ill.1998, 993 F.Supp. 661. A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to outline a cause of action, proof of which is essential to recovery. Smith v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1998, 992 F.Supp. 1027. The complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory. Meek v. Springfield Police Dep't, D.C.Ill.1998, 990 F.Supp. 598. Petri v. Gatlin, D.C.Ill.1997, 997 F.Supp. 956 (complaint should not be dismissed so long as it is possible to hypothesize facts, consistent with allegations of complaint, that would make out claim for relief). The complaint must state either direct or inferential allegations concerning all of the material elements necessary for recovery under the relevant legal theory. McKay v. Town & Country Cadillac, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 991 F.Supp. 966. Vasquez v. Gertler & Gertler, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1997, 987 F.Supp. 652. Wooten v. Acme Steel Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 524. Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 985 F.Supp. 827. Copeland v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1182. Sterling v. Kazmierczak, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1186. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Peters, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 787. Cemail v. Viking Dodge, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1296. Evans v. Allen, D.C.Ill.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1102. Pabst Brewing Co. v. Corrao, D.C.Wis.1997, 176 F.R.D. 552. EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 883 F.Supp. 211. Brown v. Secretary of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., D.C.Ind.1994, 874 F.Supp. 238, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 61 F.3d 905. The complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under a viable legal theory. RTC v. S & K Chevrolet, D.C.Ill.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1047. Nunley v. Kloehn, D.C.Wis.1994, 158 F.R.D. 614 (courts look to substance of pleadings and not their form to determine if factual statements or legal theories have been properly alleged). Garus v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., D.C.Ind.1993, 839 F.Supp. 563. Westfield Partners, Ltd. v. Hogan, D.C.Ill.1990, 740 F.Supp. 523.

Eighth Circuit Briehl v. General Motors Corp., C.A.8th, 1999, 172 F.3d 623 (complaint must plead facts that state claim as a matter of law). Webb v. Lawrence County, C.A.8th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1131. Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale School Dist., C.A.8th, 1998, 133 F.3d 649. Davies v. Genesis Medical Center, D.C.Iowa 1998, 994 F.Supp. 1078. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Midwestern Machinery Co. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., D.C.Minn.1998, 990 F.Supp.1128, reversed on other grounds C.A.8th, 1999, 167 F.3d 439. Terra Indus., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Iowa 1997, 990 F.Supp. 679. Geir v. Educational Serv. Unit No. 16, D.C.Neb.1992, 144 F.R.D. 680 (“factual allegations”) (Peister, M.J.).

Ninth Circuit Bone v. City of Los Angeles, 471 Fed. Appx. 620 (9th Cir. 2012). Stone v. Writer's Guild of America West, Inc., C.A.9th, 1996, 101 F.3d 1312. Chavez v. INS, D.C.Cal.1998, 17 F.Supp.2d 1141 (court will dismiss case if complaint fails to plead sufficiently all required elements of cause of action). Ricotta v. California, D.C.Cal.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 961, affirmed C.A.9th, 1999, 173 F.3d 861, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 157, 528 U.S. 864, 145 L.Ed.2d 133. In cases alleging securities laws violations, motions to dismiss are subject to stricter standards because whether a statement or omission is misleading to potential investors requires delicate assessments of the inferences a “reasonable shareholder” would draw from a given set of facts and the significance of those facts to him. Only if the adequacy of the disclosure or the materiality of the statement

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

is so obvious that reasonable minds could not differ are these issues appropriately resolved as a matter of law. Wenger v. Lumisys, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1231. In re Stratosphere Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Nev.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1096. Gutierrez v. Givens, D.C.Cal.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1033. Meek v. County of Riverside, D.C.Cal.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1410, affirmed in part, dismissed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 183 F.3d 962, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 499, 528 U.S. 1005, 145 L.Ed.2d 386. Dismissal may result from either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. National Coalition Gov. of Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 176 F.R.D. 329. Doe by & through Doe v. Petaluma City School Dist., D.C.Cal.1993, 830 F.Supp. 1560, quoting Wright & Miller, reconsideration granted on other grounds D.C.Cal.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1415. Whitman v. Schlumberger Ltd., D.C.Cal.1992, 793 F.Supp. 228, 230, quoting Wright & Miller. Fednav Ltd. v. Sterling Int'l, D.C.Cal.1983, 572 F.Supp. 1268, 1270, citing Wright & Miller.

Tenth Circuit Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 2012). Silver v. Glass, 459 Fed. Appx. 691, 695 (10th Cir. 2012). Pola v. Utah, 458 Fed. Appx. 760 (10th Cir. 2012). Ordinance 59 Ass'n v. U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary, C.A.10th, 1998, 163 F.3d 1150. When a qualified immunity defense is asserted in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Tenth Circuit applies a heightened pleading standard, requiring the complaint to contain specific, nonconclusory allegations of fact sufficient to allow the district court to determine that those facts, if proved, demonstrate that the actions taken were not objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Dill v. City of Edmond, Oklahoma, C.A.10th, 1998, 155 F.3d 1193. Bauchman for Bauchman v. West High School, C.A.10th, 1997, 132 F.3d 542, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 2370, 524 U.S. 953, 141 L.Ed.2d 738. Although the plaintiffs need not precisely state each element of their claims, they must plead minimal factual allegations on those material elements that must be proved. Blackwell v. Harris Chem. No. America, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1302. The test of a motion to dismiss lies in the claim, not in the demand. Cassidy v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. of Texas, D.C.Colo.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1200. Rule 12(b)(6) must be read in conjunction with Rule 8(a). Brunetti v. Rubin, D.C.Colo.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1408. Mein v. Pool Co. Disabled Int'l Employee Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, Pool Co., D.C.Colo.1998, 989 F.Supp. 1337. Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Dymon, Inc., D.C.Kan.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1394. Jefferson County School Dist. No. R1 v. Moody's Investor's Servs., Inc., D.C.Colo.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1341, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 175 F.3d 848.

Eleventh Circuit Williams v. Jefferson County, Ala., 482 Fed. Appx. 480 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Trujillo v. Florida, 481 Fed. Appx. 598 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 941 (2013). Liebman v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 462 Fed. Appx. 876, 878-79 (11th Cir. 2012) (shotgun pleading disfavored). GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Florida, C.A.11th, 1998, 132 F.3d 1359. Danielle v. Adriazola, D.C.Fla.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 1368 (plaintiff must do more than merely label his claim). Digiro v. Pall Aeropower Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 19 F.Supp.2d 1304. A securities fraud complaint may not be dismissed for failure to allege materiality unless the alleged misstatements and omissions are so obviously unimportant to a reasonable investor that reasonable minds could not differ on the question of their importance. In re Miller Indus., Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ga.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1323. Stapleton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1344 (plaintiff may not merely “label” his claims). Weld v. Southeastern Cos., D.C.Fla.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 1318. Harris v. District Bd. of Trustees of Polk Community College, D.C.Fla.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1319 (to survive motion to dismiss, plaintiff may not merely label his claims). Woods v. Commissioner, IRS, D.C.Fla.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 1357. To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff may not merely label his claims. Henniger v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1334.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

To withstand a motion to dismiss, it is axiomatic that the complaint must allege facts sufficiently setting forth the essential elements of a cause of action. Elger v. Martin Memorial Health Sys., Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1351. To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff may not merely label his claims. Nautica Int'l, Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P., D.C.Fla.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 1333. The court is not permitted to assume that the plaintiff can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendant has violated the laws in ways that have not been alleged. Every plaintiff has a duty to allege sufficient facts and legal grounds to show affirmatively that he is entitled to relief. Haskin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1437. Farabee v. Rider, D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1398 (complaint that merely labels claims is not sufficient). It is axiomatic that the complaint must allege facts sufficiently setting forth the essential elements of a cause of action. Smith Barney, Inc. v. Scanlon, D.C.Fla.1998, 180 F.R.D. 444. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dade County Esoil Management Co., D.C.Fla.1997, 982 F.Supp. 873. Dr. Fred Hatfield's Sportstrength Training Equip. Co. v. Balik, D.C.Fla.1997, 174 F.R.D. 496. Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Atlantic Travel Serv., Inc., D.C.Fla.1993, 841 F.Supp. 1166. DiDomenico v. New York Life Ins. Co., D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1203.

D.C. Circuit Taylor v. FDIC, C.A.1997, 132 F.3d 753, 328 U.S.App.D.C. 52. Slaby v. Fairbridge, D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 22.

See also Levinsky v. Diamond, 1982, 442 A.2d 1277, 1280, 140 Vt. 595, citing Wright & Miller.

Rule 8(a) For a discussion of the requirements of pleading a claim to relief under Rule 8(a), see vol. 5, §§ 1215 to 1254. 14 Burden on movant Mediacom Southeast LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 672 F.3d 396, 399 (6th Cir. 2012) (district court reversed for placing burden of proof improperly on non-moving party). Kundratic v. Thomas, 407 Fed. Appx. 625, 627 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Beck v. Deloitte & Touche, C.A.11th, 1998, 144 F.3d 732 (very high burden). Preston v. Seterus, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 743, 751 (N.D. Tex. 2013) ("Whether Plaintiffs have the ultimate burden of proof at trial on any of their claims is irrelevant here because, for purposes of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Plaintiffs have no burden of proof. Rather, the issue is whether Plaintiffs, based on their pleadings, have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted."). Benson v. University of Maine System, 857 F. Supp. 2d 171, 176 (D. Me. 2012) (defendant bears burden of proof in asserting affirmative defense). Estate of Johnson v. La Causa Inc., 2011 WL 5319909 (E.D. Wis. 2011). Stanton v. City of Philadelphia, 2011 WL 710481 (E.D. Pa. 2011). Villegas v. Weinstein & Riley, P.S., 723 F. Supp. 2d 755, 757 (M.D. Pa. 2010). Simmons v. Bernardi, 2010 WL 2804868, *2 (M.D. Pa. 2010). Anderson v. Fishback, 2009 WL 2423327 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Ocean Logistics Management, Inc. v. NPR, Incorporated, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 77. International Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Union de Empleados de Muelles de Puerto Rico, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 21 F.Supp.2d 100, quoting Wright & Miller. Rivera-Lebron v. Cellular One, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 13 F.Supp.2d 235, quoting Wright & Miller. Parker v. Delaware, Dep't of Public Safety, D.C.Del.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 467. Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, D.C.Fla.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 1369 (heavy burden). In re Paracelsus Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Tex.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 626. U.S. v. $40,000.00 in U.S. Currency, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 999 F.Supp. 234, citing Wright & Miller. Lebron v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hosp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 995 F.Supp. 241, citing Wright & Miller. U.S. v. Pesquera, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 995 F.Supp. 235, citing Wright & Miller. Amway Distributors Benefits Ass'n v. Federal Ins. Co., D.C.Mich.1997, 990 F.Supp. 936. Clapp v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, D.C.N.Y.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1050.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Sazerac Co. v. Falk, D.C.N.Y.1994, 861 F.Supp. 253. Scheiner v. Wallace, D.C.N.Y.1994, 860 F.Supp. 991. Boyd v. Brookstone Corp. of New Hampshire, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1568. Lind v. Vanguard Offset Printers, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1060. In re Southeast Banking Corp., D.C.Fla.1994, 855 F.Supp. 353, affirmed C.A.11th, 1995, 69 F.3d 1539. Richland-Lexington Airport Dist. v. Atlas Properties, Inc., D.C.S.C.1994, 854 F.Supp. 400. Barnum v. Millbrook Care Ltd. Partnership, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1227. Kahn v. Inspector Gen. of U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., D.C.N.Y.1994, 848 F.Supp. 432, 435 (the “burden on the moving party is heavy”) (Keenan, J.). Torrie by & through Torrie v. Cwayna, D.C.Mich.1994, 841 F.Supp. 1434. West v. LTV Steel Co., D.C.Ind.1993, 839 F.Supp. 559. In re CoreStates Trust Fee Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 837 F.Supp. 104, affirmed C.A.3d, 1994, 39 F.3d 61. Hilliard v. Shell Western E & P, Inc., D.C.Mich.1993, 836 F.Supp. 1365, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 1998, 149 F.3d 1183.

But see "The burden is on the plaintiff to frame a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that he or she is entitled to relief." Hastings v. Barbee, 2011 WL 2610132, *2 (D. Colo. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). In an action brought under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case in order to withstand a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. Rutland v. Office of Attorney Gen., Mississippi, D.C.Miss.1994, 851 F.Supp. 793, affirmed C.A.5th, 1995, 54 F.3d 226.

See also "When a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the inapplicability of the defense." Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2009). A motion to dismiss should not be granted merely because it was unopposed. The court still must investigate the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Bennerson v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 902166. 15 Facts

Supreme Court Kugler v. Helfant, 1975, 95 S.Ct. 1524, 1531 n. 5, 421 U.S. 117, 125–126 n. 5, 44 L.Ed.2d 15.

First Circuit Schaefer v. Indymac Mortg. Services, 731 F.3d 98, 100 (1st Cir. 2013), citing Massachusetts Retirement Systems v. CVS Caremark Corp., 716 F.3d 229, 231, 237 (1st Cir. 2013). Duckworth v. Pratt & Whitney, Inc., C.A.1st, 1998, 152 F.3d 1. Breton v. Travelers Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 147 F.3d 58. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., C.A.1st, 1996, 103 F.3d 186. Dindo v. Whitney, C.A.1st, 1971, 451 F.2d 1.

Massachusetts Day v. Massachusetts Air Nat. Guard, D.C.Mass.1998, 994 F.Supp. 72, vacated in part on other grounds D.C.Mass.1999, 37 F.Supp.2d 546. Choroszy v. Wentworth Institute of Technology, D.C.Mass.1996, 915 F.Supp. 446. Gallego v. Wilson, D.C.Mass.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1169. Dominique v. Weld, D.C.Mass.1995, 880 F.Supp. 928, affirmed C.A.1st, 1996, 73 F.3d 1156. Abany v. Fridovich, D.C.Mass.1994, 862 F.Supp. 615.

New Hampshire Nedder v. Rivier College, D.C.N.H.1996, 944 F.Supp. 111. King v. King, D.C.N.H.1996, 922 F.Supp. 700, affirmed C.A.1st, 1996, 104 F.3d 348. Kopf v. Chloride Power Electronics, Inc., D.C.N.H.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1183.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Dudley v. Business Express, Inc., D.C.N.H.1994, 882 F.Supp. 199. Eric L. by & through Schierberl v. Bird, D.C.N.H.1994, 848 F.Supp. 303. Gilbert v. Essex Group, Inc., D.C.N.H.1993, 930 F.Supp. 683 (“factual averments”).

Puerto Rico Miranda v. Deloitte LLP, 922 F. Supp. 2d 210, 217 (D.P.R. 2013), citing R.G. Financial Corp. v. Vergara-Nunez, 446 F.3d 178, 182 (1st Cir. 2006). Cruz Aviles v. Bella Vista Hosp., Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 200.

Rhode Island Cok v. Forte, D.C.R.I.1995, 877 F.Supp. 797, affirmed C.A.1st, 1995, 69 F.3d 531.

Second Circuit Oteze Fowlkes v. Adamec, C.A.2d, 2005, 432 F.3d 90. EEOC v. Staten Island Savs. Bank, C.A.2d, 2000, 207 F.3d 144. X-Men Sec., Inc. v. Pataki, C.A.2d, 1999, 196 F.3d 56. Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG Inc. v. Aegis Group Plc, C.A.2d, 1998, 150 F.3d 194. Drake v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 147 F.3d 169. Scotto v. Almenas, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 105. Thomas v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 31. Castellano v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1998, 142 F.3d 58, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 276, 525 U.S. 922, 142 L.Ed.2d 228. Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., C.A.2d, 1997, 134 F.3d 41. Newman & Schwartz v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., C.A.2d, 1996, 102 F.3d 660, on remand D.C.N.Y.2000, 2000 WL 1364364. Romney v. Lin, C.A.2d, 1996, 94 F.3d 74, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 263, 522 U.S. 906, 139 L.Ed.2d 189. Padavan v. U.S., C.A.2d, 1996, 82 F.3d 23. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., C.A.2d, 1994, 32 F.3d 697. Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., C.A.2d, 1994, 25 F.3d 1124.

Connecticut Huff v. West Haven Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 117. Catalano v. Bedford Associates, Inc., D.C.Conn.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 133. Titan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc., D.C.Conn.1997, 981 F.Supp. 65. Coretti v. Lefkowitz, D.C.Conn.1997, 965 F.Supp. 3. Meyers v. Arcudi, D.C.Conn.1996, 915 F.Supp. 522. Wilhelm v. Sunrise Northeast, Inc., D.C.Conn.1995, 923 F.Supp. 330. A. Aiudi & Sons v. Town of Plainville, D.C.Conn.1994, 862 F.Supp. 737. Coan v. Bell Atl. Sys. Leasing Int'l, Inc., D.C.Conn.1990, 813 F.Supp. 929. Haczela v. City of Bridgeport, D.C.Conn.1969, 299 F.Supp. 709.

New York Jones v. National Communication & Surveillance Networks, D.C.N.Y.2006, 409 F.Supp.2d 456. Fulton v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.2006, 2006 WL 2850601. Newman v. Holder, D.C.N.Y.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 103. SEC v. Princeton Economic Int'l Ltd., D.C.N.Y.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 396 (opinion withdrawn). Griffin v. PaineWebber Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 508. In re Livent, Inc., Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 194. Gregory v. Daly, D.C.N.Y.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 48, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 2001, 243 F.3d 687. In re Computer Associates Class Action Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 68. Vega v. State Univ. of New York Bd. of Trustees, D.C.N.Y.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 324. Tufano v. One Toms Point Lane Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 119, affirmed C.A.2d, 2000, 229 F.3d 1136. Omega Homes, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 187, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 171 F.3d 757. Desiderio v. National Ass'n of Secs. Dealers, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 516, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 191 F.3d 198.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Mroz v. City of Tonawanda, D.C.N.Y.1998, 999 F.Supp. 436 (analyzing proposed amendment to complaint). Davis v. Goode, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 82. Phillips v. Merchants Ins. Group, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 99. Adair v. Bristol Technology Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 179 F.R.D. 126. Barth v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1998, 178 F.R.D. 371. Press v. Chemical Inv. Servs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 375. Anonymous v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1997, 987 F.Supp. 131. Doe by Hickey v. Jefferson County, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 66. Hogan v. DC Comics, D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 82. Lincoln Cercpac v. Health & Hosp. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 977 F.Supp. 274, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 147 F.3d 165. Franzon v. Massena Memorial Hosp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 977 F.Supp. 160. Narvarte v. Chase Manhattan Bank, D.C.N.Y.1997, 969 F.Supp. 10. Leonard F. v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, D.C.N.Y.1997, 967 F.Supp. 802, vacated on other grounds C.A.2d, 1999, 199 F.3d 99. Diehl v. Village of Antwerp, D.C.N.Y.1997, 964 F.Supp. 646, affirmed C.A.2d, 1997, 131 F.3d 130. Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 956 F.Supp. 509, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 136 F.3d 313, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 448, 525 U.S. 983, 142 L.Ed.2d 402. Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 242. Hili v. Sciarotta, D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 177, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 210. Ramirez v. Brooklyn Aids Task Force, D.C.N.Y.1997, 175 F.R.D. 423, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 164 F.3d 619. LaSalle Nat. Bank v. Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co., D.C.N.Y.1996, 951 F.Supp. 1071. Spurlock v. NYNEX, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1022. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Ligator, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 200. Noble v. Great Brands of Europe, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 183. SMS Marketing & Telecommunications, Inc. v. H.G. Telecom, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 134. Quinones v. Howard, D.C.N.Y.1996, 948 F.Supp. 251. ABC Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 635. Murphy v. Cadillac Rubber & Plastics, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1108. Corcoran v. New York Power Authority, D.C.N.Y.1996, 935 F.Supp. 376. Bonner v. Guccione, D.C.N.Y.1996, 916 F.Supp. 271. Greene v. Hawes, D.C.N.Y.1996, 913 F.Supp. 136. Fludgate v. Management Technologies, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 885 F.Supp. 645. Berman v. Turecki, D.C.N.Y.1995, 885 F.Supp. 528. Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of No. Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.—Pension Fund v. Canny, D.C.N.Y.1995, 876 F.Supp. 14. Craft v. McNulty, D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 121. Barsam v. Pure Tech Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1440. New Alliance Party v. New York State Bd. of Elections, D.C.N.Y.1994, 861 F.Supp. 282. In re Cedar Hill Cemetery Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1994, 853 F.Supp. 706. Sequa Corp. v. Gelmin, D.C.N.Y.1994, 851 F.Supp. 106. Segarra v. Messina, D.C.N.Y.1994, 153 F.R.D. 22. Westwood v. Cohen, D.C.N.Y.1993, 838 F.Supp. 126, 130 (“Facts, not conclusions are the essence of a complaint ….”). Cuillo v. Shupnick, D.C.N.Y.1993, 815 F.Supp. 133. Gerber v. Computer Associates Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 812 F.Supp. 361. Trautz v. Weisman, D.C.N.Y.1992, 809 F.Supp. 239. Koal Indus. Corp. v. Asland, S.A., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1143. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary, D.C.N.Y.1992, 807 F.Supp. 928. Unibrand Tire & Prod. Co. v. Armstrong Rubber Co., D.C.N.Y.1977, 429 F.Supp. 470. People's Housing Dev. Corp. v. City of Poughkeepsie, New York, D.C.N.Y.1976, 425 F.Supp. 482. Pyles v. Keane, D.C.N.Y.1976, 418 F.Supp. 269. M & M Transportation Co. v. U.S. Industries, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1976, 416 F.Supp. 865.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Poloron Prods., Inc. v. Lybrand Ross Bros. & Montgomery, D.C.N.Y.1976, 72 F.R.D. 556. Blassingame v. U.S. Attorney Gen., D.C.N.Y.1975, 387 F.Supp. 418. U.S. ex rel. McClaughlin v. People of the State of New York, D.C.N.Y.1973, 356 F.Supp. 988. Sunrise Toyota, Ltd. v. Toyota Motor Co., D.C.N.Y.1972, 55 F.R.D. 519, 532.

Third Circuit Lake v. Arnold, C.A.3d, 2000, 232 F.3d 360. In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation, C.A.3d, 2000, 214 F.3d 395. Menkowitz v. Pottstown Memorial Medical Center, C.A.3d, 1998, 154 F.3d 113. Independent Enterprises, Inc. v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority, C.A.3d, 1997, 103 F.3d 1165. Although the plaintiffs' version of the facts must be accepted as true, this does not mean that the court must accept the plaintiffs' characterization of those facts. Fisher Bros. Sales, Inc. v. U.S., C.A.3d, 1995, 46 F.3d 279, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 49, 516 U.S. 806, 133 L.Ed.2d 15. Malia v. General Elec. Co., C.A.3d, 1994, 23 F.3d 828, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 377, 513 U.S. 956, 130 L.Ed.2d 328. Clark v. Gulf Oil Corp., C.A.3d, 1977, 570 F.2d 1138, 1141 n. 1, certiorari denied 98 S.Ct. 1611, 435 U.S. 970, 56 L.Ed.2d 62. U.S. ex rel. Esola v. Groomes, C.A.3d, 1975, 520 F.2d 830. Landy v. FDIC, C.A.3d, 1973, 486 F.2d 139, 160, certiorari denied 94 S.Ct. 1979, 416 U.S. 960, 40 L.Ed.2d 312.

Delaware Smith v. ZENECA Incorporated, D.C.Del.1993, 820 F.Supp. 831. In the Matter of Kearney Chems., Inc., D.C.Del.1979, 468 F.Supp. 1107. Milton Roy Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., D.C.Del.1976, 418 F.Supp. 975.

New Jersey Kleinerman v. Chao, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 1949211 (not for publication, for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Leshner v. McCollister's Transportation Sys., Inc., D.C.N.J.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 689. Lesser v. City of Cape May, D.C.N.J.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 303, affirmed C.A.3d, 2003, 78 Fed.Appx. 208. Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank v. San Clemente Financial Group Secs., Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 174 F.R.D. 572. Jordan v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections, D.C.N.J.1995, 881 F.Supp. 947. Fishbein Family Partnership v. PPG Indus., Inc., D.C.N.J.1994, 871 F.Supp. 764. Morris v. Azzi, D.C.N.J.1994, 866 F.Supp. 149. Bishop v. Okidata, Inc., D.C.N.J.1994, 864 F.Supp. 416.

Pennsylvania Adams v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc., 2013 WL 5676356, *2 (E.D. Pa. 2013), citing Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., 223 F.3d 165, 173 (3d Cir. 2000). In re Bath & Kitchen Fixtures Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 2038605. Inofast Mfg., Inc. v. Bardsley, D.C.Pa.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 847. Gress v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass'n, D.C.Pa.2000, 100 F.Supp.2d 289. Krevsky v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 479. Karl v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp., D.C.Pa.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 393. Bar Technologies Inc. v. Conemaugh & Black Lick R.R. Co., D.C.Pa.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 512. FTC v. Commonwealth Marketing Group, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 530. Halstead v. Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 464. Jordan v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 638. In re Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 622. Popovice v. Milides, D.C.Pa.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 638. Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of East Pennsboro Tp., Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 366. Jean Anderson Hierarchy of Agents v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 688. Stewart v. Associates Consumer Discount Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 469. Kuhns v. CoreStates Financial Corp., D.C.Pa.1998, 998 F.Supp. 573.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Tyler v. O'Neill, D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 603. Giusto v. Ashland Chem. Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 587. Young v. Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Republican Caucus, D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 282. Jeffery Y. v. St. Marys Area School Dist., D.C.Pa.1997, 967 F.Supp. 852. Rankin v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1997, 963 F.Supp. 463. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Rennard St. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1046. Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge, D.C.Pa.1996, 948 F.Supp. 1258. Dinicola v. DiPaolo, D.C.Pa.1996, 945 F.Supp. 848. Warminster Tp. Municipal Authority v. U.S., D.C.Pa.1995, 903 F.Supp. 847. Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, D.C.Pa.1995, 881 F.Supp. 145. Winterberg v. CNA Insurance Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 713, affirmed C.A.3d, 1995, 72 F.3d 318. Strange v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 867 F.Supp. 1209. Philadelphia Reserve Supply Co. v. Nowalk & Associates, Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1456. In re Chambers Dev. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 602, 616. Marrazzo v. Bucks County Bank & Trust Co., D.C.Pa.1993, 814 F.Supp. 437. Jenkins v. Fidelity Bank, D.C.Pa.1973, 365 F.Supp. 1391. American Technical Mach. Corp. v. Masterpiece Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.1964, 235 F.Supp. 917. Wilhide v. Keystone Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1961, 195 F.Supp. 659. Rosen v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, D.C.Pa.1951, 100 F.Supp. 825.

Virgin Islands Government Guarantee Fund of the Republic of Finland v. Hyatt Corp., D.C.Virgin Islands 1997, 955 F.Supp. 441.

Fourth Circuit Sons of Confederate Veterans, Virginia Div. v. City of Lexington, Va., 722 F.3d 224, 226 n.2 (4th Cir. 2013), citing Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 714 F.3d 769, 776 (4th Cir. 2013). Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates Ltd. Partnership, C.A.4th, 2000, 213 F.3d 175. Anita's New Mexico Style Mexican Food, Inc. v. Anita's Mexican Foods Corp., C.A.4th, 2000, 201 F.3d 314. Sellers by Sellers v. School Bd. of City of Mannassas, Virginia, C.A.4th, 1998, 141 F.3d 524, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 168, 525 U.S. 871, 142 L.Ed.2d 137. Suarez Corp. Indus. v. McGraw, C.A.4th, 1997, 125 F.3d 222, appeal after remand C.A.4th, 2000, 202 F.3d 676. McNair v. Lend Lease Trucks, Inc., C.A.4th, 1996, 95 F.3d 325. Labram v. Havel, C.A.4th, 1995, 43 F.3d 918.

Maryland Onawola v. Johns Hopkins Univ., D.C.Md.2006, 412 F.Supp.2d 529, citing Wright & Miller. Sharafeldin v. Maryland Dep't of Public Safety, D.C.Md.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 680. Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., D.C.Md.2000, 193 F.R.D. 243. Thompson v. Memorial Hosp. at Easton, Maryland, Inc., D.C.Md.1996, 925 F.Supp. 400, 404, citing Wright & Miller.

North Carolina West v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., D.C.N.C.1998, 998 F.Supp. 642. Ryder v. Freeman, D.C.N.C.1996, 918 F.Supp. 157, appeal dismissed on other grounds, cause remanded C.A.4th, 1996, 112 F.3d 510.

Virginia Atkins v. Emram, 2010 WL 2490965, *3 (E.D. Va. 2010), aff'd, 2010 WL 5018524 (4th Cir. 2010). Robins v. Moore, D.C.Va.2006, 2006 WL 1520573. Diaz v. Virginia Housing Dev. Authority, D.C.Va.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 415. Lewin v. Cooke, D.C.Va.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 513, affirmed C.A.4th, 2002, 28 Fed.Appx. 186. Lytle v. Brewer, D.C.Va.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 730. Cobb v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia, D.C.Va.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 815. Peck v. Merletti, D.C.Va.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 599.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

The plaintiff argued in his memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss that the exhibits attached to his complaint were untrue. However, a court may not consider additional allegations when ruling on a motion to dismiss. The facts asserted in the complaint, and any attached exhibits, are considered to be true. Davis v. Cole, D.C.Va.1998, 999 F.Supp. 809. Settle v. S.W. Rodgers, Co., D.C.Va.1998, 998 F.Supp. 657, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 182 F.3d 909. Moore v. Flagstar Bank, D.C.Va.1997, 6 F.Supp.2d 496. Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Rokke, D.C.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 982. Lewis v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., D.C.Va.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1158. Jones v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc., D.C.Va.1997, 980 F.Supp. 842, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 161 F.3d 2. Sculthorpe v. Virginia Retirement Sys., D.C.Va.1997, 952 F.Supp. 307. Lugo v. INS, D.C.Va.1997, 950 F.Supp. 743. Counts v. Newhart, D.C.Va.1996, 951 F.Supp. 579, affirmed C.A.4th, 1997, 116 F.3d 1473. Wenzler v. Warden of G.R.C.C., D.C.Va.1996, 949 F.Supp. 399. White v. CMA Construction Co., D.C.Va.1996, 947 F.Supp. 231. Lewin v. Medical College of Hampton Roads, D.C.Va.1996, 910 F.Supp. 1161, affirmed C.A.4th, 1997, 131 F.3d 135. Lane v. David P. Jacobson & Co., Ltd., D.C.Va.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1091. Collin v. Rector & Bd. of Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, D.C.Va.1995, 873 F.Supp. 1008. Burcher v. McCauley, D.C.Va.1994, 871 F.Supp. 864.

Fifth Circuit Shipp v. McMahon, C.A.5th, 2000, 234 F.3d 907. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 496. Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 161. Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys., C.A.5th, 1997, 117 F.3d 242, on remand D.C.Tex.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 895. Associated Builders, Inc. v. Alabama Power Co., C.A.5th, 1974, 505 F.2d 97. Mumford v. Glover, C.A.5th, 1974, 503 F.2d 878. Battle v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 1974, 493 F.2d 39, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 784, 419 U.S. 1110, 42 L.Ed.2d 807. Scarpa v. U.S. Board of Parole, C.A.5th, 1972, 468 F.2d 31, reversed on the merits on rehearing C.A.5th, 1973, 477 F.2d 278, vacated as moot 1973, 94 S.Ct. 79, 414 U.S. 809, 38 L.Ed.2d 44. Mannings v. Board of Pub. Instruction of Hillsborough County, Florida, C.A.5th, 1960, 277 F.2d 370.

Louisiana Baker v. First American Nat. Bank, D.C.La.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 799. Sheehan v. Ryan, D.C.La.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 792. Tessier v. Moffatt, D.C.La.1998, 93 F.Supp.2d 729. Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing v. Quarter House, D.C.La.1997, 952 F.Supp. 352. Louisiana Educ. Ass'n v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd., D.C.La.1977, 76 F.R.D. 629.

Mississippi IHP Industrial, Inc. v. PermAlert, ESP., D.C.Miss.1996, 947 F.Supp. 257. Ingebretsen v. Jackson Public School Dist., D.C.Miss.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1473, affirmed C.A.5th, 1996, 88 F.3d 274.

Texas Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196. Campbell v. Baldwin, D.C.Tex.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 754. Andrade v. Chojnacki, D.C.Tex.1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 431. Bowers v. Baylor Univ., D.C.Tex.1994, 862 F.Supp. 142. Kjellvander v. Citicorp, D.C.Tex.1994, 156 F.R.D. 138. Crawford v. City of Houston, Texas, D.C.Tex.1974, 386 F.Supp. 187.

Sixth Circuit Barnes v. Winchell, C.A.6th, 1997, 105 F.3d 1111. Collyer v. Darling, C.A.6th, 1996, 98 F.3d 211, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 2439, 520 U.S. 1267, 138 L.Ed.2d 199.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Hodges v. WSM, Incorporated, C.A.6th, 1994, 26 F.3d 36.

Michigan Henson v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 5676259 (E.D. Mich. 2013), citing Rippy ex rel. Rippy v. Hattaway, 270 F.3d 416, 419 (6th Cir. 2001). Bradley v. Stump, D.C.Mich.1997, 971 F.Supp. 1149, affirmed C.A.6th, 1998, 149 F.3d 1182. General Motors Corp. v. Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua, D.C.Mich.1996, 948 F.Supp. 684. Tidik v. Ritsema, D.C.Mich.1996, 938 F.Supp. 416.

Ohio Spivey v. Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1998, 999 F.Supp. 987. Pappas v. Bethesda Hosp. Ass'n, D.C.Ohio 1994, 861 F.Supp. 616.

Tennessee Holley v. Deal, D.C.Tenn.1996, 948 F.Supp. 711. Williams v. Stone, D.C.Tenn.1971, 339 F.Supp. 1298.

Seventh Circuit D.B. ex rel. Kurtis B. v. Kopp, 725 F.3d 681, 685-686 (7th Cir. 2013). Fischer v. First Chicago Capital Markets, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 195 F.3d 279. Veazey v. Communications & Cable of Chicago, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 194 F.3d 850 (on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), only facts favorable to defendant that court can consider are those alleged in plaintiff's complaint). Kaplan v. Shure Bros., Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 153 F.3d 413. Autry v. Northwest Premium Servs., Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1037. Ledford v. Sullivan, C.A.7th, 1997, 105 F.3d 354. Harris v. Greer, C.A.7th, 1984, 750 F.2d 617.

Illinois Baumgardner v. County of Cook, D.C.Ill.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 1041. Majchrowski v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 946. Martinez v. Gonzalez, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 768, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 148 F.3d 856. Berens v. Ludwig, D.C.Ill.1997, 953 F.Supp. 249, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 160 F.3d 1144. Fedor v. Illinois Dep't of Employment Sec., D.C.Ill.1996, 955 F.Supp. 891. Spiegel v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1996, 920 F.Supp. 891. Hamilton v. Peters, D.C.Ill.1996, 919 F.Supp. 1168. Yellow Cab Co. v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1996, 919 F.Supp. 1133. Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 904 F.Supp. 753. Offutt v. Kaplan, D.C.Ill.1995, 884 F.Supp. 1179. Landfair v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1106. Taylor v. Anderson, D.C.Ill.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1024. Doe v. Village of Oak Park, D.C.Ill.1994, 863 F.Supp. 797. Nappi v. Meridian Leasing Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1177. Adams v. Cavanagh Communities Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1390. Goodwin-Kuntu v. Hoechst-Roussel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 157 F.R.D. 445. Madden v. Country Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1081. Murphy v. Wheaton, D.C.Ill.1974, 381 F.Supp. 1252.

Indiana Buck Creek Coal, Inc. v. United Workers of America, D.C.Ind.1995, 917 F.Supp. 601.

Wisconsin Muka v. Nicolet Paper Co., D.C.Wis.1978, 452 F.Supp. 491.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Hauer v. Bankers Trust New York Corp., D.C.Wis.1977, 425 F.Supp. 796.

Eighth Circuit Autio v. AFSCME, Local 3139, C.A.8th, 1998, 140 F.3d 802, on rehearing en banc C.A.8th, 1998, 157 F.3d 1141. Frey v. City of Herculaneum, Missouri, C.A.8th, 1995, 44 F.3d 667. Lada v. Wilkie, C.A.8th, 1957, 250 F.2d 211.

Arkansas Gilmer v. Buena Vista Home Video, Inc., D.C.Ark.1996, 939 F.Supp. 665, 667, citing Wright & Miller. Parsons v. Burns, D.C.Ark.1993, 846 F.Supp. 1372, citing Wright & Miller. Delgadillo v. Elledge, D.C.Ark.1972, 337 F.Supp. 827.

Iowa Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., D.C.Iowa 2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 797. Mercer v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, D.C.Iowa 1999, 79 F.Supp.2d 1055. Salcido ex rel. Gilliland v. Woodbury County, Iowa, D.C.Iowa 1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 1035. Terra Indus., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Iowa 1997, 990 F.Supp. 679. Leiberkneckt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., D.C.Iowa 1997, 980 F.Supp. 300. Powell v. Tordoff, D.C.Iowa 1995, 911 F.Supp. 1184. DeWit v. Firstar Corp., D.C.Iowa 1995, 879 F.Supp. 947. Dahl v. Kanawha Inv. Holding Co., D.C.Iowa 1995, 161 F.R.D. 673. Briggs v. Sterner, D.C.Iowa 1981, 529 F.Supp. 1155.

Minnesota Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.Minn.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 912. In re Milk Prods. Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Minn.1997, 84 F.Supp.2d 1016. Moubry v. Independent School Dist. No. 696, D.C.Minn.1996, 951 F.Supp. 867. Upsher-Smith Lab., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., D.C.Minn.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1411. Gonzales v. West End Iron & Metal Corp., D.C.Minn.1996, 915 F.Supp. 1031. In re Temporomandibular Joint Implants Prods. Liability Litigation, D.C.Minn.1995, 872 F.Supp. 1019, affirmed C.A.8th, 1996, 97 F.3d 1050.

Missouri 999 v. Cox & Co., D.C.Mo.1983, 574 F.Supp. 1026, 1031, citing Wright & Miller.

South Dakota Benedetto v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 976, 989 (D.S.D. 2013).

Ninth Circuit U.S. v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011) ("pleaded facts"). Taylor v. Rancho Santa Barbara, C.A.9th, 2000, 206 F.3d 932, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 179, 531 U.S. 874, 148 L.Ed.2d 123. LSO, Limited. v. Stroh, C.A.9th, 2000, 205 F.3d 1146. Estate of Brooks ex rel. Brooks v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1999, 197 F.3d 1245. Shamrock Farms Co. v. Veneman, C.A.9th, 1998, 146 F.3d 1177, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 872, 525 U.S. 1105, 142 L.Ed.2d 773. Metro Display Advertising, Inc. v. City of Victorville, C.A.9th, 1998, 143 F.3d 1191. In re American Continental Corp., C.A.9th, 1996, 102 F.3d 1524, reversed on other grounds sub nom. Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 1998, 118 S.Ct. 956, 523 U.S. 26, 140 L.Ed.2d 62. Reimche v. First Nat. Bank of Nevada, C.A.9th, 1975, 512 F.2d 187. Brown v. Brown, C.A.9th, 1966, 368 F.2d 992, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 133, 385 U.S. 868, 17 L.Ed.2d 95.

California Glenbrook Homeowners Ass'n v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1994, 858 F.Supp. 986.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Nevada Collins v. Palczewski, D.C.Nev.1993, 841 F.Supp. 333. Mirin v. Justices of the Supreme Ct. of Nevada, D.C.Nev.1976, 415 F.Supp. 1178.

Tenth Circuit Smith v. Kitchen, C.A.10th, 1997, 156 F.3d 1025. Bryan v. Stillwater Bd. of Realtors, C.A.10th, 1977, 578 F.2d 1319, 1321, citing Wright & Miller. Mitchell v. King, C.A.10th, 1976, 537 F.2d 385.

Kansas Ramada Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Tresprop, Ltd., D.C.Kan.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 1205. Ramada Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Tresprop, Ltd., D.C.Kan.1999, 188 F.R.D. 610. Van Hoove v. Mid-America Bldg. Maintenance, Inc., D.C.Kan.1993, 811 F.Supp. 609.

New Mexico Cordova v. Vaughn Municipal School Dist. Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.M.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 1216.

Oklahoma Lee v. Derryberry, D.C.Okl.1978, 466 F.Supp. 30.

Eleventh Circuit Lynn v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 2013 WL 5458856 (11th Cir. 2013), citing GSW, Inc. v. Long County, Ga., 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir. 1993). Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., C.A.11th, 2000, 230 F.3d 1300. Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., C.A.11th, 2000, 225 F.3d 1228. Santamorena v. Georgia Military College, C.A.11th, 1998, 147 F.3d 1337. Jackson v. Okaloosa County, Florida, C.A.11th, 1994, 21 F.3d 1531.

Alabama Moore v. Walter Coke, Inc., 294 F.R.D. 620, 623 (N.D. Ala. 2013), citing Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Deerman v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., D.C.Ala.1997, 955 F.Supp. 1393. U.S. ex rel. Sanders v. East Alabama Healthcare Authority, D.C.Ala.1996, 953 F.Supp. 1404. McFarland v. Folsom, D.C.Ala.1994, 854 F.Supp. 862.

Florida Lifetime Homes, Inc. v. Walker Homes, Inc., D.C.Fla.2006, 2006 WL 889986. Crowell v. Morgan, Stanley, Dean Witter Servs. Co., D.C.Fla.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 1287. In re Sunbeam Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1999, 89 F.Supp.2d 1326. Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P. v. E & A Beepers Corp., D.C.Fla.1999, 188 F.R.D. 662. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. U.S., D.C.Fla.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1346. Nautica Int'l, Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P., D.C.Fla.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 1333. Wasserman v. Three Seasons Ass'n No. 1, Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1445. Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc. v. West, D.C.Fla.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1254. Aruvision Holding & Exploitation, B.V. v. Disney/ABC Television Int'l, Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 992 F.Supp. 1370. U.S. v. One (1) 1980 Cessna 441 Conquest II Aircraft, D.C.Fla.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1465. Seibel v. Society Lease, Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 969 F.Supp. 713. ThunderWave v. Carnival Corp., D.C.Fla.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1562. Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1538. Mangin v. Westco Sec. Sys., Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 922 F.Supp. 563. T.W.M. v. American Medical Sys., Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 886 F.Supp. 842. Canon v. Clark, D.C.Fla.1995, 883 F.Supp. 718.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Smith v. Avino, D.C.Fla.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1399, affirmed C.A.11th, 1996, 91 F.3d 105. Dearmas v. Av-Med, Inc., D.C.Fla.1993, 814 F.Supp. 1103. Sea Pines of Virginia, Inc. v. PLD, Ltd., D.C.Fla.1975, 399 F.Supp. 708.

Georgia Prince Heaton Enterprises, Inc. v. Buffalo's Franchise Concepts, Inc., D.C.Ga.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 1357. Cruet v. Emroy Univ., D.C.Ga.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1353. Henkin v. AT & T Corporation, D.C.Ga.1999, 80 F.Supp.2d 1357. Banco Surinvest, S.A. v. SunTrust Bank, Atlanta, D.C.Ga.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 1366. Williams v. Lear Operations Corp., D.C.Ga.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 1377. Jersawitz v. People TV, D.C.Ga.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1330. Mitchell v. Ford Motor Credit Co., D.C.Ga.1998, 68 F.Supp.2d 1315. In re Miller Indus., Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ga.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1323. In re ValuJet, Inc., Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ga.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1472. Olson v. Loy, D.C.Ga.1996, 951 F.Supp. 225. Parisie v. Morris, D.C.Ga.1995, 873 F.Supp. 1560. Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, D.C.Ga.1993, 813 F.Supp. 821, affirmed C.A.11th, 1993, 992 F.2d 1548.

D.C. Circuit U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 31. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 522. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 515. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 507. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 21. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 16. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 10. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 2. U.S. v. Bouchey, D.C.D.C.1994, 860 F.Supp. 890.

Federal Circuit Young v. AGB Corporation, C.A.Fed., 1998, 152 F.3d 1377.

Everything Maxwell v. Henry, D.C.Tex.1993, 815 F.Supp. 213 (“everything”). 16 Factual allegations

Supreme Court Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007). Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 2006, 126 S.Ct. 1991, 547 U.S. 451, 164 L.Ed.2d 720.

First Circuit Manning v. Boston Medical Center Corp., 725 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013). Eastern Food Servs., Inc. v. Pontifical Catholic Univ. Servs. Ass'n, Inc., C.A.1st, 2004, 357 F.3d 1. Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New England, Inc., C.A.1st, 2000, 203 F.3d 90. Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 137 F.3d 12. RTC v. Driscoll, C.A.1st, 1993, 985 F.2d 44.

Maine Bloom v. Crook, D.C.Me.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 1 (factual averments). Parker v. Wakelin, D.C.Me.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1131. Wyman v. Prime Discount Secs., D.C.Me.1993, 819 F.Supp. 79. Consumer Advisory Bd. v. Glover, D.C.Me.1993, 151 F.R.D. 490.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Massachusetts Canales v. Gatzunis, 2013 WL 5781285, *2 (D. Mass. 2013). Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., D.C.Mass.2006, 447 F.Supp.2d 23. Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary v. Eugene B. Casey Foundation, D.C.Mass.2006, 417 F.Supp.2d 192. Frazier v. Fairhaven School Committee, D.C.Mass.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 104, affirmed C.A.1st, 2002, 276 F.3d 52. Killela v. Hall, D.C.Mass.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 204 (factual averments). Shabazz v. Cole, D.C.Mass.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 177. Williams v. Astra USA, Inc., D.C.Mass.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 29 (factual averments). Edwin v. Blenwood Associates, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 70. Paredes v. Princess Cruises, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 87. P.L.A.Y., Incorporated v. NIKE, Incorporated, D.C.Mass.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 60. Honeywell Consumer Prods., Inc. v. Windmere Corp., D.C.Mass.1998, 993 F.Supp. 22 (factual averments). Goodrich v. CML Fiberoptics, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 990 F.Supp. 48 (factual averments). Whelan v. Intergraph Corp., D.C.Mass.1995, 889 F.Supp. 15. Masso v. United Parcel Serv. of America, Inc., D.C.Mass.1995, 884 F.Supp. 610. Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., D.C.Mass.1995, 880 F.Supp. 63. Sarocco v. General Elec. Co., D.C.Mass.1995, 879 F.Supp. 156. Geo. P. Reintjes Co. v. Riley Stoker Corp., D.C.Mass.1995, 161 F.R.D. 2, affirmed C.A.1st, 1995, 71 F.3d 44. In re Computervision Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mass.1994, 869 F.Supp. 56. Rodowicz v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mass.1994, 857 F.Supp. 992. McGrath v. MacDonald, D.C.Mass.1994, 853 F.Supp. 1.

New Hampshire Barron v. U.S., D.C.N.H.1998, 998 F.Supp. 117. Trimble v. Androscoggin Valley Hosp., Inc., D.C.N.H.1994, 847 F.Supp. 226.

Puerto Rico Rishell v. Medical Card System, Inc., 2013 WL 6019212, *4 (D.P.R. 2013). Phico Ins. Co. v. Pavia Health, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2006, 413 F.Supp.2d 76. FAC, Incorporated v. Cooperative de Seguros de Vida, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 244.

Second Circuit Dejesus v. HF Management Services, LLC, 726 F.3d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 918 (2014). Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, 680 F.3d 194, 203 (2d Cir. 2012). Building Industry Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. City of New York, 678 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 2012). Muto v. CBS Corp., 668 F.3d 53, 56 (2d Cir. 2012). Kittay v. Kornstein, C.A.2d, 2000, 230 F.3d 531. Schnall v. Marine Midland Bank, C.A.2d, 2000, 225 F.3d 263. Tarshis v. Riese Organization, C.A.2d, 2000, 211 F.3d 30. Friedl v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 2000, 210 F.3d 79. Boyd v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., C.A.2d, 2000, 208 F.3d 406. Transatlantic Shiffahrtskontor GmbH v. Shanghai Foreign Trade Corp., C.A.2d, 2000, 204 F.3d 384, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 1227, 532 U.S. 904, 149 L.Ed.2d 137. Cruz v. Gomez, C.A.2d, 2000, 202 F.3d 593. Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., C.A.2d, 2000, 202 F.3d 560. Strom v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., C.A.2d, 1999, 202 F.3d 138. Connell v. Signoracci, C.A.2d, 1998, 153 F.3d 74. Grandon v. Merrill Lynch & Co., C.A.2d, 1998, 147 F.3d 184, on remand D.C.N.Y.1999, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. 90689. Cooper v. Parsky, C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 433, on remand D.C.N.Y.2000, 2000 WL 1277593. Jaghory v. New York State Dep't of Educ., C.A.2d, 1997, 131 F.3d 326. Bernheim v. Litt, C.A.2d, 1996, 79 F.3d 318.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bolt Elec., Inc. v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1995, 53 F.3d 465, on remand D.C.N.Y.1998, 1998 WL 851603.

But see Grant v. County of Erie, 120 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1838, 2013 WL 5645566, *1 (2d Cir. 2013) ("This Circuit has recognized an exception to the rule that a court must accept all factual assertions as true when attenuated allegations supporting the claim are contradicted by more specific allegations in the Complaint or when a claim is based on wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations."), citing ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007).

Connecticut A. ex rel. A. v. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 2013 WL 5526624, *7 (D. Conn. 2013), citing Moore v. Mara, 2010 WL 3270223, *3 (D. Conn. 2010). Lieberman v. Emigrant Mortgage Co., D.C.Conn.2006, 436 F.Supp.2d 357. Independence Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., D.C.Conn.2006, 2006 WL 860676. Copeland v. Home & Community Health Servs., D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 144. DeRay v. Larson, D.C.Conn.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 706. Ericson v. City of Meriden, D.C.Conn.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 276, affirmed C.A.2d, 2002, 55 Fed.Appx. 11. Hughes v. City of Hartford, D.C.Conn.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 114. Norwalk Cove Marina, Inc. v. S/V ODYSSEUS, D.C.Conn.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 190. Fonseca v. RBC Heim Bearings Corp., D.C.Conn.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 137. Mendlow v. Seven Locks Facility, D.C.Conn.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 55. Burgos v. Department of Children & Families, D.C.Conn.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 313. In re SmithKline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc. Lab. Test Billing Practices Litigation, D.C.Conn.1999, 108 F.Supp.2d 84. Latella v. National Passenger R.R. Corp., D.C.Conn.1999, 94 F.Supp.2d 186. Local 1035, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Pepsi-Cola Allied Bottlers, Inc., D.C.Conn.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 301. Abdullah ex rel. Abdullah v. Travelers Property Cas. Corp., D.C.Conn.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 289. Cole v. Aetna Life & Cas., D.C.Conn.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 106. Musso v. Seiders, D.C.Conn.1999, 194 F.R.D. 43. Sanchez v. City of Hartford, D.C.Conn.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 162. Alba v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.1998, 999 F.Supp. 687. Cornerstone Realty, Inc. v. Dresser Rand Co., D.C.Conn.1998, 993 F.Supp. 107. Beggs v. Rossi, D.C.Conn.1997, 994 F.Supp. 114, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 145 F.3d 511. Worthington v. City of New Haven, D.C.Conn.1997, 994 F.Supp. 111. Hall v. United Technologies Corp., D.C.Conn.1995, 872 F.Supp. 1094. Siebert v. Nives, D.C.Conn.1994, 871 F.Supp. 110. In re Colonial Ltd. Partnership Litigation, D.C.Conn.1994, 854 F.Supp. 64, 79. Companies for Fair Allocation v. Axil Corp., D.C.Conn.1994, 853 F.Supp. 575. Sun City Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Citizens Utils. Co., D.C.Conn.1994, 847 F.Supp. 281. Bapat v. Connecticut Dep't of Health Servs., D.C.Conn.1992, 815 F.Supp. 525, citing Wright & Miller.

New York New York State Psychiatric Ass'n, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, 2013 WL 5878897, *1 (S.D. N.Y. 2013), citing Cargo Partner AG v. Albatrans, Inc., 352 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 2003). Hemmerdinger Corp. v. Ruocco, 2013 WL 5516194, *3 (E.D. N.Y. 2013). Lonegan v. Hasty, D.C.N.Y.2006, 436 F.Supp.2d 419. Mione v. McGrath, D.C.N.Y.2006, 435 F.Supp.2d 266. Morningside Supermarket Corp. v. New York State Dep't of Health, D.C.N.Y.2006, 432 F.Supp.2d 334. Peres v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., D.C.N.Y.2006, 426 F.Supp.2d 15. Merck & Co. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2006, 425 F.Supp.2d 402. Lee v. HealthFirst, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2006, 2006 WL 177175. Johnson v. Bryco Arms, D.C.N.Y.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 383. Kreinik v. Showbran Photo, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22339268.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Citadel Management, Inc. v. Telesis Trust, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 123 F.Supp.2d 133. Gonzalez v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs. Fishkill Correctional Facility, D.C.N.Y.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 335. Bodner v. Banque Paribas, D.C.N.Y.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 117. Lugo v. Senkowski, D.C.N.Y.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 111. Markes v. Aluminum Co. of America, D.C.N.Y.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 108. Hallett v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs., D.C.N.Y.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 190. People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 275. Powers v. Professional Credit Servs., D.C.N.Y.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 166. Economic Opportunity Comm'n of Nassau County, Inc. v. County of Nassau, D.C.N.Y.2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 433. Integrated Technology & Dev., Inc. v. Rosenfield, D.C.N.Y.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 574. In re Twinlab Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 193. Zdziebloski v. Town of East Greenbush, New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 70. Perks v. Town of Huntington, D.C.N.Y.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 222. Bologna v. Kerr-McGee Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 197. Belly Basics, Inc. v. Mothers Work, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 144. Bruker v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 257. In re Ultrafem Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 678. Volunteers of America of Western New York v. Heinrich, D.C.N.Y.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 252. Steinberg v. PRT Group, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 294. Covello v. Depository Trust Co., Local 153, D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 59. Catapano v. Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 27. Conley v. United Parcel Serv., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 16. Vertical Broadcasting, Inc. v. Town of Southampton, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 379. Dibble v. Fenimore, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 315, reversed on other grounds C.A.2d, 2003, 339 F.3d 120. In re Nine West Shoes Antitrust Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 181. Webb v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.2000, 197 F.R.D. 98. In re Livent, Inc., Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 194. Meachem v. Wing, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 431. Asdourian v. Konstantin, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 349. Arizona Premium Fin., Inc. v. Bielli, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 341. Murphy v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 489. SEC v. Caserta, D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 79. Ressler v. Liz Claiborne, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 43. Arduini/Messina Partnership v. National Medical Financial Servs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 352. East Hampton Airport Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Town Bd. of the Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 139. Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 190 F.R.D. 134. Marbi Corp. of New York v. Puhekker, D.C.N.Y.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 425. Universal Marine Medical Supply, Inc. v. Lovecchio, D.C.N.Y.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 214. Cahill v. O'Donnell, D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 341. Lucas v. Planning Bd. of Town of LaGrange, D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 310. Toms v. Pizzo, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 178, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 38. Brower v. Nydic, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 325. Honess 52 Corp. v. Town of Fishkill, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 294. Rodriguez v. McGinnis, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 244. De Jesus-Keolamphu v. Village of Pelham Manor, D.C.N.Y.1998, 999 F.Supp. 556, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 166 F.3d 1199. DiPaolo Mach. Works, Ltd. v. Prestige Equip. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 998 F.Supp. 229. Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 998 F.Supp. 204, vacated on other grounds C.A.2d, 1999, 198 F.3d 28, amended on denial of rehearing C.A.2d, 2000, 204 F.3d 392. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 340. Bond v. Sterling, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 306.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Stanley v. Cooper, D.C.N.Y.1998, 996 F.Supp. 316. In re Sumitomo Copper Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 451. ESI, Incorporated v. Coastal Power Production Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 419. Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 425, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 165 F.3d 183. Barcher v. New York Univ. School of Law, D.C.N.Y.1998, 993 F.Supp. 177, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 37. Local 875 I.B.T. Pension Fund v. Pollack, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 545. Cerasani v. Sony Corp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 991 F.Supp. 343. US Airways Group, Inc. v. British Airways PLC, D.C.N.Y.1997, 989 F.Supp. 482. Kampfer v. Scullin, D.C.N.Y.1997, 989 F.Supp. 194. Schoenhaut v. American Sensors, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 785. Casaburro v. Giuliani, D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 176. Porter v. Texaco, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 380. Jones v. Albany County Civil Serv. Comm'n, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 280. Michael Coppel Promotions Pty. Ltd. v. Bolton, D.C.N.Y.1997, 982 F.Supp. 950. Sacco v. Pataki, D.C.N.Y.1997, 982 F.Supp. 231, affirmed C.A.2d, 2002, 278 F.3d 93. Laub v. Faessel, D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 870. Tufts v. Corporation of Lloyd's, D.C.N.Y.1996, 981 F.Supp. 808, affirmed C.A.2d, 1997, 128 F.3d 793. Robins v. Max Mara, U.S.A., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 923 F.Supp. 460. Papa's-June Music, Inc. v. McLean, D.C.N.Y.1996, 921 F.Supp. 1154. Clarke v. TRW, Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.1996, 921 F.Supp. 927. New York City Dep't of Fin. v. Twin Rivers, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 920 F.Supp. 50. Adams v. New Rochelle Hosp. Medical Center, D.C.N.Y.1996, 919 F.Supp. 711. Amaker v. Hakes, D.C.N.Y.1996, 919 F.Supp. 127. McCarthy v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., D.C.N.Y.1996, 916 F.Supp. 366, affirmed C.A.2d, 1997, 119 F.3d 148. Shannon v. MTA Metro-North R.R., D.C.N.Y.1996, 915 F.Supp. 591. Siben v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 913 F.Supp. 271. Tout v. Erie Community College, D.C.N.Y.1995, 923 F.Supp. 13. State Wide Photocopy, Corp. v. Tokai Financial Servs., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 909 F.Supp. 137. Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, D.C.N.Y.1995, 908 F.Supp. 1226. Taylor v. Brentwood Union Free School Dist., D.C.N.Y.1995, 908 F.Supp. 1165. Gerzog v. London Fog Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 907 F.Supp. 590. Pier Connection, Inc. v. Lakhani, D.C.N.Y.1995, 907 F.Supp. 72. Strauss v. American Holdings, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 902 F.Supp. 475. Rahman v. McElroy, D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 782. Chrzanowski v. Lichtman, D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 751. Elgin Sweeper Co. v. Melson Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 641. Hubbell Inc. v. Pass & Seymour, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 883 F.Supp. 955. Guice-Mills v. Brown, D.C.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1427. Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, D.C.N.Y.1995, 874 F.Supp. 576. Strong v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, D.C.N.Y.1994, 872 F.Supp. 1160. Falik v. Parker Duryee Rosoff & Haft, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 228. Shub v. Hankin, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 213. Sazerac Co. v. Falk, D.C.N.Y.1994, 861 F.Supp. 253. Scheiner v. Wallace, D.C.N.Y.1994, 860 F.Supp. 991. Lind v. Vanguard Offset Printers, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1060. Marsden v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, D.C.N.Y.1994, 856 F.Supp. 832. Barnum v. Millbrook Care Ltd. Partnership, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1227. Argenbright Sec. v. Ceskoslovenske Aeroline, D.C.N.Y.1994, 849 F.Supp. 276. Bezerra v. County Of Nassau, D.C.N.Y.1994, 846 F.Supp. 214. Warnaco Inc. v. VF Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1994, 844 F.Supp. 940.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Chayo v. Kaladjian, D.C.N.Y.1994, 844 F.Supp. 163. Ades v. Deloitte & Touche, D.C.N.Y.1994, 843 F.Supp. 888. En Vogue v. UK Optical Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1994, 843 F.Supp. 838. Warwick Administrative Group v. Avon Prods., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 820 F.Supp. 116. Milam v. Herrlin, D.C.N.Y.1993, 819 F.Supp. 295. Feerick v. Sudolnik, D.C.N.Y.1993, 816 F.Supp. 879. Ballachino v. Anders, D.C.N.Y.1993, 811 F.Supp. 121. Bharucha v. Reuters Holdings PLC, D.C.N.Y.1993, 810 F.Supp. 37. Fulani v. Brady, D.C.N.Y.1993, 809 F.Supp. 1112, affirmed C.A.2d, 1994, 35 F.3d 49. Dodds v. Cigna Secs., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1992, 841 F.Supp. 89, affirmed C.A.2d, 1993, 12 F.3d 346.

Vermont Kessler v. Loftus, D.C.Vt.1997, 994 F.Supp. 240. Nordica USA, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, D.C.Vt.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1082.

Third Circuit McGarvey v. Penske Auto Group, Inc., 486 Fed. Appx. 276, 279 (3d Cir. 2012). Carpenter v. Ashby, 2009 WL 2893198 (3d Cir. 2009). Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., C.A.3d, 2000, 232 F.3d 173, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 2000, 532 U.S. 1038, 149 L.Ed.2d 1003. Ramadan v. Chase Manhattan Corp., C.A.3d, 2000, 229 F.3d 194. Maio v. Aetna, Inc., C.A.3d, 2000, 221 F.3d 472. Children's Seashore House v. Waldman, C.A.3d, 1999, 197 F.3d 654, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2742, 530 U.S. 1275, 147 L.Ed.2d 1006. City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co., C.A.3d, 1998, 147 F.3d 256. Simon v. Cebrick, C.A.3d, 1995, 53 F.3d 17. Piecknick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, C.A.3d, 1994, 36 F.3d 1250. Colantuno v. Aetna Ins. Co., C.A.3d, 1992, 980 F.2d 908.

Delaware Cunningham v. Becker, D.C.Del.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 369.

New Jersey Oss Nokalva, Inc. v. European Space Agency, 2009 WL 2424702 (D.N.J. 2009). Hill v. Nigro, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 436133. Rinald (Neifert) v. Komar, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 166449. Mardini v. Viking Freight, Inc., D.C.N.J.1999, 92 F.Supp.2d 378. Township of West Orange v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 408. Bryant v. New Jersey Dep't of Transportation, D.C.N.J.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 426. Presbytery of New Jersey of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church v. Florio, D.C.N.J.1995, 902 F.Supp. 492, affirmed C.A.3d, 1996, 99 F.3d 101.

Pennsylvania Kirk v. Roan, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 2645154. Bond v. Rhodes, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 1617892. Gupta v. Albright College, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 162977. Sechler v. State College Area School Dist., D.C.Pa.2000, 121 F.Supp.2d 439. Kristi H. ex rel. Virginia H. v. Tri-Valley School Dist., D.C.Pa.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 628. Constar, Inc. v. National Distribution Centers, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 319. Kwan v. U.S., D.C.Pa.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 613, affirmed C.A.Fed., 2001, 272 F.3d 1360. Saxe v. State College Area School Dist., D.C.Pa.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 621, reversed on other grounds C.A.3d, 2001, 240 F.3d 200. Bellas v. CBS, Incorporated, D.C.Pa.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 493.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

McGrath v. Johnson, D.C.Pa.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 499. Walsh v. Strenz, D.C.Pa.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 548. Hughes v. Halbach & Braun Indus., Ltd., D.C.Pa.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 491. Aronson v. Creditrust Corp., D.C.Pa.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 589. Dill v. Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 583. Shaffer v. South State Machinery, Inc., D.C.Pa.1998, 995 F.Supp. 584. Compton v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, D.C.Pa.1998, 995 F.Supp. 554. L.C. Renninger Co. v. VIK Brothers Ins., Inc., D.C.Pa.1997, 180 F.R.D. 272. Abdul Jabbar-Al Samad v. Horn, D.C.Pa.1995, 913 F.Supp. 373. Trauma Serv. Group v. Keating, D.C.Pa.1995, 907 F.Supp. 110. Young v. City of Allentown, D.C.Pa.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1490. Crighton v. Schuylkill County, D.C.Pa.1995, 882 F.Supp. 411. Frankel v. Warwick Hotel, D.C.Pa.1995, 881 F.Supp. 183. Brosso v. Devices for Vascular Intervention, Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 879 F.Supp. 473, citing Wright & Miller. Crabtree v. Academy Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1995, 878 F.Supp. 727. Parasco v. Pacific Indem. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 870 F.Supp. 644. Frazier v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 757. Moser v. Bascelli, D.C.Pa.1994, 865 F.Supp. 249. Cohen v. Oasin, D.C.Pa.1994, 863 F.Supp. 225. Fox Fuel, a Div. of Keroscene, Inc. v. Delaware County Schools Joint Purchasing Bd., D.C.Pa.1994, 856 F.Supp. 945. Brown v. Peoples Sec. Ins., D.C.Pa.1994, 158 F.R.D. 350. Burns v. Cover Studios, Inc., D.C.Pa.1993, 818 F.Supp. 888. Bolden v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1993, 814 F.Supp. 444.

Virgin Islands David v. AMR Services Corp., D.C.Virgin Islands 2000, 191 F.R.D. 89. KMART Corporation v. Balfour Beatty, Inc., D.C.Virgin Islands 1998, 994 F.Supp. 634. Julien v. Committee of Bar Examiners for the Practice of Law, D.C.Virgin Islands 1996, 923 F.Supp. 707.

Fourth Circuit WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. Miller, 687 F.3d 199, 203 (4th Cir. 2012). Kensington Volunteer Fire Dept., Inc. v. Montgomery County, Md., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). Kunda v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 671 F.3d 464, 467 (4th Cir. 2011). McLean v. U.S., 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009). Mayes v. Rapoport, C.A.4th, 1999, 198 F.3d 457. LeBlanc v. Cahill, C.A.4th, 1998, 153 F.3d 134, appeal after remand C.A.4th, 2001, 3 Fed.Appx. 98.

Maryland Caire v. Conifer Value Based Care, LLC, 29 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 134, 2013 WL 5973151, *13 (D. Md. 2013). HQM, Limited v. Hatfield, D.C.Md.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 500. Maryland Minority Contractor's Ass'n, Inc. v. Maryland Stadium Authority, D.C.Md.1998, 70 F.Supp.2d 580, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 198 F.3d 237.

North Carolina King v. United Way of Cent. Carolinas, Inc., 2009 WL 2432706 (W.D. N.C. 2009). Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Support Servs. of Carolina, Inc., D.C.N.C.2000, 123 F.Supp.2d 945. Hammel v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.N.C.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 478, affirmed C.A.4th, 2001, 6 Fed.Appx. 169. U.S. ex rel. Lindsey v. Trend Community Mental Health Servs., D.C.N.C.1999, 88 F.Supp.2d 475. Murphy v. Danzig, D.C.N.C.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 519. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shulimson Bros. Co., D.C.N.C.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 553. Zelaya v. J.M. Macias, Inc., D.C.N.C.1998, 999 F.Supp. 778. Livingston v. Guice, D.C.N.C.1994, 855 F.Supp. 834, reversed on other grounds C.A.4th, 1995, 68 F.3d 460.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Shaw v. Barr, D.C.N.C.1992, 808 F.Supp. 461, citing Wright & Miller.

South Carolina In re MI Windows and Doors, Inc. Products Liability Litigation, 914 F. Supp. 2d 744, 748 (D.S.C. 2012), citing E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011).

Virginia Davis v. Rao, 2013 WL 5999643, *3 (E.D. Va. 2013), citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999). Leggat v. Equifax Information Services, Inc., 2009 WL 2432371 (E.D. Va. 2009). Ritinski v. McGarity, D.C.Va.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 509. Bryant v. Clevelands, Inc., D.C.Va.2000, 193 F.R.D. 486. Goldstein v. Malcolm G.Fries & Associates, Inc., D.C.Va.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 620. Brandsasse v. City of Suffolk, Virginia, D.C.Va.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 608. Cobb v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia, D.C.Va.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 815. Londeree v. Crutchfield Corp., D.C.Va.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 718, affirmed C.A.4th, 2000, 210 F.3d 361. Wise v. U.S., D.C.Va.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 535. U.S. v. High Point Chem. Corp., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 770. Doe v. Irvine Scientific Sales Co., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 737. DeBauche v. Virginia Commonwealth Univ., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 718, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 191 F.3d 499, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 1451, 529 U.S. 1033, 146 L.Ed.2d 337. Leverton v. AlliedSignal, Inc., D.C.Va.1998, 991 F.Supp. 486. Prudencio v. Runyon, D.C.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 343. Bartrug v. Rubin, D.C.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 332. Burns v. AAF-McQuay, Inc., D.C.Va.1997, 980 F.Supp. 175, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 166 F.3d 292. Alston v. Virginia High School League, Inc., D.C.Va.1997, 176 F.R.D. 220. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, S.S. Clerks Local 1624, AFL-CIO v. Virginia Int'l Terminals, Inc., D.C.Va.1996, 914 F.Supp. 1335. Kline v. Nationsbank of Virginia, N.A., D.C.Va.1995, 886 F.Supp. 1285. Westmoreland v. Brown, D.C.Va.1995, 883 F.Supp. 67. Chisolm v. Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc., D.C.Va.1994, 851 F.Supp. 739, vacated on other grounds C.A.4th, 1996, 95 F.3d 331. McNeal v. Harper, D.C.Va.1993, 816 F.Supp. 421.

Fifth Circuit Kopp v. Klein, 722 F.3d 327, 333 (5th Cir. 2013), citing Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999). Kennedy v. Tangipahoa Parish Library Bd. of Control, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 359. Spivey v. Robertson, C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 772, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2659, 530 U.S. 1229, 147 L.Ed.2d 274. Bradley v. Puckett, C.A.5th, 1998, 157 F.3d 1022 (§ 1915). Davis v. Bayless, C.A.5th, 1995, 70 F.3d 367.

Louisiana Oldan Holdings, LLC v. City of New Orleans, D.C.La.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 503. Romero v. Witherspoon, D.C.La.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 808. In re Air Bag Prods. Liability Litigation, D.C.La.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 792. Willis-Knighton Medical v. City of Bossier City, Louisiana, D.C.La.1997, 2 F.Supp.2d 842. Todd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.C.La.1996, 924 F.Supp. 59. Hassan v. Louisiana Dep't of Transp. & Dev., D.C.La.1996, 923 F.Supp. 890. Evangeline Telephone Co. v. AT & T Communications of the So. Cent. States, Inc., D.C.La.1995, 916 F.Supp. 598. Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. v. Alpine Ocean Seismic Surveys, D.C.La.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1578.

Mississippi Vance v. Boyd Mississippi, Inc., D.C.Miss.1996, 923 F.Supp. 905.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Texas Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Fitch, 643 F. Supp. 2d 902 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Howard v. City of Kerrville, Texas, D.C.Tex.2006, 2006 WL 1073461. U.S. ex rel. Wilkins v. North American Constr. Corp., D.C.Tex.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 500, opinion amended and superseded on other grounds D.C.Tex.2001, 173 F.Supp.2d 601. Spicer v. Collins, D.C.Tex.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 673. Hazelton v. City of Grand Prairie, Texas, D.C.Tex.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 570. Miller v. Stonehenge/FasaTexas, JDC, L.P., D.C.Tex.1998, 993 F.Supp. 461. U.S. ex rel. Foulds v. Texas Tech Univ., D.C.Tex.1997, 980 F.Supp. 864, reversed on other grounds C.A.5th, 1999, 171 F.3d 279. U.S. v. Bantau, D.C.Tex.1995, 907 F.Supp. 988. Thornton v. Micrografx, Inc., D.C.Tex.1995, 878 F.Supp. 931.

Sixth Circuit Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., 719 F.3d 498, 507 (6th Cir. 2013). Guzman v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 679 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2012). Gregory v. Shelby County, Tennessee, C.A.6th, 2000, 220 F.3d 433. Moore v. City of Harriman, C.A.6th, 2000, 218 F.3d 551, rehearing en banc granted, opinion vacated on other grounds C.A.6th, 2000, 218 F.3d 555. Perry v. McGinnis, C.A.6th, 2000, 209 F.3d 597. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Climax Telephone Co., C.A.6th, 2000, 202 F.3d 862, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 54, 531 U.S. 816, 148 L.Ed.2d 22. Pik-Coal Co. v. Big Rivers Elec. Corp., C.A.6th, 2000, 200 F.3d 884. Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., C.A.6th, 1999, 196 F.3d 617. Turker v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Corrections, C.A.6th, 1998, 157 F.3d 453. Bloch v. Ribar, C.A.6th, 1998, 156 F.3d 673 (rejecting district court's vagueness rationale for dismissal). Coger v. Board of Regents of State of Tennessee, C.A.6th 1998, 154 F.3d 296, vacated on other grounds C.A.6th, 2000, 209 F.3d 485. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., C.A.6th, 1998, 151 F.3d 559. Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., C.A.6th, 1998, 135 F.3d 389. Barrett v. Harrington, C.A.6th, 1997, 130 F.3d 246, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 1517, 523 U.S. 1075, 140 L.Ed.2d 670. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. v. Tatum, C.A.6th, 1995, 58 F.3d 1101, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 1041, 516 U.S. 1158, 134 L.Ed.2d 189. LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority, C.A.6th, 1995, 55 F.3d 1097. In re DeLorean Motor Co., C.A.6th, 1993, 991 F.2d 1236. Newman v. Voinovich, C.A.6th, 1993, 986 F.2d 159, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 3041, 509 U.S. 924, 125 L.Ed.2d 727. Carter by Carter v. Cornwell, C.A.6th, 1993, 983 F.2d 52.

Kentucky Griffin v. Jones, 2013 WL 5441650, *3 (W.D. Ky. 2013), citing Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008). Francis v. Barlow, D.C.Ky.2006, 2006 WL 1382216. Wilson v. Webb, D.C.Ky.1994, 869 F.Supp. 496.

Michigan Berry v. Main Street Bank, 2013 WL 5651440, *2 (E.D. Mich. 2013), quoting Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007). Sherrill v. Federal–Mogul Corp. Retirement Programs Committee, D.C.Mich.2006, 413 F.Supp.2d 842. DirectTV, Inc. v. Zink, D.C.Mich.2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 873. Blakely v. First Fed. Savs. Bank & Trust, D.C.Mich.2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 799, affirmed C.A.6th, 2002, 276 F.3d 853. Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, D.C.Mich.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 711. Zolman v. IRS, D.C.Mich.1999, 87 F.Supp.2d 763.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art & Design, D.C.Mich.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 829, affirmed C.A.6th, 2001, 244 F.3d 521. American Special Risk Ins. Co. ex rel. So. Macomb Disposal Authority v. City of Centerline, D.C.Mich.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 944. Lanni v. Engler, D.C.Mich.1998, 994 F.Supp. 849. Gao v. Jenifer, D.C.Mich.1997, 991 F.Supp. 887, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 1999, 185 F.3d 548. Amway Distributors Benefits Ass'n v. Federal Ins. Co., D.C.Mich.1997, 990 F.Supp. 936. Niece v. Fitzner, D.C.Mich.1996, 922 F.Supp. 1208. Parkhurst v. North American Financial Servs. Cos., D.C.Mich.1996, 919 F.Supp. 270. Hilliard v. Shell Western E. & P., Inc., D.C.Mich.1995, 885 F.Supp. 169. Tlusty v. U.S., D.C.Mich.1994, 871 F.Supp. 299. Canales v. Gabry, D.C.Mich.1994, 844 F.Supp. 1167. Strout v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, D.C.Mich.1994, 842 F.Supp. 948, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 40 F.3d 136. Torrie by & through Torrie v. Cwayna, D.C.Mich.1994, 841 F.Supp. 1434, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 40 F.3d 136. Ballan v. Upjohn Co., D.C.Mich.1992, 814 F.Supp. 1375. Coplin & Associates, Inc. v. U.S., D.C.Mich.1992, 814 F.Supp. 643, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 27 F.3d 566. Brunetti v. Roney & Co., D.C.Mich.1992, 807 F.Supp. 62. Lindsey v. Jansante, D.C.Mich.1992, 806 F.Supp. 651.

Ohio Ogle v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 924 F. Supp. 2d 902, 907 (S.D. Ohio 2013). McCarthy v. City of Cleveland, 2009 WL 2424296 (N.D. Ohio 2009). Jensen v. Moore–Wallace No. America, Inc., D.C.Ohio 2006, 2006 WL 2645138. Owner Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n Inc. v. Comerica Inc., D.C.Ohio 2006, 2006 WL 1339427. Ste. Marie v. City of Dayton, D.C.Ohio 2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 846. White v. Smith & Wesson Corp., D.C.Ohio 2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 816. Baseball at Trotwood, LLC v. Dayton Professional Baseball Club, LLC, D.C.Ohio 1999, 113 F.Supp.2d 1164. Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark County Solid Waste Management Dist., D.C.Ohio 1999, 110 F.Supp.2d 627. Parrish v. HBO & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 85 F.Supp.2d 792. Downie v. City of Middleburg Heights, D.C.Ohio 1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 794, affirmed C.A.6th, 2002, 301 F.3d 688. Kingman v. U.S., D.C.Ohio 1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 753. Benson v. O'Brien, D.C.Ohio 1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 825. Harris v. City of Cleveland, D.C.Ohio 1999, 190 F.R.D. 215, affirmed C.A.6th, 2001, 7 Fed.Appx. 452. Gupta v. Terra Nitrogen Corp., D.C.Ohio 1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 879. Rupnow v. TRC, Incorporated, D.C.Ohio 1998, 999 F.Supp. 1047. Stein v. Kent State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, D.C.Ohio 1998, 994 F.Supp. 898, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 181 F.3d 103. City of Painesville, Ohio v. First Montauk Financial Corp., D.C.Ohio 1998, 178 F.R.D. 180. Kowalski v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1997, 993 F.Supp. 619. R.J. Wildner Contracting Co. v. Ohio Turnpike Comm'n, D.C.Ohio 1996, 913 F.Supp. 1031. U.S. v. Tuente Livestock, D.C.Ohio 1995, 888 F.Supp. 1416. Cione v. Gorr, D.C.Ohio 1994, 843 F.Supp. 1199.

Tennessee Maxwell v. Stanley Works, D.C.Tenn.2006, 2006 WL 1967012. Aldridge v. U.S., D.C.Tenn.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 802. Sparks v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Tenn.2000, 98 F.Supp.2d 933. Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Tenn.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 832, appeal dismissed C.A.6th, 2001, 2 Fed.Appx. 470. Alexander v. Beale St. Blues Co., D.C.Tenn.1999, 108 F.Supp.2d 934. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 807. Greene v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.C.Tenn.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 882. Syncor Int'l Corp. v. Newbaker, D.C.Tenn.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 781. Lawson v. Shelby County, Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 985, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 2000, 211 F.3d 331.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Smith v. Grumman-Olsen Corp., D.C.Tenn.1995, 913 F.Supp. 1077. Cash v. Brooks, D.C.Tenn.1995, 906 F.Supp. 450. Frizzell v. Southwest Motor Freight, Inc., D.C.Tenn.1995, 906 F.Supp. 441. AMC Mortgage Co. v. RTC, D.C.Tenn.1994, 846 F.Supp. 1323. People First of Tennessee v. Arlington Developmental Center, D.C.Tenn.1992, 878 F.Supp. 97.

Seventh Circuit Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1018 (7th Cir. 2013). Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547, 555 (7th Cir. 2012). AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012). Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2009). May v. Sheahan, C.A.7th, 2000, 226 F.3d 876. Head v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees, C.A.7th, 2000, 225 F.3d 794, on remand D.C.Ill.2000, 2000 WL 1774069. DeWalt v. Carter, C.A.7th, 2000, 224 F.3d 607. Looper Maintenance Serv. Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, C.A.7th, 1999, 197 F.3d 908. Goren v. New Vision Int'l, Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 156 F.3d 721. Walker v. Wallace Auto Sales, Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 155 F.3d 927. Herdrich v. Pegram, C.A.7th, 1998, 154 F.3d 362. Kauthar SDN BHD v. Sternberg, C.A.7th, 1998, 149 F.3d 659, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 890, 525 U.S. 1114, 142 L.Ed.2d 788. Fries v. Helsper, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 452, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 337, 525 U.S. 930, 142 L.Ed.2d 278. Fredrick v. Simmons Airlines, Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 144 F.3d 500. Doe v. University of Illinois, C.A.7th, 1998, 138 F.3d 653. Wilson v. Formigoni, C.A.7th, 1994, 42 F.3d 1060. Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., C.A.7th, 1994, 29 F.3d 280.

Illinois Volodarskiy v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2013 WL 5645776, *2 (N.D. Ill. 2013), citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007). Rogers v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., D.C.Ill.2006, 417 F.Supp.2d 974. Children's Surgical Foundation, Inc. v. National Data Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 121 F.Supp.2d 1221. Davis v. Browner, D.C.Ill.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 1223. Verser v. Elyea, D.C.Ill.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 1211. Spizzirri v. Village of Bensenville, D.C.Ill.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 908. Demick v. City of Joliet, D.C.Ill.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 1022. Hupp v. Experian Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 1008. Schmidt v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 104 F.Supp.2d 955. Hamilton v. Summers, D.C.Ill.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 908. Powell v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 942. Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., D.C.Ill.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 952. Daley v. Provena Hosps., D.C.Ill.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 881. Pritikin v. Liberation Publications, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 920. Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 903. Guzell v. Hiller, D.C.Ill.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 797, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 2000, 223 F.3d 518. Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 741. Dames & Moore v. Baxter & Woodman, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 21 F.Supp.2d 817. Jones v. Detella, D.C.Ill.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 824. Neuma, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 952 (legal conclusions are not taken as true). Singer v. Bulk Petroleum Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 916. 916. Love v. City of Chicago Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ill.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 611. Howard v. Local 152 of Int'l Constr. & Gen. Laborers' Union of America, D.C.Ill.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1213. Glutzer v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Ill.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1070.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Fremont Financial Corp. v. IPC/Levy, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 994 F.Supp. 988. Watters v. Harrah's Illinois Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 993 F.Supp. 667. McLaughlin v. Cook County Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ill.1998, 993 F.Supp. 661. Petri v. Gatlin, D.C.Ill.1997, 997 F.Supp. 956. Copeland v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1182. Sterling v. Kazmierczak, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1186. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Peters, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 787. Evans v. Allen, D.C.Ill.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1102. Levine v. Kling, D.C.Ill.1996, 922 F.Supp. 127, affirmed C.A.7th, 1997, 123 F.3d 580. Allied Vision Group, Inc. v. RLI Professional Technologies, Inc., D.C.Ill.1996, 916 F.Supp. 778. Foster v. Unknown Cook County Deputy Sheriff, D.C.Ill.1995, 914 F.Supp. 221. TLMS Motor Corp. v. Toyota Motor Distributors, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 912 F.Supp. 329. Lindgren v. Moore, D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1183. Servpro Indus., Inc. v. Schmidt, D.C.Ill.1995, 905 F.Supp. 475. Gonzalez v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1995, 888 F.Supp. 887. Griffith v. Keystone Steel & Wire Div. of Keystone Consolidated Indus., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 887 F.Supp. 1133. Piquard v. City of East Peoria, D.C.Ill.1995, 887 F.Supp. 1106. Hoban v. USLIFE Credit Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 163 F.R.D. 509. American Agriculture Movement, Inc. v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 848 F.Supp. 814, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1995, 62 F.3d 918. Havey v. County of DuPage, D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 359. Tektel, Inc. v. Maier, D.C.Ill.1992, 813 F.Supp. 1331. In re Abbott Labs. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ill.1992, 813 F.Supp. 1315. Magnuson v. Cassarella, D.C.Ill.1992, 812 F.Supp. 824.

Indiana Reed v. McBride, D.C.Ind.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 845. Printpack, Inc. v. Graphic Communications Union Local 761S, D.C.Ind.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1201. Indiana State Teachers Ass'n v. Board of School Comm'rs of the City of Indianapolis, D.C.Ind.1996, 918 F.Supp. 266. Stamatio v. Hurco Cos., D.C.Ind.1995, 885 F.Supp. 1180. Buffington v. Metcalf, D.C.Ind.1994, 883 F.Supp. 1190.

Wisconsin Balcerzak v. City of Milwaukee, D.C.Wis.1997, 980 F.Supp. 983. O'Patka v. Menasha Corp., D.C.Wis.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1202. Zanella v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Wis.1995, 878 F.Supp. 144. Carney v. White, D.C.Wis.1994, 843 F.Supp. 462. U.S. ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Ct. For Taylor County, D.C.Wis.1993, 851 F.Supp. 345.

Eighth Circuit Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 732 F.3d 902, 905 (8th Cir. 2013), citing Alexander v. Hedback, 718 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2013). Butler v. Bank of America, N.A., 690 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 2012). Riley v. St. Louis County of Missouri, C.A.8th, 1998, 153 F.3d 627, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1113, 525 U.S. 1178, 143 L.Ed.2d 109. Double D Spotting Serv., Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc., C.A.8th, 1998, 136 F.3d 554. Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale School Dist., C.A.8th, 1998, 133 F.3d 649.

Arkansas Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Watson, D.C.Ark.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 1027. Arkansas Carpenters' Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ark.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 936. Grissom v. Waterloo Indus., Inc., D.C.Ark.1995, 902 F.Supp. 867.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Iowa In re Engineering Animation Secs. Litigation, D.C.Iowa 2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 1183. Davies v. Genesis Medical Center, D.C.Iowa 1998, 994 F.Supp. 1078. Accordino v. Langman Constr., Inc., D.C.Iowa 1994, 862 F.Supp. 237.

Minnesota Egge v. Healthspan Servs. Co., D.C.Minn.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 1126. In re Digi Int'l, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Minn.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1089. U.S. ex rel. Zissler v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, D.C.Minn.1998, 992 F.Supp. 1097, reversed on other grounds C.A.8th, 1998, 154 F.3d 870. In re Grand Casinos, Inc., Secs. Litigation, D.C.Minn.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1273. Slice v. Sons of Norway, D.C.Minn.1993, 866 F.Supp. 397, affirmed C.A.8th, 1994, 34 F.3d 630. McMaster v. Minnesota, D.C.Minn.1993, 819 F.Supp. 1429, affirmed C.A.8th, 1994, 30 F.3d 976. In re Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Minn.1993, 159 F.R.D. 513.

Missouri Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection Dist., 2013 WL 5707875, *3 (E.D. Mo. 2013), on reconsideration in part, 2014 WL 466234 (E.D. Mo. 2014). Gralike v. Cook, D.C.Mo.1998, 996 F.Supp. 901, affirmed C.A.8th, 1999, 191 F.3d 911, affirmed on other grounds 2001, 121 S.Ct. 1029, 531 U.S. 510, 149 L.Ed.2d 44. Gralike v. Cook, D.C.Mo.1998, 996 F.Supp. 889. FTC v. Freeman Hosp., D.C.Mo.1995, 914 F.Supp. 331. Schwartz v. Pridy, D.C.Mo.1995, 874 F.Supp. 256, affirmed C.A.8th, 1996, 94 F.3d 453.

Nebraska Colombo Candy & Tobacco Wholesale Co. v. Ameristar Casino Council Bluffs, Inc., 2013 WL 5308333, *2 (D. Neb. 2013), citing Outdoor Cent., Inc. v. GreatLodge.com, Inc., 643 F.3d 1115, 1120 (8th Cir. 2011). In re Sawyer, 2010 WL 2901656, *2 (Bankr. D. Neb. 2010).

Ninth Circuit Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013), citing Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012). Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 578 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2009), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh'g en banc, 2010 WL 114959 (9th Cir. 2010). Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc., C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 979. National Ass'n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Bd. of Psychology, C.A.9th, 2000, 228 F.3d 1043, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 1602, 532 U.S. 972, 149 L.Ed. 469. Johnson v. California, C.A.9th, 2000, 207 F.3d 650, appeal after remand C.A.9th, 2003, 321 F.3d 791. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 143 F.3d 1293.

Arizona Lara v. Cowan, D.C.Ariz.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1456.

California Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp., 944 F. Supp. 2d 877, 883 (C.D. Cal. 2013), citing Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-338 (9th Cir. 1996). Haynes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., D.C.Cal.2006, 423 F.Supp.2d 1073. Medimatch, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 120 F.Supp.2d 842. Leon v. County of San Diego, D.C.Cal.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 1197. In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Cal.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 955. Wyatt v. Liljenquist, D.C.Cal.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1062.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

U.S. SEC v. ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 1097. Glen Holly Entertainment, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc., D.C.Cal.1999, 100 F.Supp.2d 1086. U.S. v. One 1992 Ford Mustang GT, D.C.Cal.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 1131. Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, D.C.Cal.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 1083. Von Colln v. County of Ventura, D.C.Cal.1999, 189 F.R.D. 583. Ricotta v. California, D.C.Cal.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 961, affirmed C.A.9th, 1999, 173 F.3d 861, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 157, 528 U.S. 864, 145 L.Ed.2d 133. Dunlap v. Association of Bay Area Govs., D.C.Cal.1998, 996 F.Supp. 962. Qualcomm, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 179 F.R.D. 580. Remington Invs., Inc. v. Kadenacy, D.C.Cal.1996, 930 F.Supp. 446. California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts, D.C.Cal.1996, 922 F.Supp. 327, affirmed C.A.9th, 1999, 195 F.3d 1039. Datastorm Technologies, Inc. v. Excalibur Communications, Inc., D.C.Cal.1995, 888 F.Supp. 112. Citizens for a Better Environment—California v. Union Oil Co. of California, D.C.Cal.1994, 861 F.Supp. 889, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 83 F.3d 1111. Smilecare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of California, D.C.Cal.1994, 858 F.Supp. 1035, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 88 F.3d 780. In re Syntex Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Cal.1994, 855 F.Supp. 1086, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 95 F.3d 922. Microsoft Corp. v. A-Tech Corp., D.C.Cal.1994, 855 F.Supp. 308. FDIC v. Jackson-Shaw Partners No. 46, Ltd., D.C.Cal.1994, 850 F.Supp. 839. Church of Scientology Int'l v. Kolts, D.C.Cal.1994, 846 F.Supp. 873.

Hawaii In re Li, D.C.Haw.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1052 (allegations of fact).

Idaho Brian v. Gugin, D.C.Idaho 1994, 853 F.Supp. 358.

Montana Croteau v. National Better Living Ass'n, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 521, 526 (D. Mont. 2013), citing Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).

Nevada In re Stratosphere Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Nev.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1096. Tanner v. Prima Donna Resorts, Inc., D.C.Nev.1996, 919 F.Supp. 351. Paradise v. Robinson & Hoover, D.C.Nev.1995, 883 F.Supp. 521. Churchill v. Barach, D.C.Nev.1994, 863 F.Supp. 1266. Hallett v. U.S. Department Of Navy, D.C.Nev.1994, 850 F.Supp. 874. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union Welfare Fund v. Gentner, D.C.Nev.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1354, affirmed C.A.9th, 1995, 50 F.3d 719.

Oregon Garcia v. Washington County Dep't of Housing Servs., D.C.Ore.2006, 2006 WL 897984. Morris v. Myers, D.C.Ore.1993, 845 F.Supp. 750.

Washington Washington Wilderness Coalition v. Hecla Mining Co., D.C.Wash.1994, 870 F.Supp. 983. In re New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. Litigation, D.C.Wash.1994, 841 F.Supp. 345, affirmed C.A.9th, 1995, 54 F.3d 786.

Tenth Circuit Edge v. Payne, 342 Fed. Appx. 395 (10th Cir. 2009). Pace v. Swerdlow, 519 F.3d 1067, 1070 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2008). Dill v. City of Edmond, Oklahoma, C.A.10th, 1998, 155 F.3d 1193. Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, C.A.10th, 1998, 154 F.3d 1124.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Colorado Leprino Foods Co. v. U.S., D.C.Colo.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 1161. Walker v. Board of Trustees, Regional Transportation Dist., D.C.Colo.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1105. Robinson v. Public Law Bd. No. 5914, D.C.Colo.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 1266. International Monetary Exchange, Inc. v. First Data Corp., D.C.Colo.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 1261. Amoco Production Co. v. Aspen Group, D.C.Colo.1999, 189 F.R.D. 614. Reeves v. Queen City Transportation, D.C.Colo.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 1181. Cassidy v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. of Texas, D.C.Colo.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1200. Brunetti v. Rubin, D.C.Colo.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1408. Stat-Tech Liquidating Trust v. Fenster, D.C.Colo.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1325. Brooks v. Bank of Boulder, D.C.Colo.1996, 911 F.Supp. 470. Arkansas-Platte & Gulf Partnership v. Dow Chem. Co., D.C.Colo.1995, 886 F.Supp. 762. Allstate Ins. Co. v. U.S., D.C.Colo.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1015. Connolly v. Beckett, D.C.Colo.1994, 863 F.Supp. 1379. Galusha v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, D.C.Colo.1994, 844 F.Supp. 1401. George v. HEK America, Inc., D.C.Colo.1994, 157 F.R.D. 489. Sugro, Inc. v. U.S., D.C.Colo.1994, 156 F.R.D. 233, affirmed C.A.10th, 1995, 57 F.3d 1081. KN Energy, Inc. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., D.C.Colo.1993, 840 F.Supp. 95. RTC v. Heiserman, D.C.Colo.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1457. Sierra Club v. Colorado Refining Co., D.C.Colo.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1428.

New Mexico Overton v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 1034, affirmed C.A.10th, 2000, 202 F.3d 282. Sutton v. New Mexico Dep't of Children, Youth & Families, D.C.N.M.1996, 922 F.Supp. 516.

Oklahoma Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1212 (W.D. Okla. 2013), citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991). Carter v. State Ins. Fund, D.C.Okl.1995, 877 F.Supp. 575.

Utah United Mine Workers of America v. Utah, D.C.Utah 1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1298, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.10th, 2000, 229 F.3d 982. Seamons v. Snow, D.C.Utah 1994, 864 F.Supp. 1111, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.10th, 1996, 84 F.3d 1226.

Eleventh Circuit Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. v. Coweta County, Ga., 708 F.3d 1243, 1252 (11th Cir. 2013), citing Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). Mack v. City of High Springs, 486 Fed. Appx. 3 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Mesocap Indus. Ltd. v. Torm Lines, C.A.11th, 1999, 194 F.3d 1342. Wilson v. Strong, C.A.11th, 1998, 156 F.3d 1131.

Alabama Arthur v. Thomas, 2013 WL 5434694, *1 (M.D. Ala. 2013), citing Baloco ex rel. Tapia v. Drummond Co., Inc., 640 F.3d 1338, 1344-1345 (11th Cir. 2011). A.N.R. ex rel. Reed v. Caldwell, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1294. Adams v. Franklin, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1255. Moss v. W & A Cleaners, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1181. Taylor v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 1297. Sims ex rel. Sims v. Glover, D.C.Ala.1999, 84 F.Supp.2d 1273. Skilstaf, Inc. v. Adminitron, Inc., D.C.Ala.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d. 1210.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Andrus, D.C.Ala.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1291. Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. James, D.C.Ala.1998, 984 F.Supp. 1404. Legion Ins. Co. v. Garner Ins. Agency, Inc., D.C.Ala.1997, 991 F.Supp. 1326. Lynn v. United Technologies Corp., D.C.Ala.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1217. Vaughan Regional Medical Center v. Smith, D.C.Ala.1995, 916 F.Supp. 1142. Arrington v. Dickerson, D.C.Ala.1995, 915 F.Supp. 1503. Florida Seed Co. v. Monsanto Co., D.C.Ala.1995, 915 F.Supp. 1167, affirmed C.A.11th, 1997, 105 F.3d 1372. Missildine v. City of Montgomery, D.C.Ala.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1501. Estate of Scott v. Scott, D.C.Ala.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1495. James v. Tallassee High School, D.C.Ala.1995, 907 F.Supp. 364. Zellars v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ala.1995, 907 F.Supp. 355. Douglas v. Evans, D.C.Ala.1995, 888 F.Supp. 1536. Shaw-Campbell v. Runyon, D.C.Ala.1995, 888 F.Supp. 1111. John Does 1, 2, 3 & 4 v. Covington County School Bd., D.C.Ala.1995, 884 F.Supp. 462. Browning v. City of Wedowee, Alabama, D.C.Ala.1995, 883 F.Supp. 618. Cofield v. Randolph County Comm'n, D.C.Ala.1994, 844 F.Supp. 1499.

Florida Degutis v. Financial Freedom, LLC, 2013 WL 5705438, *4 (M.D. Fla. 2013), citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007). Ziruolo v. Moreland, D.C.Fla.2006, 2006 WL 314509. Danielle v. Adriazola, D.C.Fla.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 1368. Medalie v. FSC Securities Corp., D.C.Fla.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 1295. Elger v. Martin Memorial Health Sys., Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1351. Smith Barney, Inc. v. Scanlon, D.C.Fla.1998, 180 F.R.D. 444. Dominican Energy Ltd. v. Dominican Republic, D.C.Fla.1995, 903 F.Supp. 1507.

Georgia Bartels v. Alabama Commercial College, D.C.Ga.1995, 918 F.Supp. 1565. McCoy v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., D.C.Ga.1995, 878 F.Supp. 229. Sikes v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., D.C.Ga.1993, 841 F.Supp. 1572. Mastroianni v. Deering, D.C.Ga.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1577.

D.C. Circuit English v. District of Columbia, 717 F.3d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2013), citing Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Taylor v. Reilly, 685 F.3d 1110, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 2013 WL 215641 (U.S. 2013), quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007). Hettinga v. U.S., 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 860, 184 L.Ed.2d 658 (2013). Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., C.A.2000, 216 F.3d 1111, 342 U.S.App.D.C. 268. Stoyanov v. Winter, 643 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2009). Hunter v. Corrections Corp. of America, D.C.D.C.2006, 441 F.Supp.2d 78. King & King, Chartered v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., D.C.D.C.2006, 436 F.Supp.2d 3. Rasul v. Rumsfeld, D.C.D.C.2006, 433 F.Supp.2d 58. Mansfield v. Billington, D.C.D.C.2006, 432 F.Supp.2d 64 (all factual allegations, including mixed questions of law and fact, are taken as true). Rasul v. Rumsfeld, D.C.D.C.2006, 414 F.Supp.2d 26. Guam Industrial Servs., Inc. v. Rumsfeld, D.C.D.C.2006, 405 F.Supp.2d 16. Kaufman v. Gonzalez, D.C.D.C.2006, 2006 WL 1725579. Becker v. Gallaudet Univ., D.C.D.C.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 16.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

U.S. ex rel. Long v. SCS Business & Technical Institute, D.C.D.C.1998, 999 F.Supp. 78, reversed on other grounds C.A.1999, 173 F.3d 870, 335 U.S.App.D.C. 331, supplemented C.A.1999, 173 F.3d 890, 335 U.S.App.D.C. 351. Page v. Shelby, D.C.D.C.1998, 995 F.Supp. 23, affirmed C.A.1998, 172 F.3d 920, 335 U.S.App.D.C. 319, opinion at 1998 WL 700165. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), Societe Anonyme v. Khalil, D.C.D.C.1997, 20 F.Supp.2d 1, citing Wright & Miller. Boyer v. Conaboy, D.C.D.C.1997, 983 F.Supp. 4. Ki Young Chung v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1997, 982 F.Supp. 20. Thomas v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1995, 887 F.Supp. 1. Anderson v. Local 201 Reinforcing Rodmen, D.C.D.C.1995, 886 F.Supp. 94. Nicastro v. Clinton, D.C.D.C.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1128. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, D.C.D.C.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1, affirmed C.A.1996, 76 F.3d 1232, 316 U.S.App.D.C. 179. Dominion Cogen, D.C., Inc. v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1995, 878 F.Supp. 258. Shoreham Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Wilder, D.C.D.C.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1. Webb v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1994, 864 F.Supp. 175. Underwood v. Archer Management Servs., Inc., D.C.D.C.1994, 857 F.Supp. 96. Wiggins v. Hitchens, D.C.D.C.1994, 853 F.Supp. 505. Wiggins v. District Cablevision, Inc., D.C.D.C.1994, 853 F.Supp. 484. Wiggins v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.D.C.1994, 853 F.Supp. 470. Wiggins v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.D.C.1994, 853 F.Supp. 458. Chung v. Lee, D.C.D.C.1994, 852 F.Supp. 43. Boggs v. Bowron, D.C.D.C.1993, 842 F.Supp. 542, affirmed C.A.1995, 67 F.3d 972, 314 U.S.App.D.C. 278, opinion at 1995 WL 623690.

Federal Circuit Bradley v. Chiron Corp., C.A.Fed., 1998, 136 F.3d 1317 (factual statements).

See also After Twombly and Iqbal, the court should accept the truth of plausible factual allegations. Adler v. Anchor Funding Services, LLC, 2011 WL 1843226 (W.D. N.C. 2011).

But see "Factual allegations that amount to labels and conclusions or naked assertions are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Smith v. Pallman, 420 Fed. Appx. 208, 212 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). 17 Material facts

First Circuit Danca v. Emerson Hosp., D.C.Mass.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 27, affirmed C.A.1st, 1999, 185 F.3d 1. Andrews-Clarke v. Travelers Ins. Co., D.C.Mass.1997, 984 F.Supp. 49. Minion Inc. v. Burdin, D.C.N.H.1996, 929 F.Supp. 521.

Second Circuit Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, C.A.2d, 2004, 357 F.3d 205. Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. City of Sherrill, New York, C.A.2d, 2003, 337 F.3d 139. Phelps v. Kapnolas, C.A.2d, 2002, 308 F.3d 180. SEC v. U.S. Environmental, Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 155 F.3d 107. Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 67, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 868, 525 U.S. 1103, 142 L.Ed.2d 770. Austin v. Ford Models, Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 149 F.3d 148. McEvoy v. Spencer, C.A.2d, 1997, 124 F.3d 92, on remand D.C.N.Y.1999, 49 F.Supp.2d 224. Staron v. McDonald's Corp., C.A.2d, 1995, 51 F.3d 353. Paulemon v. Tobin, C.A.2d, 1994, 30 F.3d 307.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Cohen v. Koenig, C.A.2d, 1994, 25 F.3d 1168. Oechsner v. Connell Ltd. Partnership, D.C.N.Y.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 926. 1210 Colvin Ave., Inc. v. Tops Markets, LLC, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22383566. Lipin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.N.Y.2002, 202 F.Supp.2d 126. Benjamin v. NYC Department of Health, D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 485731. Polar Int'l Brokerage Corp. v. Reeve, D.C.N.Y.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 225. Joslin v. Grossman, D.C.Conn.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 150 (well-pleaded material facts). Lakonia Management Ltd. v. Meriwether, D.C.N.Y.2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 540. Community Health Care Ass'n of New York v. Mahon, D.C.N.Y.2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 523. Antonios A. Alevizopoulos & Associates, Inc. v. Comcase Int'l Holdings, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 100 F.Supp.2d 178. John Gil Constr., Inc. v. Riverso, D.C.N.Y.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 345, affirmed C.A.2d, 2001, 7 Fed.Appx. 134. Waltree Ltd. v. Ing Furman Selz LLC, D.C.N.Y.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 464. Gabriel Capital, LP v. NatWest Fin., Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 491. In re N2K, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 204, affirmed C.A.2d, 2000, 202 F.3d 81. Kalnit v. Eichler, D.C.N.Y.1999, 85 F.Supp.2d 232. Dietrich v. Bauer, D.C.N.Y.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 312 (material allegations of fact). Milman v. Box Hill Sys. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 220. Fernandez v. City of Poughkeepsie, New York, D.C.N.Y.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 222. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, D.C.N.Y.1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 161. Commer v. Keller, D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 266. Dockery v. Tucker, D.C.N.Y.1998, 73 F.Supp.2d 224. Tonken v. Loving & Weintraub Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 22 F.Supp.2d 86. Feiner v. SS & C Technologies, D.C.Conn.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 204. Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 277, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 1999, 191 F.3d 229. Cable v. New York State Thruway Authority, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 120. Harrington v. Hudson Sheraton Corp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 475. Status Int'l S.A. v. M & D Maritime Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 182. Bovi v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 992 F.Supp. 540. National Ass'n of College Bookstores, Inc. v. Cambridge Univ. Press, D.C.N.Y.1997, 990 F.Supp. 245. Sodexho USA, Inc. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 217, AFL-CIO, D.C.Conn.1997, 989 F.Supp. 169. Rogers v. New York City Bd. of Elections, D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 409. Rohrer v. FSI Futures, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 270. Bernbach v. Timex Corp., D.C.Conn.1996, 989 F.Supp. 403. Zheng v. INS, D.C.N.Y.1996, 933 F.Supp. 338. Walsh v. McGee, D.C.N.Y.1996, 918 F.Supp. 107. Morgan v. City of Milford, D.C.Conn.1996, 914 F.Supp. 21. Venclauskas v. State of Connecticut, Dep't of Public Safety Div. of State Police, D.C.Conn.1995, 921 F.Supp. 78. B.V. Optische Industrie de Oude Delft v. Hologic, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 909 F.Supp. 162. Salomon v. Roche Compuchem Labs., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 909 F.Supp. 126. Gorman v. Hughes Danbury Optical Sys., D.C.Conn.1995, 908 F.Supp. 107. PI, Incorporated v. Quality Prods., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 907 F.Supp. 752. Heredia v. U.S., D.C.N.Y.1995, 887 F.Supp. 77. City of Amsterdam v. Goldreyer, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1273. U.S. v. Moniaros Contracting Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1267 (well-pleaded material facts). Doolittle v. Ruffo, D.C.N.Y.1994, 882 F.Supp. 1247. Moy v. Adelphi Institute, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 696 (well-pleaded material facts). Tenorio v. Murphy, D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 92 (“material facts well-pleaded”). Williams v. Friedman, D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 88 (“material facts well-pleaded”). Schonholz v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, D.C.N.Y.1994, 858 F.Supp. 350.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Campo v. 1st Nationwide Bank, D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 264. Julian v. New York City Transit Authority, D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 242. Nivram Corp. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 840 F.Supp. 243. Giuliano v. Everything Yogurt, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 819 F.Supp. 240. Federal Ins. Co. v. May Dep't Stores Co., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 347. Hotel Syracuse, Inc. v. Young, D.C.N.Y.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1073. Travel Magazine, Inc. v. Travel Digest, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1961, 191 F.Supp. 830.

Third Circuit For purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, all material allegations of fact well-pleaded in the complaint must be taken as true, but the admissions do not extend to inferences, arguments, or legal conclusions. Camero v. Kostos, D.C.N.J.1966, 253 F.Supp. 331.

Fourth Circuit Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir. 2011). In re Medimmune, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Md.1995, 873 F.Supp. 953. Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. EEOC, D.C.Va.1976, 419 F.Supp. 814. Wetherington v. Phillips, D.C.N.C.1974, 380 F.Supp. 426, affirmed without opinion C.A.4th, 1975, 526 F.2d 591.

Fifth Circuit Meador v. Oryx Energy Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 658. Beanal v. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., D.C.La.1997, 969 F.Supp. 362, affirmed C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 161. Lowery v. Carrier Corp., D.C.Tex.1997, 953 F.Supp. 151. Roberts v. Dayton Hudson Corp., D.C.Tex.1996, 914 F.Supp. 1421. Chevalier v. Animal Rehabilitation Center, Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1224.

Sixth Circuit Guardsmark, Inc. v. BlueCross & BlueShield of Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.2001, 169 F.Supp.2d 794.

Seventh Circuit Mitchell v. Archibald & Kendall, Inc., C.A.7th, 1978, 573 F.2d 429. Small v. Sullivan, D.C.Ill.1992, 820 F.Supp. 1098.

Eighth Circuit Editek, Inc. v. Morgan Capital, L.L.C., D.C.Minn.1997, 974 F.Supp. 1229, vacated on other grounds C.A.8th, 1998, 150 F.3d 830. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Berger, D.C.Mo.1994, 864 F.Supp. 106. Tonn v. U.S., D.C.Minn.1993, 847 F.Supp. 711, affirmed C.A.8th, 1994, 27 F.3d 1356, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 1107, 513 U.S. 1153, 130 L.Ed.2d 1073, rehearing denied 1995, 115 S.Ct. 1726, 514 U.S. 1078, 131 L.Ed.2d 584. U.S. v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n, D.C.Mo.1966, 263 F.Supp. 340, reversed per curiam on other grounds 1967, 88 S.Ct. 106, 389 U.S. 27, 19 L.Ed.2d 28.

Ninth Circuit Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012). William O. Gilley Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 588 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2009). Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009). Diaz v. Gates, C.A.9th, 2004, 354 F.3d 1169. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, C.A.9th, 2000, 231 F.3d 520. Pacheco v. U.S., C.A.9th, 2000, 220 F.3d 1126. Loyd v. Paine Webber, Inc., C.A.9th, 2000, 208 F.3d 755. Howard v. America Online, Inc., C.A.9th, 2000, 208 F.3d 741, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 77, 531 U.S. 828, 148 L.Ed.2d 40. Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, C.A.9th, 2000, 200 F.3d 661. Resnick v. Hayes, C.A.9th, 2000, 200 F.3d 641. WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, C.A.9th, 1999, 197 F.3d 367.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California, C.A.9th, 1998, 159 F.3d 1178. Enesco Corp. v. Price/Costco Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 146 F.3d 1083. Butler v. Apfel, C.A.9th, 1998, 144 F.3d 622. Pareto v. FDIC, C.A.9th, 1998, 139 F.3d 696. Cooper v. Pickett, C.A.9th, 1997, 137 F.3d 616. Campanelli v. Bockrath, C.A.9th, 1996, 100 F.3d 1476, on remand D.C.Cal.1997, 1997 WL 325442. Federation of African Am. Contractors v. City of Oakland, C.A.9th, 1996, 96 F.3d 1204. In re Syntex Corp. Secs. Litigation, C.A.9th, 1996, 95 F.3d 922. Santana v. Zilog, Inc., C.A.9th, 1996, 95 F.3d 780. In re Stac Electronics Secs. Litigation, C.A.9th, 1996, 89 F.3d 1399. SmileCare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of California, Inc., C.A.9th, 1996, 88 F.3d 780, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 583, 519 U.S. 1028, 136 L.Ed.2d 513. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., C.A.9th, 1996, 80 F.3d 336. Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., C.A.9th, 1995, 70 F.3d 533, reversed following remand C.A.9th, 1996, 100 F.3d 962. Parks School of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, C.A.9th, 1995, 51 F.3d 1480. Moyo v. Gomez, C.A.9th, 1994, 40 F.3d 982, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 732, 513 U.S. 1081, 130 L.Ed.2d 635. Carson Harbor Village Ltd. v. City of Carson, C.A.9th, 1994, 37 F.3d 468. Moyo v. Gomez, C.A.9th, 1994, 32 F.3d 1382, amended on other grounds C.A.9th, 1994, 40 F.3d 982. Waller v. Blue Cross of California, C.A.9th, 1994, 32 F.3d 1337. Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Lerner, C.A.9th, 1994, 31 F.3d 924. Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, C.A.9th, 1994, 18 F.3d 752. Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County, C.A.9th, 1994, 14 F.3d 457. Pack v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1993, 992 F.2d 955. Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., C.A.9th, 1976, 529 F.2d 987. Coppola v. Smith, 2013 WL 6000566, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2013), citing Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). Zepeda v. Tate, 2010 WL 4977596 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Young v. City of Visalia, 2009 WL 2567847 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Davis v. Evangelist, 2009 WL 2447897 (E.D. La. 2009). Ellis v. Hollister, Inc., D.C.Cal.2006, 2006 WL 988529. In re Sagent Technology, Inc., Derivative Litigation, D.C.Cal.2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 1079. Gallardo v. DiCarlo, D.C.Cal.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 1160 (material allegations). Kenney v. Hawaii, D.C.Haw.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 1271. Icasiano v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 1187. Ovando v. City of Los Angeles, D.C.Cal.2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 1011. Recreational Devs. of Phoenix, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, D.C.Ariz.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 1072. State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, D.C.Haw.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 1111. Barapind v. Reno, D.C.Cal.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132. Edwards v. Ellsworth, May, Sudweeks, Stubbs, Ibsen & Perry, D.C.Idaho 1997, 10 F.Supp.2d 1131, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 152 F.3d 924. Farrakhan v. Locke, D.C.Wash.1997, 987 F.Supp. 1304 (allegations of material fact). Zeid v. Kimberley, D.C.Cal.1997, 973 F.Supp. 910. Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, D.C.Ore.1996, 945 F.Supp. 1355. Harris v. Roderick, D.C.Idaho 1996, 933 F.Supp. 977, affirmed C.A.9th, 1997, 126 F.3d 1186. Water Comm'n of County of Hawaii v. National Amer. Ins. Co., D.C.Haw.1996, 930 F.Supp. 1411. Freedman v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., D.C.Ore.1996, 922 F.Supp. 377. Snead v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co., D.C.Ore.1996, 909 F.Supp. 775. Fasi v. Gannett Co., D.C.Haw.1995, 930 F.Supp. 1403, affirmed C.A.9th, 1997, 114 F.3d 1194. Eagle Pac. Ins. Co. v. WBM, Incorporated, D.C.Ore.1995, 887 F.Supp. 246. Conkey v. Reno, D.C.Nev.1995, 885 F.Supp. 1389.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Carpenter v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., D.C.Ore.1995, 880 F.Supp. 758. Fox v. Sierra Dev. Co., D.C.Nev.1995, 876 F.Supp. 1169. Erickson v. West, D.C.Haw.1995, 876 F.Supp. 239 (allegations of material facts). Rowley v. American Airlines, D.C.Ore.1995, 875 F.Supp. 708. Pai 'Ohana v. U.S., D.C.Haw.1995, 875 F.Supp. 680, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 76 F.3d 280. Wood v. County of Alameda, D.C.Cal.1995, 875 F.Supp. 659 (material allegations). Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, D.C.Cal.1994, 871 F.Supp. 381. Fuller Bros., Inc. v. International Marketing, Inc., D.C.Ore.1994, 870 F.Supp. 299. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc.-Servs., D.C.Ariz.1994, 869 F.Supp. 778. Allman v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 865 F.Supp. 665. Steinke v. Washington County, D.C.Ore.1994, 857 F.Supp. 55. MAI Systems Corp. v. UIPS, D.C.Cal.1994, 856 F.Supp. 538. Petro v. Jada Yacht Charters, Ltd., D.C.Haw.1994, 854 F.Supp. 698 (“allegations of material fact”). Oregon Laborers-Employers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. All State Industrial & Marine Cleaning, Inc., D.C.Ore.1994, 850 F.Supp. 905. Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, D.C.Ore.1994, 844 F.Supp. 632, affirmed C.A.9th, 1995, 46 F.3d 54. Upchurch v. USTNet, Inc., D.C.Ore.1993, 836 F.Supp. 737. Palm v. U.S., D.C.Cal.1993, 835 F.Supp. 512. Baker v. Elko County, D.C.Nev.1993, 828 F.Supp. 798. Wanetick v. Mel's of Modesto, D.C.Cal.1992, 811 F.Supp. 1402. Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, D.C.Nev.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1474, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1994, 34 F.3d 753, amended on other grounds C.A.9th, 1994, 42 F.3d 1306.

Tenth Circuit Casey v. Purser, D.C.Okl.1974, 385 F.Supp. 621.

Eleventh Circuit Breckenridge Creste Apartments, Ltd. v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., D.C.Ga.1993, 826 F.Supp. 460. Forbush v. Wallace, D.C.Ala.1971, 341 F.Supp. 217, affirmed without opinion 1972, 92 S.Ct. 1197, 405 U.S. 970, 31 L.Ed.2d 246. 18 Material allegations Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 906 (2014), citing Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994). Geraci v. Homestreet Bank, C.A.9th, 2003, 347 F.3d 749. Schneider v. California Dep't of Corrections, C.A.9th, 1998, 151 F.3d 1194, on remand D.C.Cal.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 1316. Jensen v. City of Oxnard, C.A.9th, 1998, 145 F.3d 1078, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 540, 525 U.S. 1016, 142 L.Ed.2d 449. Chance v. Armstrong, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 698, appeal after remand C.A.2d, 1998, 159 F.3d 1345. Abboud v. INS, C.A.9th, 1998, 140 F.3d 843. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc., C.A.3d, 1998, 140 F.3d 478. Estate of Migliaccio v. Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2006, 436 F.Supp.2d 1095. Pourzal v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., D.C.Virgin Islands 2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 544. Van Winkle v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 1158. Doe v. Mann, D.C.Cal.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 1229. Globecon Group, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22144316. Chavez v. INS, D.C.Cal.1998, 17 F.Supp.2d 1141. Films of Distinction, Inc. v. Allegro Film Productions, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1068. Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1035. U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce, D.C.D.C.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 76, appeal dismissed 1999, 119 S.Ct. 765, 525 U.S. 316, 142 L.Ed.2d 797. Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, D.C.Fla.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 1369.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Tuff-N-Rumble Management, Inc. v. Sugarhill Music Publishing Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 357 (material allegations composing factual predicate of action). Aquino v. Credit Control Servs., D.C.Cal.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 927. Gutierrez v. Givens, D.C.Cal.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1077. Strougo on Behalf of Brazilian Equity Fund, Inc. v. Bassini, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 268, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 2002, 282 F.3d 162. Allison v. Brooktree Corp., D.C.Cal.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1342. Wasserman v. Three Seasons Ass'n No. 1, Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1445. City of Merced v. Fields, D.C.Cal.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1326. Epstein v. Itron, Inc., D.C.Wash.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1314. Clavin v. Post, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 359, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 165 F.3d 13. Adair v. Bristol Technology Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 179 F.R.D. 126. Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 177 F.R.D. 387. Gutierrez v. Givens, D.C.Cal.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1033. Barry v. Ratelle, D.C.Cal.1997, 985 F.Supp. 1235. Madison Restoration Corp. v. Smithsonian Institute, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 434 (material allegations composing factual predicate of action). Meek v. County of Riverside, D.C.Cal.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1410, affirmed in part, dismissed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 183 F.3d 962, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 499, 528 U.S. 1005, 145 L.Ed.2d 386. Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dade County Esoil Management Co., D.C.Fla.1997, 982 F.Supp. 873 (material allegations of complaint and its incorporated exhibits). National Coalition Gov. of Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 176 F.R.D. 329. Brown v. Adidas Int'l, D.C.Cal.1996, 938 F.Supp. 628. Ferreiro v. U.S., D.C.Fla.1996, 934 F.Supp. 1375. Blount v. Sterling Healthcare Group, D.C.Fla.1996, 934 F.Supp. 1365. Summit Technology, Inc. v. High-Line Medical Instruments, D.C.Cal.1996, 933 F.Supp. 918. Whatley v. City of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, D.C.Okl.1996, 932 F.Supp. 1300. Callis v. Sellars, D.C.Tex.1996, 931 F.Supp. 504. Bureerong v. Uvawas, D.C.Cal.1996, 922 F.Supp. 1450. Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State, D.C.Cal.1996, 922 F.Supp. 1426 (“material averments”). EEOC v. Sara Lee Corp., D.C.Mich.1995, 923 F.Supp. 994. Ladd v. Sertoma Handicapped Opportunity Program, Inc., D.C.Okl.1995, 917 F.Supp. 766. Dogloo, Inc. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, D.C.Cal.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1383. Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 874 F.Supp. 1072. In re Cypress Semiconductor Secs. Litigation, D.C.Cal.1994, 864 F.Supp. 957. Hughes on Behalf of David v. Cuomo, D.C.N.Y.1994, 862 F.Supp. 34. U.S. v. Rockland Trust Co., D.C.Mass.1994, 860 F.Supp. 895. First San Diego Properties v. Exxon Co., D.C.Cal.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1313. Boyd v. Brookstone Corp. of New Hampshire, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1568. Wesley v. Mississippi Transportation Comm'n., D.C.Miss.1994, 857 F.Supp. 523. Rabkin v. Dean, D.C.Cal.1994, 856 F.Supp. 543. Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County, D.C.Fla.1994, 855 F.Supp. 351. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau Of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1388. Grunbeck v. Dime Savs. Bank of New York, FSB, D.C.N.H.1994, 848 F.Supp. 294, vacated on other grounds C.A.1st, 1996, 74 F.3d 331. Robertson v. Burger King, Inc., D.C.La.1994, 848 F.Supp. 78. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1492, 1495 reversed on other grounds C.A.9th, 1996, 76 F.3d 259 (court must accept as true all material allegations, “no matter how improbable”). Violanti v. Emery Worldwide A-CF Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1251.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Waye v. First Citizen's Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1994, 846 F.Supp. 310. Clemes v. Del Norte County Unified School Dist., D.C.Cal.1994, 843 F.Supp. 583. Smith v. Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 842 F.Supp. 1373. Gen-Probe Inc. v. Center For Neurologic Study, D.C.Cal.1993, 853 F.Supp. 1215. Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., D.C.N.M.1993, 842 F.Supp. 475. Wilkerson v. U.S., D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 440. Ruiz v. Kepler, D.C.N.M.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1444. Larson v. School Bd. of Pinellas County, Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 820 F.Supp. 596. Wexco Incorporated v. IMC, Incorporated, D.C.Pa.1993, 820 F.Supp. 194. Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., D.C.Tex.1993, 818 F.Supp. 971, affirmed C.A.5th 1994, 14 F.3d 1061. Van Dyke v. Regents of Univ. of California, D.C.Cal.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1341. Askanase v. Fatjo, D.C.Tex.1993, 148 F.R.D. 570. Johnson v. U.S., D.C.Pa.1993, 147 F.R.D. 91. Rintel v. Wathen, D.C.Cal.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1467. Burger King Corp. v. Austin, D.C.Fla.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1007. Yeitrakis v. Schering-Plough Corp., D.C.N.M.1992, 804 F.Supp. 238. Hill v. Cray Research, Inc., D.C.N.M.1991, 864 F.Supp. 1070. On a motion to dismiss, all material allegations of a habeas corpus petition must be accepted as true. Hamilton v. Lumpkin, D.C.Va.1975, 389 F.Supp. 1069. 19 Well-pleaded facts

First Circuit O'Connell v. Marrero-Recio, 724 F.3d 117, 122 (1st Cir. 2013). Greenpack of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. American President Lines, 684 F.3d 20, 26 (1st Cir. 2012). Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Committee, 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012). Feliciano-Hernandez v. Pereira-Castillo, 663 F.3d 527, 529 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2742, 183 L. Ed. 2d 615 (2012). Palmer v. Champion Mortgage, C.A.1st, 2006, 465 F.3d 24. McCloskey v. Mueller, C.A.1st, 2006, 446 F.3d 262. In re Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., C.A.1st, 2006, 431 F.3d 36. Metts v. Murphy, C.A.1st, 2003, 347 F.3d 346. Lebron-Rios v. U.S. Marshal Serv., C.A.1st, 2003, 341 F.3d 7. Cogan v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 2002, 310 F.3d 238. Young v. Lepone, C.A.1st, 2002, 305 F.3d 1. Clorox Co. Puerto Rico v. Proctor & Gamble Commercial Co., C.A.1st, 2000, 228 F.3d 24. Cruz v. Melecio, C.A.1st, 2000, 204 F.3d 14. Serpa Corp. v. McWane, Inc., C.A.1st, 1999, 199 F.3d 6. Figueroa v. Rivera, C.A.1st, 1998, 147 F.3d 77. Abbott v. U.S., C.A.1st, 1998, 144 F.3d 1. Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n, C.A.1st, 1998, 142 F.3d 26. Maldonado v. Dominguez, C.A.1st, 1998, 137 F.3d 1. Pihl v. Massachusetts Dep't of Educ., C.A.1st, 1993, 9 F.3d 184. Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation, C.A.1st, 1993, 993 F.2d 962.

Maine Piampiano v. Central Maine Power Co., D.C.Me.2002, 221 F.Supp.2d 6. Ingram v. Rencor Controls, Inc., D.C.Me.2002, 217 F.Supp.2d 141. Carey v. Mount Desert Island Hosp., D.C.Me.1995, 910 F.Supp. 7. Caldwell v. Federal Express Corp., D.C.Me.1995, 908 F.Supp. 29. Inhabitants of the City of Saco v. General Elec. Co., D.C.Me.1991, 779 F.Supp. 186, 198, citing Wright & Miller.

Massachusetts

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Counter v. Healy, 2010 WL 2802179, *3 (D. Mass. 2010). Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Boston Scientific Corp., D.C.Mass.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 189. Missert v. Trustees of Boston Univ., D.C.Mass.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 68, affirmed C.A.1st, 2000, 248 F.3d 1127. Deisenroth v. Numonics Corp., D.C.Mass.1998, 997 F.Supp. 153. Roche v. Donahue, D.C.Mass.1997, 985 F.Supp. 14. Boston Scientific Corp. v. Schneider (Europe) AG, D.C.Mass.1997, 983 F.Supp. 245. Day v. Fallon Community Health Plan, Inc., D.C.Mass.1996, 917 F.Supp. 72. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. IMR Capital Corp., D.C.Mass.1995, 888 F.Supp. 221. Lindner Dividend Fund, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, D.C.Mass.1995, 880 F.Supp. 49. Lemelson v. Wang Labs., Inc., D.C.Mass.1994, 874 F.Supp. 430. Flynn v. Raytheon Co., D.C.Mass.1994, 868 F.Supp. 383. Palumbo v. Roberti, D.C.Mass.1993, 834 F.Supp. 46.

New Hampshire Wentworth-Douglas Hosp. v. Young & Novis Professional Ass'n, 2010 WL 3023331 (D.N.H. 2010). Yates v. Cunningham, D.C.N.H.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 47. Cooper v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., D.C.N.H.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 109. MacFarlane v. Smith, D.C.N.H.1996, 947 F.Supp. 572, affirmed C.A.1st, 1997, 129 F.3d 1252. Miller v. CBC Companies, D.C.N.H.1995, 908 F.Supp. 1054. Penney v. Town of Middleton, D.C.N.H.1994, 888 F.Supp. 332. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Kellogg, D.C.N.H.1994, 856 F.Supp. 25.

Puerto Rico Diaz-Colon v. Toledo-Davila, 922 F. Supp. 2d 189, 193 (D.P.R. 2013), citing Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 2002). Alvarez-Rivon v. Cengage Learning, Inc., 2010 WL 2834953, *2 (D.P.R. 2010). Phico Ins. Co. v. Pavia Health, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2006, 413 F.Supp.2d 76. Rosich v. Circus & Circus Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 148. Diana Paolucci Corp. v. Carbonell & Astor, D.C.Puerto Rico 1996, 949 F.Supp. 65. Schroeder v. De Bertolo, D.C.Puerto Rico 1995, 879 F.Supp. 173. In re DuPont-Benlate Litigation, D.C.Puerto Rico 1995, 877 F.Supp. 779. Barcelo v. Agosto, D.C.Puerto Rico 1995, 876 F.Supp. 1332, affirmed C.A.1st, 1996, 75 F.3d 23. Flamand v. American Int'l Group, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 1994, 876 F.Supp. 356. U.S. v. $200,266.00 in U.S. Currency, D.C.Puerto Rico 1994, 864 F.Supp. 1414, vacated on other grounds C.A.1st, 1995, 57 F.3d 1061. Arroyo Otero v. Hernandez Purcell, D.C.Puerto Rico 1992, 804 F.Supp. 418.

Rhode Island Theta Prods., Inc. v. Zippo Mfg. Co., D.C.R.I.1999, 81 F.Supp.2d 346. United Paperworkers Int'l Union Local 1468 v. Imperial Home Decor Group, D.C.R.I.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 179. Socha v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, Branch No. 57 (Merged), D.C.R.I.1995, 883 F.Supp. 790. Scully Signal Co. v. Joyal, D.C.R.I.1995, 881 F.Supp. 727.

Second Circuit Ruston v. Town Bd. for Town of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 824, 178 L.Ed.2d 556 (2010).

Connecticut Dontigney v. Paramount Pictures Corp., D.C.Conn.2006, 411 F.Supp.2d 89 (well pleaded factual allegations). MM Global Servs., Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., D.C.Conn.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 689.

New York Mione v. McGrath, D.C.N.Y.2006, 435 F.Supp.2d 266.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Pena v. Guzman, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 253331. In re MCI Worldcom, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 276. Thayer v. Dial Industrial Sales, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 263. In re Quintel Entertainment Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 283. Friedman v. Wheat First Secs. Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 338. Harary v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 95. Aramony v. United Way of America, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1080. SEC v. Feminella, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 722. Plaza Marine, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., D.C.N.Y.1993, 814 F.Supp. 334.

Third Circuit General Refractories Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., C.A.3d, 2003, 337 F.3d 297.

Delaware MacNamara v. County Council of Sussex County, D.C.Del.1990, 738 F.Supp. 134, affirmed C.A.3d, 1990, 922 F.2d 832.

Pennsylvania Fanelle v. LoJack Corp., D.C.Pa.2000, 79 F.Supp.2d 558. Walsingham v. Biocontrol Technology, Inc., D.C.Pa.1998, 66 F.Supp.2d 669. Hill v. Borough of Swarthmore, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 395. Andrea L. by Judith B. v. Children & Youth Servs. of Lawrence County, D.C.Pa.1997, 987 F.Supp. 418. Giuffra v. International Paper Co., D.C.Pa.1996, 931 F.Supp. 372. Slater v. Marshall, D.C.Pa.1996, 915 F.Supp. 721. Bechtel Corp. v. Local 215, Laborers' Int'l Union of No. America, AFL-CIO, D.C.Pa.1975, 405 F.Supp. 370, 374 n. 1, affirmed on other grounds C.A.3d, 1976, 544 F.2d 1207. Bethlehem Plaza v. Campbell, D.C.Pa.1975, 403 F.Supp. 966. Lemon v. Kurtzman, D.C.Pa.1969, 310 F.Supp. 35, reversed on other grounds 1971, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 403 U.S. 602, 29 L.Ed.2d 745. Sinchak v. Parente, D.C.Pa.1966, 262 F.Supp. 79. Aberdeen Hills Second Corp. v. Biafore, D.C.Pa.1960, 24 F.R.D. 502.

Fourth Circuit Daniels v. Arcade, L.P., 477 Fed. Appx. 125, 128 (4th Cir. 2012).

Maryland Popovic v. U.S., D.C.Md.1998, 997 F.Supp. 672, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 175 F.3d 1015. Carlson v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Servs., D.C.Md.1995, 879 F.Supp. 545. Wood v. Putterman, D.C.Md.1970, 316 F.Supp. 646, affirmed 1970, 91 S.Ct. 104, 400 U.S. 859, 27 L.Ed.2d 99. Barnhart v. Mandel, D.C.Md.1970, 311 F.Supp. 814.

North Carolina TIG Insurance Co. v. Deaton, Inc., D.C.N.C.1996, 932 F.Supp. 132.

South Carolina Signal v. Gonzales, D.C.S.C.2006, 430 F.Supp.2d 528. Felder v. Great Am. Ins. Co., D.C.S.C.1966, 260 F.Supp. 575.

West Virginia Clay v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co., LLC, 955 F. Supp. 2d 588, 593-594 (N.D. W. Va. 2013), citing Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). L.S. Good & Co. v. H. Daroff & Sons, Inc., D.C.W.Va.1967, 263 F.Supp. 635.

Fifth Circuit U.S. ex rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 727 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 2013).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, Miss., 681 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2012). Bass v. Stryker Corp., 669 F.3d 501, 506 (5th Cir. 2012). In re McCoy, 666 F.3d 924, 926 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 192, 184 L. Ed. 2d 38 (2012). Gonzalez v. Bank of America Ins. Services, Inc., 454 Fed. Appx. 295, 298 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Harris v. Boyd Tunica, Inc., 628 F.3d 237, 239 (5th Cir. 2010). Broyles v. Texas, 381 Fed. Appx. 370, 372 (5th Cir. 2010). True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2009). Scanlan v. Texas A & M Univ., C.A.5th, 2003, 343 F.3d 533. U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc., C.A.5th, 2003, 336 F.3d 375. Snow v. First American Title Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 2003, 332 F.3d 356. Calhoun v. Hargrove, C.A.5th, 2002, 312 F.3d 730, on remand D.C.Tex.2003, 2003 WL 292140. Hamilton v. United Healthcare of Louisiana, Inc., C.A.5th, 2002, 310 F.3d 385, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 2288, 539 U.S. 916, 156 L.Ed.2d 132. Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., C.A.5th, 1998, 138 F.3d 602. Baker v. Putnal, C.A.5th, 1996, 75 F.3d 190. Eason v. Holt, C.A.5th, 1996, 73 F.3d 600. Matter of U.S. Abatement Corp., C.A.5th, 1994, 39 F.3d 556. In the Matter of the Complaint of Liberty Seafood, Inc., C.A.5th, 1994, 38 F.3d 755, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 1961, 514 U.S. 1109, 131 L.Ed.2d 852. Capital Parks, Inc. v. Southeastern Advertising & Sales Sys., Inc., C.A.5th, 1994, 30 F.3d 627. Green v. State Bar of Texas, C.A.5th, 1994, 27 F.3d 1083. Miller v. Medical Center of Southwest Louisiana, C.A.5th, 1994, 22 F.3d 626. Cinel v. Connick, C.A.5th, 1994, 15 F.3d 1338, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 189, 513 U.S. 868, 130 L.Ed.2d 122. Colle v. Brazos County, Texas, C.A.5th, 1993, 981 F.2d 237. Belt v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., C.A.5th, 1972, 458 F.2d 443. Stanton v. U.S., C.A.5th, 1970, 434 F.2d 1273. Investors Syndicate of America, Inc. v. City of Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, C.A.5th, 1970, 434 F.2d 871. Ward v. Hudnell, C.A.5th, 1966, 366 F.2d 247.

Louisiana Hall v. Louisiana, 2013 WL 5434639, *3 (M.D. La. 2013), citing City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148, 152-153 (5th Cir. 2010). Reyes v. Sazan, D.C.La.1997, 981 F.Supp. 973, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1999, 168 F.3d 158. Hunt v. Steve Dement Bail Bonds, Inc., D.C.La.1996, 914 F.Supp. 1390. Knight v. McKeithen, D.C.La.1995, 903 F.Supp. 999. Durham, Inc. v. Vanguard Bank & Trust Co., D.C.La.1994, 858 F.Supp. 617. Grant v. Farm Credit Bank of Texas, D.C.La.1992, 841 F.Supp. 186, affirmed C.A.5th, 1993, 8 F.3d 295.

Texas Maldonado v. City of Pearsall, Tex., 2013 WL 5615078 (W.D. Tex. 2013), citing In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). Orion IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 560 F. Supp. 2d 556 (E.D. Tex. 2008). Garza v. Laredo Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.2006, 2006 WL 870423. Marshall v. McConnell, D.C.Tex.2006, 2006 WL 740081.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

In re Electronic Data Sys. Corp. “ERISA” Litigation, D.C.Tex.2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 658. Columbia Hosp. at Medical City Dallas Subsidiary, L.P. v. Legend Asset Management Corp., D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 769253. Gulf Petro Trading Co. v. Nigerian Nat. Petroleum Corp., D.C.Tex.2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 783. In re Capstead Mortgage Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Tex.2003, 258 F.Supp.2d 533. Hutchison v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., D.C.Tex.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 629. Taylor v. Maple Ave. Economic Dev. Corp., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1758189. Haack v. Max Internet Communications, Inc., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 511514. Meghani v. Shell Oil Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 747. Henrise v. Horvath, D.C.Tex.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 768. Office Outfitters, Inc. v. A.B. Dick Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 772. Maricle v. Biggerstaff, D.C.Tex.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 705. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Consolidated Fibers, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 822. In re Paracelsus Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Tex.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 626. Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., D.C.Tex.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 618. Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247. Roventini v. Pasadena Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1013, vacated on other grounds D.C.Tex.1998, 183 F.R.D. 500. Washington v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Tex.1996, 953 F.Supp. 762. Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S.A. Glas, Inc., D.C.Tex.1996, 940 F.Supp. 1026. Cook v. Fidelity Invs., D.C.Tex.1995, 908 F.Supp. 438. Bob Hamric Chevrolet, Inc. v. U.S. IRS, D.C.Tex.1994, 849 F.Supp. 500. FDIC v. Harrington, D.C.Tex.1994, 844 F.Supp. 300. Sheppard v. Texas Dep't of Transportation, D.C.Tex.1994, 158 F.R.D. 592. Mills v. Injury Benefits Plan of Schepps-Foremost, Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 851 F.Supp. 804. Chevalier v. Animal Rehabilitation Center, Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1224. Lewis v. Law-Yone, D.C.Tex.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1247. Lawal v. British Airways, PLC, D.C.Tex.1992, 812 F.Supp. 713.

Sixth Circuit Savoie v. Martin, 673 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2012) (well-pled). Miller v. Champion Enterprises Inc., C.A.6th, 2003, 346 F.3d 660. Pfennig v. Household Credit Servs., Inc., C.A.6th, 2002, 295 F.3d 522, certiorari granted on other grounds 2003, 123 S.Ct. 2639, __ U.S. __, 156 L.Ed.2d 654. Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., C.A.6th, 1998, 135 F.3d 389. Ludwig v. Board of Trustees of Ferris State Univ., C.A.6th, 1997, 123 F.3d 404. Davis H. Elliot Co. v. Caribbean Utils. Co., C.A.6th, 1975, 513 F.2d 1176. Blackburn v. Fisk Univ., C.A.6th, 1971, 443 F.2d 121.

Kentucky Ingram Indus., Inc. v. Nowicki, D.C.Ky.1980, 502 F.Supp. 1060.

Michigan Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., D.C.Mich.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 1087. Organic Chems. Site PRP Group v. Total Petroleum, Inc., D.C.Mich.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 660. Fox v. Van Oosterum, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 597, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 176 F.3d 342. Havenick v. Network Express, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 981 F.Supp. 480. Fifield v. International Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 137, D.C.Mich.1983, 570 F.Supp. 562. Blaha v. A.H. Robins & Co., D.C.Mich.1982, 536 F.Supp. 344.

Ohio In re Cardinal Health Inc. Secs. Litigations, D.C.Ohio 2006, 426 F.Supp.2d 688.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Pickens v. Kanawha River Towing, D.C.Ohio 1996, 916 F.Supp. 702. Klusty v. Taco Bell Corp., D.C.Ohio 1995, 909 F.Supp. 516, 520, citing Wright & Miller. Britt v. Cyril Bath Co., D.C.Ohio 1968, 290 F.Supp. 934, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 1969, 417 F.2d 433.

Tennessee Valley Prods. Co. v. Landmark, D.C.Tenn.1994, 877 F.Supp. 1087.

Seventh Circuit Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Citadel Group Ltd. v. Washington Regional Medical Center, 692 F.3d 580, 591 (7th Cir. 2012). Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 683 F.3d 328, 334 (7th Cir. 2012) (well pled). Zemeckis v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., 679 F.3d 632, 634 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 584, 184 L. Ed. 2d 376 (2012) (well-pled). E.E.O.C. v. United Airlines, Inc., 673 F.3d 543, 544 (7th Cir. 2012), opinion vacated on other grounds, 693 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2012). Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009). Phelan v. City of Chicago, C.A.7th, 2003, 347 F.3d 655. Massey v. Wheeler, C.A.7th, 2000, 221 F.3d 1030. Ribando v. United Airlines, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 200 F.3d 507. Klug v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees, C.A.7th, 1999, 197 F.3d 853. LeBlang Motors, Ltd. v. Subaru of America, Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 148 F.3d 680. Sneed v. Rybicki, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 478. Curtis v. Bembenek, C.A.7th, 1995, 48 F.3d 281. Dehainaut v. Pena, C.A.7th, 1994, 32 F.3d 1066, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 1427, 514 U.S. 1050, 131 L.Ed.2d 309. Coates v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., C.A.7th, 1977, 559 F.2d 445. Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist. of Peoria, Illinois, C.A.7th, 1977, 557 F.2d 580, vacated on other grounds 1978, 98 S.Ct. 1642, 435 U.S. 992, 56 L.Ed.2d 81.

Illinois James v. Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, 2009 WL 2567910 (S.D. Ill. 2009). EQ Financial, Inc. v. Personal Financial Co., D.C.Ill.2006, 421 F.Supp.2d 1138. Bishop v. PCS Administration (USA), Inc., D.C.Ill.2006, 2006 WL 1460032. Feigl v. Ecolab, Inc., D.C.Ill.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 846. Chu v. Sabratek Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 100 F.Supp.2d 815. U.S. SEC v. Park, D.C.Ill.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 889. Cleaves v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 963. Cathy's Tap, Inc. v. Village of Mapleton, D.C.Ill.1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 874. Jackson v. DeTella, D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 901. Blumenthal v. Murray, D.C.Ill.1998, 995 F.Supp. 831. Hastings v. Fidelity Mortgage Decisions Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 600. Stengel v. Callahan, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1154. Anisimov v. Lake, D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 531. Williams v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 980 F.Supp. 938. Banco Del Estado v. Navistar Int'l Transportation Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1275. Wiskup v. Liberty Buick Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 953 F.Supp. 958. Pelfresne v. Village of Rosemont, D.C.Ill.1997, 952 F.Supp. 589, rehearing denied D.C.Ill.1997, 174 F.R.D. 72. Varner v. Illinois State Univ., D.C.Ill.1996, 986 F.Supp. 1107, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 150 F.3d 706, certiorari granted, judgment vacated on other grounds 2000, 120 S.Ct. 928, 528 U.S. 1110, 145 L.Ed.2d 806, affirmed C.A.7th, 2000, 226 F.3d 927. U.S. v. Funds in the Amount of $9,800, D.C.Ill.1996, 952 F.Supp. 1254. Johnstone v. First Bank Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1996, 947 F.Supp. 1220. Alexander v. Continental Motor Werks, Inc., D.C.Ill.1996, 933 F.Supp. 715. Sumpter v. Mack Chicago Corp., D.C.Ill.1996, 918 F.Supp. 256.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Warehouse, Mail Order, Office, Technical & Professional Employees Union, D.C.Ill.1995, 911 F.Supp. 1094. Little v. Illinois Dep't of Revenue, Bureau of Criminal Investigation, D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 280. Pyka v. Village of Orland Park, D.C.Ill.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1196. Graves v. Tru-Link Fence Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 905 F.Supp. 515. Treece v. Village of Naperville, D.C.Ill.1995, 903 F.Supp. 1251. Egan v. Palos Community Hosp., D.C.Ill.1995, 889 F.Supp. 331. Fairley v. Zelenik, D.C.Ill.1995, 888 F.Supp. 89. Williams v. Sabin, D.C.Ill.1995, 884 F.Supp. 294. EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 883 F.Supp. 211. Abeja-Ortiz v. Cisneros, D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 124. Indeck Power Equip. Co. v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp., D.C.Ill.1995, 881 F.Supp. 338. Arenson v. Whitehall Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1202. Kriendler v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 1140. Cashman v. Coopers & Lybrand, D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 425. Doe v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 883 F.Supp. 1126. Mollfulleda v. Phillips, D.C.Ill.1994, 882 F.Supp. 689. Moore v. Fidelity Financial Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 869 F.Supp. 557. Jendusa v. Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1006. Adams v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 865 F.Supp. 445. Hodges by Hodges v. Public Bldg. Comm'n of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1493. Janivo Holding, B.V. v. Continental Bank, D.C.Ill.1994, 859 F.Supp. 316. In re Nuveen Fund Litigation, D.C.Ill.1994, 855 F.Supp. 950. Dawson v. W. & H. Voortman, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1994, 853 F.Supp. 1038. Bergquist v. U.S. National Weather Serv., D.C.Ill.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1221. Bright v. Roadway Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 846 F.Supp. 693. RTC v. KPMG Peat Marwick, D.C.Ill.1994, 844 F.Supp. 431. Clorox Co. v. Chromium Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 158 F.R.D. 120. Marie O. v. Edgar, D.C.Ill.1994, 157 F.R.D. 433. Northern v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1993, 841 F.Supp. 234. Ruich v. Ruff, Weidenaar & Reidy, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 881. Janopoulos v. Harvey L. Walner & Associates, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 459. Hoth v. American States Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1990, 735 F.Supp. 290. Brainerd v. Potratz, D.C.Ill.1976, 421 F.Supp. 836. McDonnell v. U.S. Attorney Gen., D.C.Ill.1976, 420 F.Supp. 217. Sheffey v. Greer, D.C.Ill.1975, 391 F.Supp. 1044. Nevills v. Illinois, D.C.Ill.1974, 388 F.Supp. 622. League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Fields, D.C.Ill.1972, 352 F.Supp. 1053. Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., D.C.Ill.1969, 295 F.Supp. 139.

Indiana Lineback v. Printpack, Inc., D.C.Ind.1997, 979 F.Supp. 831. Pointer v. American Oil Co., D.C.Ind.1968, 295 F.Supp. 573.

Wisconsin Raytheon Co. v. McGraw-Edison Co., D.C.Wis.1997, 979 F.Supp. 858.

Eighth Circuit

Minnesota James v. Ford Motor Credit Co., D.C.Minn.1994, 842 F.Supp. 1202, affirmed C.A.8th, 1995, 47 F.3d 961. Elders v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., D.C.Minn.1968, 289 F.Supp. 630.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

South Dakota Webb v. Lawrence County, D.C.S.D.1996, 950 F.Supp. 960, affirmed C.A.8th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1131.

Ninth Circuit Wood v. City of San Diego, 678 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012). Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2012). Shaver v. Operating Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust Fund, C.A.9th, 2003, 332 F.3d 1198. Desaigoudar v. Meyercord, C.A.9th, 2000, 223 F.3d 1020, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 1962, 532 U.S. 1021, 149 L.Ed.2d 757. Tyler v. Cisneros, C.A.9th, 1998, 136 F.3d 603, appeal after remand C.A.9th, 2000, 236 F.3d 1124. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., C.A.9th, 1994, 37 F.3d 517, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 2640, 515 U.S. 1173, 132 L.Ed.2d 878. California Dump Truck Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Associated Gen. Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc., C.A.9th, 1977, 562 F.2d 607.

California Huy Thanh Vo v. Nelson & Kennard, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1086 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Hagan v. California, D.C.Cal.1967, 265 F.Supp. 174.

Idaho Browning Freight Lines, Inc. v. Warberg Bros. Co., D.C.Idaho 1975, 393 F.Supp. 127.

Washington Amir v. Five Unnamed U.S.A. Immigration Enforcement and Custom Officials in Vancouver Intern. Airport, 2010 WL 2402910, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ("With Rule 12(b)(6) motions, the complaint is construed liberally and all well-pleaded facts are taken as true.").

Utah Rodeback v. Utah Financial, 2010 WL 2757243, *1 (D. Utah 2010).

Tenth Circuit Dias v. City and County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2009). Adams v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc., C.A.10th, 2003, 340 F.3d 1083. Ruiz v. McDonnell, C.A.10th, 2002, 299 F.3d 1173, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 1908, 538 U.S. 999, 155 L.Ed.2d 826. Scott v. Hern, C.A.10th, 2000, 216 F.3d 897. Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc., C.A.10th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1302. Witt v. Roadway Express, C.A.10th, 1998, 136 F.3d 1424, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 188, 525 U.S. 881, 142 L.Ed.2d 153, on remand D.C.Kan.2001, 164 F.Supp.2d 1232. Bauchman for Bauchman v. West High School, C.A.10th, 1997, 132 F.3d 542, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 2370, 524 U.S. 953, 141 L.Ed.2d 738. GFF Corporation v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., C.A.10th, 1997, 130 F.3d 1381. Brever v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., C.A.10th, 1994, 40 F.3d 1119. Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., C.A.10th, 1994, 24 F.3d 125. Ryan v. Scoggin, C.A.10th, 1957, 245 F.2d 54. Parkinson v. California Co., C.A.10th, 1956, 233 F.2d 432.

Colorado Leal v. Sonic–Massey Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc., D.C.Colo.2006, 444 F.Supp.2d 1163. Robertson v. Board of County Comm'rs of County of Morgan, D.C.Colo.1997, 985 F.Supp. 980, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 166 F.3d 1222. Morrison v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C., D.C.Colo.1997, 983 F.Supp. 937. West Pines Psychiatric Hosp. v. Samsonite Benefit Plan, D.C.Colo.1994, 848 F.Supp. 907, 909 (“well-pled facts”).

Kansas

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Carson v. Lynch Multimedia Corp., D.C.Kan.2000, 123 F.Supp.2d 1254. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kansas, D.C.Kan.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 1239. PAS Communications, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint, Inc., D.C.Kan.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 1106. Cooper v. Caldera, D.C.Kan.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1160. Sipes ex rel. Slaughter v. Russell, D.C.Kan.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 1199. Briggs v. Walker, D.C.Kan.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 1196. State ex rel. Graves v. U.S., D.C.Kan.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 1094, affirmed and remanded on other grounds C.A.10th, 2001, 249 F.3d 1213. Brooks v. Sauceda, D.C.Kan.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1115, affirmed C.A.10th, 2000, 242 F.3d 387. Steinert v. Winn Group, Inc., D.C.Kan.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 1234. Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1999, 80 F.Supp.2d 1175. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. Cargill, Inc., D.C.Kan.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1155. EEOC v. Swift Transportation Co., D.C.Kan.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1151. Vanover v. Cook, D.C.Kan.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1331. Riggs v. Boeing Co., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1215. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1173. Lange v. Showbiz Pizza Time, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1150. Blackwell v. Harris Chem. No. America, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1302. Ortega v. Nguyen, D.C.Kan.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1178. Prager v. LaFaver, D.C.Kan.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 906, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 180 F.3d 1185. Hall v. Doering, D.C.Kan.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1445. Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1312. Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1299. Mills v. Kansas, Eighth Judicial Dist., D.C.Kan.1998, 994 F.Supp. 1356. Shoup v. Higgins Rental Center, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 991 F.Supp. 1265. Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Dymon, Inc., D.C.Kan.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1394. Whayne v. Kansas, D.C.Kan.1997, 980 F.Supp. 387. White v. Midwest Office Technology, Inc., D.C.Kan.1997, 979 F.Supp. 1354. Classic Communications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., D.C.Kan.1997, 956 F.Supp. 910. Freeman v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., D.C.Kan.1997, 176 F.R.D. 581. Turner & Boisseau, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 944 F.Supp. 842. Huddleston v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 942 F.Supp. 504. Patrick v. City of Overland Park, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1996, 937 F.Supp. 1491. Fusion, Inc. v. Nebraska Aluminum Castings, Inc., D.C.Kan.1996, 934 F.Supp. 1270. Aguirre v. McCaw RCC Communications, Inc., D.C.Kan.1996, 923 F.Supp. 1431. Shroff v. Bernardo, D.C.Kan.1996, 920 F.Supp. 156. Spillman v. Carter, D.C.Kan.1996, 918 F.Supp. 336. Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1102. Obbards v. Horton Community Hosp., Inc., D.C.Kan.1996, 164 F.R.D. 553. Old Colony Ventures I v. SMWNPF Holdings, Inc., D.C.Kan.1995, 910 F.Supp. 543. Butler v. Capitol Fed. Savs., D.C.Kan.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1230. Lyman v. Nabil's Inc., D.C.Kan.1995, 903 F.Supp. 1443. Smith v. Harvey County Jail, D.C.Kan.1995, 889 F.Supp. 426. Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Kan.1995, 884 F.Supp. 1515. Witt v. Roadway Express, D.C.Kan.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1455, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.10th, 1998, 136 F.3d 1424. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1995, 874 F.Supp. 332. Parsons v. Board of County Comm'rs of Marshall County, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1994, 873 F.Supp. 542. Oyler v. Finney, D.C.Kan.1994, 870 F.Supp. 1018, affirmed C.A.10th, 1995, 52 F.3d 338. Gilmore v. List & Clark Constr. Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 862 F.Supp. 294.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Dees v. Vendel, D.C.Kan.1994, 856 F.Supp. 1531. Anderson v. Marshall, D.C.Kan.1994, 856 F.Supp. 604. First Nat. Bancshares of Beloit, Inc. v. Geisel, D.C.Kan.1994, 853 F.Supp. 1337. West v. Boeing Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 851 F.Supp. 395. Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., D.C.Kan.1994, 848 F.Supp. 938. West v. Boeing Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 843 F.Supp. 670. Deere & Co. v. Zahm, D.C.Kan.1993, 837 F.Supp. 346, 353 (court must distinguish between “well-pled facts” and “conclusory allegations”). Barton Solvents, Inc. v. Southwest Petro-Chem, Inc., D.C.Kan.1993, 836 F.Supp. 757.

New Mexico DiMezza v. First USA Bank, Inc., D.C.N.M.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 1296. Ward v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., D.C.N.M.1999, 79 F.Supp.2d 1276. City of Las Cruces v. El Paso Elec. Co., D.C.N.M.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1238.

Oklahoma Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1212 (W.D. Okla. 2013). Yuan v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc., D.C.Okl.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1259 (opinion withdrawn). Brannon v. Boatmen's Bancshares, Inc., D.C.Okl.1997, 952 F.Supp. 1478, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 153 F.3d 1144. U.S. ex rel. Aranda v. Community Psychiatric Centers of Oklahoma, Inc., D.C.Okl.1996, 945 F.Supp. 1485. Warner v. Croft, D.C.Okl.1975, 406 F.Supp. 717, 719 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller. Kelso v. U.S., D.C.Okl.1974, 66 F.R.D. 443, 446, citing Wright & Miller.

Utah Geneva Steel Co. v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp., D.C.Utah 1997, 980 F.Supp. 1209. Tremelling v. Ogio Int'l, Inc., D.C.Utah 1996, 919 F.Supp. 392.

Wyoming Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Tuco, Inc., D.C.Wyo.1994, 156 F.R.D. 665, affirmed C.A.10th, 1997, 104 F.3d 1205.

Eleventh Circuit Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009). Beck v. Deloitte & Touche, C.A.11th, 1998, 144 F.3d 732. Williams v. Alabama State Univ., C.A.11th, 1997, 102 F.3d 1179, on remand D.C.Ala.1997, 979 F.Supp. 1406.

Alabama Moore v. Chilton County Bd. of Educ., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1300, 1303 (M.D. Ala. 2013), citing Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, 402 F.3d 1087, 1089 (11th Cir. 2005).

Florida Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Group, Inc., D.C.Fla.2006, 431 F.Supp.2d 1290, 431 F.Supp.2d 1290. Inter–Tel, Inc. v. West Coast Aircraft Engineering, Inc., D.C.Fla.2006, 2006 WL 890010. Hodges v. Buzzeo, D.C.Fla.2002, 193 F.Supp.2d 1279. Eye Care Int'l, Inc. v. Underhill, D.C.Fla.2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 1310. Kim v. Keenan, D.C.Fla.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1228. Otworth v. The Florida Bar, D.C.Fla.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1209. Digiro v. Pall Aeropower Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 19 F.Supp.2d 1304. Stapleton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1344. Harris v. District Bd. of Trustees of Polk Community College, D.C.Fla.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1319. Henniger v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1334. Farabee v. Rider, D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1398. DiGiro v. Pall Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1471.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Florida College of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 982 F.Supp. 862. Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Florida, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1455. Arenal v. City of Punta Gorda, Florida, D.C.Fla.1996, 932 F.Supp. 1406. Lopez v. First Union Nat. Bank, D.C.Fla.1996, 931 F.Supp. 860, reversed on other grounds C.A.11th, 1997, 129 F.3d 1186. Lugones v. Sandals Resorts, Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 875 F.Supp. 821. Patterson v. Downtown Medical & Diagnostic Center, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1379. Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Value Rent-A-Car Inc., D.C.Fla.1992, 814 F.Supp. 1084 (“pleaded facts”).

Georgia Damian v. Montgomery County Bankshares, Inc., 2013 WL 5951960, *3 (N.D. Ga. 2013), citing Powell v. Thomas, 643 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011). North Georgia Petroleum Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Ga.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 1321. Rudd v. Suburban Lodges of America, Inc., D.C.Ga.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 1366. Garrison v. Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Inc., D.C.Ga.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 1336. Tee v. UAL Corporation, D.C.Ga.1995, 902 F.Supp. 1572.

D.C. Circuit Pauling v. McElroy, C.A.1960, 278 F.2d 252, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 372, certiorari denied 81 S.Ct. 61, 364 U.S. 835, 5 L.Ed.2d 60. Moore v. Aspin, D.C.D.C.1996, 916 F.Supp. 32. 20 Well-pleaded factual allegations

Supreme Court Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).

First Circuit Cogan v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 2002, 310 F.3d 238 (“well-pleaded factual averments”). TAG/ICIB Services, Inc. v. Pan American Grain Co., C.A.1st, 2000, 215 F.3d 172. LaChapelle v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 142 F.3d 507. Levitt v. Sonardyne, Inc., 918 F. Supp. 2d 74, 83 (D. Me. 2013), citing San Geronimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Acevedo-Vila, 687 F.3d 465, 471 (1st Cir. 2012) (en banc). Camacho-Torres v. Betancourt-Vazquez, 722 F. Supp. 2d 150, 154 (D.P.R. 2010). Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl, 2010 WL 4861457, *5 (D.P.R. 2010). Leopoldo Fontanillas, Inc. v. Luis Ayala Colon Sucesores, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 579. Rivera de Leon v. Maxon Engineering Servs., Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 550. Torres Ocasio v. Melendez, D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 505. Vargas-Caban v. Carribbean Transportation Servs., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 279 F.Supp.2d 107 (“well-pleaded factual averments”). Kell v. American Capital Strategies, Ltd., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 156 (“well-pleaded factual averments”). Hinkley v. Baker, D.C.Me.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 48. Lawson v. Liburdi, D.C.R.I.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 31. Goya de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Munoz, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 61. Generadora De Electricidad Del Caribe, Inc. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 8. Rodriguez-Robledo v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 175. Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Warehouse, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 256. Guadarrama v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 127 (well-pleaded factual averments). Maldonado-Cordero v. AT & T, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 177. Belanger v. Healthsource of Maine, D.C.Me.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 70 (well-pleaded factual averments). Standard Quimica De Venezuela v. Central Hispano Int'l, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 189 F.R.D. 202. Martinez Colon v. Santander Nat. Bank, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 53. DM Research, Inc. v. College of American Pathologists, D.C.R.I.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 226, affirmed C.A.1st, 1999, 179 F.3d 53. Integrated Technologies Ltd. v. Biochem Immunosystems, (U.S.) Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 97.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Ryan v. Fallon Community Health Plan, Inc., D.C.Mass.1996, 921 F.Supp. 34. Milford Power Ltd. Partnership v. New England Power Co., D.C.Mass.1996, 918 F.Supp. 471. Schroeder v. De Bertolo, D.C.Puerto Rico 1996, 912 F.Supp. 23 (“well-pleaded factual averments”). Bonilla v. Trebol Motors Corp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1995, 913 F.Supp. 655 (“well-pleaded factual averments”). Lemelson v. Wang Labs., Inc., D.C.Mass.1994, 874 F.Supp. 430. Goebel v. Schmid Bros., Inc., D.C.Mass.1994, 871 F.Supp. 68 (“well-pleaded factual assertions”). Massachusetts Candy & Tobacco Distributors, Inc. v. Golden Distributors, Ltd., D.C.Mass.1994, 852 F.Supp. 63.

Second Circuit Cedeno v. Castillo, 457 Fed. Appx. 35, 37 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Hess v. Cohen & Slamowitz LLP, 637 F.3d 117, 119 (2d Cir. 2011) ("well-pleaded, non-conclusory factual allegations" must be accepted as true). Kevilly v. New York, 410 Fed. Appx. 371, 374 (2d Cir. 2010). South Cherry Street, LLC v. Hennessee Group LLC, 573 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2009). Independent Order of Foresters v. Donald, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 157 F.3d 933. Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 169, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 870, 525 U.S. 1104, 142 L.Ed.2d 772. Wang v. Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., 120 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1618, 2013 WL 5502803, *3 (S.D. N.Y. 2013). Bowman v. Waterside Plaza, L.L.C., 2010 WL 2873051, *3 (S.D. N.Y. 2010). Streit v. Bushnell, D.C.N.Y.2006, 424 F.Supp.2d 633. In re American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 424. Herbil Holding Co. v. Brook, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 369. Resource N.E. of Long Island, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, D.C.N.Y.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 52. Equality, Inc. v. I-Link Communications, D.C.Conn.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 227 (well-pleaded factual averments). New York Islanders Hockey Club, LLP v. Comerica Bank—Texas, D.C.N.Y.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 108. McDonald v. Timex Corp., D.C.Conn.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 120. Kelly v. MD Buyline, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 420. Composite Holdings, L.L.C. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 367. Northern Tankers (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Backstrom, D.C.Conn.1996, 934 F.Supp. 33. Williams v. Hoffman/New Yorker, Inc., D.C.Conn.1996, 923 F.Supp. 350. In re Hunter Environmental Servs., Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Conn.1996, 921 F.Supp. 914. Centre-Point Merchant Bank Ltd. v. American Express Bank Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1996, 913 F.Supp. 202. Hall v. United Technologies, Corp., D.C.Conn.1995, 872 F.Supp. 1094. MTV Networks v. Curry, D.C.N.Y.1994, 867 F.Supp. 202. Podell v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 859 F.Supp. 701. McCormack Int'l Corp. v. Vohra, D.C.N.Y.1994, 858 F.Supp. 415. Heine v. Newman, Tannenbaum, Helpern, Syracuse & Hirschtritt, D.C.N.Y.1994, 856 F.Supp. 190. Moscowitz v. Brown, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1185. Nealy v. U.S. Healthcare HMO, D.C.N.Y.1994, 844 F.Supp. 966. Lerner v. FNB Rochester Corp., D.C.N.Y.1993, 841 F.Supp. 97.

Third Circuit Marcavage v. National Park Service, 666 F.3d 856, 858 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 525, 184 L. Ed. 2d 338 (2012) (well- pled). Siwulec v. J.M. Adjustment Services, LLC, 465 Fed. Appx. 200, 202 (3d Cir. 2012) (well-pled). U.S., ex rel. Pilecki-Simko v. Chubb Institute, 443 Fed. Appx. 754 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Leuthner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Northeastern Pennsylvania, C.A.3d, 2006, 454 F.3d 120. Worldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc., C.A.3d, 2003, 343 F.3d 651. Spiker v. Allegheny County Bd. of Probation and Parole, 920 F. Supp. 2d 580, 591 (W.D. Pa. 2013), citing U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir. 2002). Parker v. Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Ins., D.C.Pa.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 820. In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 189 F.R.D. 117.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Trump, D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 489, affirmed C.A.3d, 1999, 182 F.3d 183. Cuffeld v. Supreme Ct. of Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1996, 936 F.Supp. 266. Colbert v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1996, 931 F.Supp. 389. Spring Garden Associates, L.P. v. RTC, D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 1070. Lutz Appellate Servs., Inc. v. Curry, D.C.Pa.1994, 859 F.Supp. 180. Confederation Life Ins. Co. v. Goodman, D.C.Pa.1994, 842 F.Supp. 836. Children's Hosp. of Pittsburgh v. 84 Lumber Co. Medical Benefits Plan, D.C.Pa.1993, 834 F.Supp. 866. In re One Meridian Plaza Fire Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1460. Jones v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1125. Seidman v. American Mobile Sys., Inc., D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 323.

Fourth Circuit Only when the factual allegations in support of a claim are not well-pleaded—for example, when they are functionally illegible or baldly conclusory—should they not be accepted as true and the claim dismissed. Rhee Bros., Inc. v. Han Ah Reum Corp., D.C.Md.2001, 178 F.Supp.2d 525. Concerned Citizens of Carderock v. Hubbard, D.C.Md.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 668. Buser v. Southern Food Serv., Inc., D.C.N.C.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 556. Greenspring Racquet Club, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, D.C.Md.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 598, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.4th, 2000, 232 F.3d 887.

Fifth Circuit City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148, 153 (5th Cir. 2010). Achee Holdings, LLC v. Silver Hill Financial, LLC, 342 Fed. Appx. 943 (5th Cir. 2009). Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., C.A.5th, 1994, 14 F.3d 1061. PHI, Inc. v. Office & Professional Employees Intern. Union, 2010 WL 2740066, *4 (W.D. La. 2010), order amended on other grounds, 2010 WL 2835540 (W.D. La. 2010). U.S. ex rel. Wilkins v. North American Constr. Corp., D.C.Tex.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 500, opinion amended and superseded on other grounds D.C.Tex.2001, 173 F.Supp.2d 601. Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 423, summary judgment granted in part, denied in part on other grounds D.C.Miss.2001, 2001 WL 1543890. Cross Timbers Concerned Citizens v. Saginaw, D.C.Tex.1997, 991 F.Supp. 563. Abramson v. Florida Gas Transmission Co., D.C.La.1995, 909 F.Supp. 410. Bartley v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.Tex.1992, 824 F.Supp. 624. First Nat. Bank of Louisville v. Lustig, D.C.La.1992, 809 F.Supp. 444.

Sixth Circuit Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 717 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2013), citing Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC, 700 F.3d 829, 835 (6th Cir. 2012). Berrington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 696 F.3d 604, 607 (6th Cir. 2012). Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed. Appx. 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) (some well-pleaded factual allegations are necessary to support claim) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Bishop v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 520 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008). Cooper v. Parrish, C.A.6th, 2000, 203 F.3d 937, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 185, 531 U.S. 877, 148 L.Ed.2d 128. Prince v. Hicks, C.A.6th, 1999, 198 F.3d 607. Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC, 2010 WL 2854303, *2 (E.D. Mich. 2010). Christian Memorial Cultural Center, Inc. v. Michigan Funeral Directors Ass'n, D.C.Mich.1998, 998 F.Supp. 772. Teamsters Local 372, Detroit Mailers Union Local 2040 v. Detroit Newspapers, D.C.Mich.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1052. Bordas v. Washtenaw County, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 979. Kramer v. Van Dyke Public Schools, D.C.Mich.1996, 918 F.Supp. 1100. Ropoleski v. Rairigh, D.C.Mich.1995, 886 F.Supp. 1356. McCready v. Michigan State Bar, D.C.Mich.1995, 881 F.Supp. 300.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Jones v. Stine, D.C.Mich.1994, 843 F.Supp. 1186.

Seventh Circuit Phillips v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 714 F.3d 1017, 1019 (7th Cir. 2013). Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 864 (7th Cir. 2012) (§ 1915A). County of McHenry v. Insurance Co. of the West, C.A.7th, 2006, 438 F.3d 813. McCullah v. Gadert, C.A.7th, 2003, 344 F.3d 655. Kyle v. Morton High School, C.A.7th, 1998, 144 F.3d 448. Doherty v. City of Chicago, C.A.7th, 1996, 75 F.3d 318. Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., C.A.7th, 1995, 52 F.3d 640. Pickrel v. City of Springfield, Illinois, C.A.7th, 1995, 45 F.3d 1115. Baxter by Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., C.A.7th, 1994, 26 F.3d 728, citing Wright & Miller. Hinnen v. Kelly, C.A.7th, 1993, 992 F.2d 140. Mid America Title Co. v. Kirk, C.A.7th, 1993, 991 F.2d 417, on remand D.C.Ill.1994, 867 F.Supp. 673, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 59 F.3d 719, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 520, 516 U.S. 990, 133 L.Ed.2d 428. Bowman v. City of Franklin, C.A.7th, 1992, 980 F.2d 1104, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 2417, 508 U.S. 940, 124 L.Ed.2d 639. Hutton v. C.B. Accounts, Inc., 2010 WL 3021904, *2 (C.D. Ill. 2010). Davis v. Potter, D.C.Ill.2004, 301 F.Supp.2d 850. Czapla v. Commerz Futures, LLC, D.C.Ill.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 715. U.S. v. Clark County, D.C.Ind.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 1286. Stokes v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., D.C.Ind.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 966. U.S. v. Funds in Amount of $29,266.00, D.C.Ill.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 806. Spolnik v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Ind.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 998. F. McConnell & Sons, Inc. v. Target Data Sys., Inc., D.C.Ind.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 980. Love v. Cook County, Illinois, D.C.Ill.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 911. Craig v. Cohn, D.C.Ind.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 944. Christakos v. Intercounty Title Co., D.C.Ill.2000, 196 F.R.D. 496. In re Copper Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Wis.2000, 196 F.R.D. 348. Hirata Corp. v. J.B. Oxford & Co., D.C.Ind.2000, 193 F.R.D. 589. Magellan Int'l Corp. v. Salzgitter Handel GmbH, D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 919. Vallone v. CNA Financial Corp., D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 864. Thompson v. Huntington, D.C.Ind.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1071. Burton v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 974. Coats v. Kraft Foods, Inc., D.C.Ind.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 862. NIM Plastics Corp. v. Standex Int'l Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1003. Cunningham v. Eyman, D.C.Ill.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 969. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 994. Warren v. Sakuri, D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 991. Holland v. Morgan, D.C.Wis.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 827 (§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). Waters v. Brown, D.C.Ind.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 654, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 175 F.3d 1022. Zimmerman v. Hoard, D.C.Ind.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 633. Vakharia v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care Centers, D.C.Ill.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1028. Erwin v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ind.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1227. DeLeon v. Beneficial Constr. Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 859. U.S. ex rel. Durcholz v. FKW Incorporated, D.C.Ind.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1143. Town of Ogden Dunes v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 996 F.Supp. 850. Smith v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1998, 992 F.Supp. 1027. McKay v. Town & Country Cadillac, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 991 F.Supp. 966. Adamczyk v. Lever Bros. Co., Div. of Conopco, D.C.Ill.1997, 991 F.Supp. 931. Vasquez v. Gertler & Gertler, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1997, 987 F.Supp. 652. Naguib v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 1082.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Wooten v. Acme Steel Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 524. Bixby's Food Sys., Inc. v. McKay, D.C.Ill.1997, 985 F.Supp. 802. Cemail v. Viking Dodge, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1296. Graham v. Gendex Medical X-Ray, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 176 F.R.D. 288. Venzor v. Gonzalez, D.C.Ill.1996, 936 F.Supp. 445. Bricklayers Union Local 21 v. Edgar, D.C.Ill.1996, 922 F.Supp. 100. Vakharia v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care Centers, D.C.Ill.1996, 917 F.Supp. 1282. Bradley v. Work, D.C.Ind.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1446, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 154 F.3d 704. Hernandez v. Vidmar Buick Co., D.C.Ill.1996, 910 F.Supp. 422, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1997, 112 F.3d 283. Cobb v. Monarch Fin. Corp., D.C.Ill.1995, 913 F.Supp. 1164. To-Am Equip. Co. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, D.C.Ill.1995, 913 F.Supp. 1148. Erickson v. Board of Governors of State Colleges & Univs. for Northeastern Illinois Univ., D.C.Ill.1995, 911 F.Supp. 316. Gupta v. Freixenet, USA, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 908 F.Supp. 557. Moran v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1228. Johnson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 271. Van Harken v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1182. Caplan v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 885 F.Supp. 175. Simmons v. Honrath, D.C.Wis.1995, 883 F.Supp. 371. Fernando v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 119. Pope v. Inland Property Management Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1114. Kaufmann v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1995, 876 F.Supp. 1044. James v. Professionals' Detective Agency, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 876 F.Supp. 1013. Whirlpool Financial Corp. v. GN Holdings, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 873 F.Supp. 111, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 67 F.3d 605. Emery v. American Gen. Fin., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 873 F.Supp. 1116, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1995, 71 F.3d 1343. D'Last Corp. v. Ugent, D.C.Ill.1994, 863 F.Supp. 763, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 51 F.3d 275. Methodist Hosp., Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Servs. Admin., D.C.Ind.1994, 860 F.Supp. 1309. Whitehead v. AM International, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 860 F.Supp. 1280. Henderson v. McDonald, D.C.Ill.1994, 857 F.Supp. 49. EEOC v. Park Ridge Public Library, D.C.Ill.1994, 856 F.Supp. 477. Letisha A. by Murphy v. Morgan, D.C.Ill.1994, 855 F.Supp. 943. McCulley v. U.S. Department Of Veterans Affairs, D.C.Wis.1994, 851 F.Supp. 1271. Marozsan v. U.S., D.C.Ind.1994, 849 F.Supp. 617, 633, affirmed C.A.7th, 1996, 90 F.3d 1284. Johnson v. Indopco, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 846 F.Supp. 670. Motion Picture Projectionists & Video Technicians, Local 110, I.A.T.S.E. & M.P.M.O. of U.S. & Canada v. Fred Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 845 F.Supp. 1255, 1258. Johnson v. Northern Indiana Public Serv. Co., D.C.Ind.1994, 844 F.Supp. 466. In re Scattered Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ill.1994, 844 F.Supp. 416, 419, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 47 F.3d 857, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 76, 516 U.S. 818, 133 L.Ed.2d 35. The First Nat. Bank of Chicago as Trustee of the Institutional Real Estate Fund F v. ACCO USA, Inc.-IBT Retirement Plan, D.C.Ill.1994, 842 F.Supp. 311. Israeli Aircraft Indus., Ltd. v. Sanwa Bus. Credit Corp., D.C.Ill.1993, 850 F.Supp. 686, affirmed C.A.7th, 1994, 16 F.3d 198. Kaufmann v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1993, 840 F.Supp. 641. Heller Int'l Corp. v. Sharp, D.C.Ill.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1297. West v. LTV Steel Co., D.C.Ind.1993, 839 F.Supp. 559. Mauke v. Town of Dune Acres, D.C.Ind.1993, 835 F.Supp. 468. Brown v. LaSalle Northwest Nat. Bank, D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1078. American Needle & Novelty, Inc. v. Drew Pearson Marketing, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1072. Tracy v. Bittles, D.C.Ind.1993, 820 F.Supp. 396. Washington v. Foresman, D.C.Ind.1993, 148 F.R.D. 241. Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc. v. CJR Processing, Inc., D.C.Ill.1992, 808 F.Supp. 652.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Eighth Circuit Webb v. Lawrence County, C.A.8th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1131. Forest River, Inc. v. Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC, 2010 WL 2674540, *1 (N.D. Ind. 2010). In re BankAmerica Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mo.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 976. FGS Constructors, Inc. v. Carlow, D.C.S.D.1993, 823 F.Supp. 1508. Mousseaux v. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, D.C.S.D.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1433, affirmed in part, remanded in part on other grounds C.A.8th, 1994, 28 F.3d 786.

Ninth Circuit Recinto v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 706 F.3d 1171, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 83, 187 L. Ed. 2d 31 (2013). Western Radio Services Co. v. Qwest Corp., 678 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 758, 184 L.Ed.2d 499 (2012). Adams v. U.S. Forest Service, 671 F.3d 1138, 1142 (9th Cir. 2012). Shwarz v. U.S., C.A.9th, 2000, 234 F.3d 428. Brown v. Dillman, 2010 WL 2775842, *1 (D. Nev. 2010). Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. Cortez, D.C.Nev.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1102 (well-pleaded allegations of material fact). Fleeger v. Bell, D.C.Nev.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 1126, affirmed C.A.9th, 2001, 23 Fed.Appx. 741. Smith v. U.S., D.C.Nev.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1136 (well-pleaded allegations of material fact). Holmes v. California Army Nat. Guard, D.C.Cal.1996, 920 F.Supp. 1510, reversed on other grounds C.A.9th, 1997, 124 F.3d 1126.

Tenth Circuit Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, USA, 681 F.3d 1172, 1178 (10th Cir. 2012). In re Level 3 Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, 667 F.3d 1331, 1339 (10th Cir. 2012). Aspen Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, LLC v. Aspen Valley Hosp. Dist., C.A.10th, 2003, 353 F.3d 832. Hyde Park Co. v. Santa Fe City Council, C.A.10th, 2000, 226 F.3d 1207. Janke v. Price, C.A.10th, 1994, 43 F.3d 1390, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 1997, 124 F.3d 216. Lucero v. Gunter, C.A.10th, 1994, 17 F.3d 1347, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 1995, 52 F.3d 874 (can be limited to cases involving pro se litigants). Simon v. Taylor, 2013 WL 5934024, *22 (D.N.M. 2013). Shepard v. Applebee's Intern., Inc., 2010 WL 1418588, *1 (D. Kan. 2010). McDonald v. Oklahoma, 2010 WL 545870, *2 (W.D. Okla. 2010). American Cas. Co. v. Glaskin, D.C.Colo.1992, 805 F.Supp. 866. Anderson v. Blake, 2008 WL 2404040 (W.D. Okla. 2008). Moore v. Guthrie, C.A.10th, 2006, 438 F.3d 1036. Executive Risk Indem. Inc. v. Sprint Corp., D.C.Kan.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 1196. Wildwood Child & Adult Care Food Program, Inc. v. Colorado Dep't of Public Health & Environment, D.C.Colo.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 1167. O'Hayre v. Board of Educ. for Jefferson County School Dist. R-1, D.C.Colo.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 1284. Cameron v. Navarre Farmers Union Coop. Ass'n, D.C.Kan.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1178. Overton v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 1034, affirmed C.A.10th, 2000, 202 F.3d 282 (well-pleaded factual averments). Marrie v. Nickels, D.C.Kan.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1252. Scott v. Topeka Performing Arts Center, D.C.Kan.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1325. Klover v. Antero Healthplans, D.C.Colo.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 1003. Sellens v. Telephone Credit Union, D.C.Kan.1999, 189 F.R.D. 461. Queen Uno Ltd. Partnership v. Coeur D'Alene Mines Corp., D.C.Colo.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1345. Hall v. Doering, D.C.Kan.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1464. Dickerson v. Leavitt Rentals, D.C.Kan.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1242, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 153 F.3d 726, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 882, 525 U.S. 1110, 142 L.Ed.2d 781. Mein v. Pool Co. Disabled Int'l Employee Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, Pool Co., D.C.Colo.1998, 989 F.Supp. 1337. Jefferson County School Dist. No. R1 v. Moody's Investor's Servs., Inc., D.C.Colo.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1341, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 175 F.3d 848.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Gaines-Tabb v. ICI Explosives USA, Inc., D.C.Okl.1996, 995 F.Supp. 1304, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 160 F.3d 613. Mounkes v. Conklin, D.C.Kan.1996, 922 F.Supp. 1501. Newsome v. County of Santa Fe, D.C.N.M.1996, 922 F.Supp. 519. Boyer v. Board of County Comm'rs of the County of Johnson County, D.C.Kan.1996, 922 F.Supp. 476, affirmed C.A.10th, 1997, 108 F.3d 1388. Gudenkauf v. Stauffer Communications, Inc., D.C.Kan.1996, 922 F.Supp. 461. Olds v. Alamo Group (KS), Inc., D.C.Kan.1995, 889 F.Supp. 447. Davis v. Olin, D.C.Kan.1995, 886 F.Supp. 804. Arena Land & Inv. Co. v. Petty, D.C.Utah 1994, 906 F.Supp. 1470, affirmed C.A.10th, 1995, 69 F.3d 547. Bintner v. Burlington Northern, Inc., D.C.Wyo.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1484. Oppenheimer v. Novell, Inc., D.C.Utah 1994, 851 F.Supp. 412. Morris v. Kansas Dep't Of Revenue, D.C.Kan.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1421. Moten v. American Linen Supply Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 155 F.R.D. 202.

Eleventh Circuit La Grasta v. First Union Secs., Inc., C.A.11th, 2004, 358 F.3d 840. Maggio v. Sipple, C.A.11th, 2000, 211 F.3d 1346. Finn v. Kent Security Services, Inc., 120 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1134, 2013 WL 5954388, *2 (S.D. Fla. 2013). Crim v. Manalich, 2010 WL 2757223, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2010). Golthy v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.2003, 287 F.Supp.2d 1259. Gomer ex rel. Gomer v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ala.2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 1262. Herman v. Continental Grain Co., D.C.Ala.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 1290. Hughes v. Cooper Tire Co., D.C.Ala.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1312. Kelley v. Troy State Univ., D.C.Ala.1996, 923 F.Supp. 1494. D.R. by Robinson v. Phyfer, D.C.Ala.1995, 906 F.Supp. 637. Williams v. Goldsmith, D.C.Ala.1995, 905 F.Supp. 996. Lewis v. Board of Trustees of Alabama State Univ., D.C.Ala.1995, 874 F.Supp. 1299. Bahadirli v. Domino's Pizza, D.C.Ala.1995, 873 F.Supp. 1528. Malone v. Chambers County Bd. of Comm'rs, D.C.Ala.1994, 875 F.Supp. 773. Harrelson v. Elmore County, Alabama, D.C.Ala.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1465.

D.C. Circuit Davis v. Billington, 681 F.3d 377, 379 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Sentelle, C.J.). Partovi v. Matuszewski, 647 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009). Herron v. Veneman, D.C.D.C.2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 64. U.S. ex rel. Harris v. Bernad, D.C.D.C.2003, 275 F.Supp.2d 1. Kilpatrick v. Riley, D.C.D.C.2000, 98 F.Supp.2d 9. Woodruff v. DiMario, D.C.D.C.2000, 197 F.R.D. 191 (court is bound to accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of fact, excluding those that are overbroad and unsupported by specific factual averments). Vanover v. Hantman, D.C.D.C.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 91, affirmed C.A.D.C.2002, 38 Fed.Appx. 4. Alexis v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 35. Appleton v. U.S., D.C.D.C.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 83. Griggs v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, D.C.D.C.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 23. In re United Mine Workers of America Employee Benefit Plans Litigation, D.C.D.C.1994, 854 F.Supp. 914.

Federal Circuit TrinCo Inv. Co. v. U.S., 722 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Lindsay v. U.S., 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Boyle v. U.S., C.A.Fed., 2000, 200 F.3d 1369.

Well-pleaded facts and allegations U.S. v. Brickman, D.C.Ill.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1164 (referring to “well-pleaded facts” and “well-pleaded factual allegations” interchangeably).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

City of Chicago Heights, Illinois v. LoBue, D.C.Ill.1994, 841 F.Supp. 819. O'Hern v. Delta Airlines, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1264. 21 Well-pleaded allegations

Supreme Court Miree v. DeKalb County, Georgia, 1977, 97 S.Ct. 2490, 2492 n. 2, 433 U.S. 25, 27 n. 2, 53 L.Ed.2d 557.

First Circuit Oliveras-Sifre v. Puerto Rico Dep't of Health, C.A.1st, 2000, 214 F.3d 23. Camelio v. American Fed'n, C.A.1st, 1998, 137 F.3d 666. Gross v. Summa Four, Inc., C.A.1st, 1996, 93 F.3d 987. Pascale Service Corp. v. Intern. Truck and Engine Corp., 558 F. Supp. 2d 217 (D.R.I. 2008).

Massachusetts Krantz v. Fidelity Management & Research Co., D.C.Mass.2000, 98 F.Supp.2d 150. Citicorp No. America, Inc. v. Ogden Martin Sys. of Haverhill, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 72. King v. Williams Indus., Inc., D.C.Mass.1983, 565 F.Supp. 321, certiorari denied 104 S.Ct. 2363, 466 U.S. 980, 80 L.Ed.2d 835.

Puerto Rico International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180.

Rhode Island Jefferson v. Gates, 2010 WL 2927529, *5 (D.R.I. 2010). Guilbeault v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.R.I.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 263. Moran v. GTech Corp., D.C.R.I.1997, 989 F.Supp. 84. Miller v. Arpin & Sons, Inc., D.C.R.I.1997, 949 F.Supp. 961. Simon v. American Power Conversion, Corp., D.C.R.I.1996, 945 F.Supp. 416. Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Local #2548, United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, D.C.R.I.1975, 391 F.Supp. 287, 289, citing Wright & Miller.

Second Circuit Heit v. Weitzen, C.A.2d, 1968, 402 F.2d 909, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 1740, 395 U.S. 903, 23 L.Ed.2d 217.

Connecticut Calderon v. Dinan & Dinan PC, D.C.Conn.2006, 2006 WL 1646157. Longmoor v. Nilsen, D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 132. Raybestos Prods. Co. v. Coni-Seal, Inc., D.C.Conn.1997, 989 F.Supp. 166. Kent v. AVCO Corporation, D.C.Conn.1994, 849 F.Supp. 833. Budget Rent A Car of Westchester, Inc. v. Rental Car Resources, Inc., D.C.Conn.1993, 842 F.Supp. 614. Vorvis v. Southern New England Telephone Co., D.C.Conn.1993, 821 F.Supp. 851. Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Tobacco Valley Sanitation Serv. Co., D.C.Conn.1993, 818 F.Supp. 504.

New York Engler v. Cendant Corp., D.C.N.Y.2006, 434 F.Supp.2d 119. Turner v. Olympic Regional Dev. Authority, D.C.N.Y.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 241. Rapoport v. Asia Electronics Holding Co., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 179. Watson v. Dominican College, D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 222. Marvello v. Chemical Bank, D.C.N.Y.1996, 923 F.Supp. 487. Falik v. Parker Duryee Rosoff & Haft, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 228. Kohlasch v. New York State Thruway Authority, D.C.N.Y.1978, 460 F.Supp. 956. Goldberger v. Baker, D.C.N.Y.1977, 442 F.Supp. 659. CBS Incorporated v. Springboard Int'l Records, D.C.N.Y.1976, 429 F.Supp. 563.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Dunleavy v. Ternullo, D.C.N.Y.1976, 410 F.Supp. 1166. Davidge v. White, D.C.N.Y.1974, 377 F.Supp. 1084. Dopp v. Franklin Nat. Bank, D.C.N.Y.1974, 374 F.Supp. 904. Kristiansen v. John Mullins & Sons, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1973, 59 F.R.D. 99. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Chandris America Lines, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1971, 321 F.Supp. 707.

Third Circuit Mariotti v. Mariotti Bldg. Products, Inc., 714 F.3d 761, 764-765 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 437, 187 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2013). In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 685 F.3d 353, 357 (3d Cir. 2012). M.A. ex rel. E.S. v. State-Operated School Dist. of City of Newark, C.A.3d, 2003, 344 F.3d 335. Ramsgate Court Townhome Ass'n v. West Chester Borough, C.A.3d, 2002, 313 F.3d 157. In re Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.3d, 2002, 311 F.3d 198. Bensalem Tp. v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co., C.A.3d, 1994, 38 F.3d 1303. Hayes v. Gross, C.A.3d, 1992, 982 F.2d 104. McKnight v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, C.A.3d, 1978, 583 F.2d 1229.

Delaware Hurley v. Columbia Cas. Co., D.C.Del.1997, 976 F.Supp. 268. DeWitt v. Penn-Del Directory Corp., D.C.Del.1994, 872 F.Supp. 126. Leeward Petroleum, Ltd. v. Mene Grande Oil Co., D.C.Del.1976, 415 F.Supp. 158.

New Jersey Kuzian v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d 599, 606 (D.N.J. 2013), reconsideration granted, 2013 WL 6865083 (D.N.J. 2013), citing Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005). Hilton v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 1307900. Boerger v. Commerce Ins. Servs., D.C.N.J.2005, 2005 WL 3440632 (Not reported in federal reporter, for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Garlanger v. Verbeke, D.C.N.J.2002, 223 F.Supp.2d 596. Dowdell v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, D.C.N.J.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 527. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 550. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. IVAX Corporation, D.C.N.J.2000, 77 F.Supp.2d 606. Oh v. AT & T Corporation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 551. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 539. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 498. Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.N.J.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 521. Florian Greenhouse, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 521. Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, D.C.N.J.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 460. Ramirez v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1998, 998 F.Supp. 425. Mruz v. Caring, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 991 F.Supp. 701. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. RTC Mortgage Trust 1994 N1 v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1997, 981 F.Supp. 334. TWC Cable Partners v. Cableworks, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 966 F.Supp. 305. Schanzer v. Rutgers Univ., D.C.N.J.1996, 934 F.Supp. 669. Stehney v. Perry, D.C.N.J.1995, 907 F.Supp. 806, affirmed C.A.3d, 1996, 101 F.3d 925. Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, D.C.N.J.1994, 876 F.Supp. 625, affirmed C.A.3d, 1995, 70 F.3d 291. Fair Housing Council of Bergen County, Inc. v. Eastern Bergen County Multiple Listing Serv., Inc., D.C.N.J.1976, 422 F.Supp. 1071. Mele v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.C.N.J.1975, 395 F.Supp. 592.

Pennsylvania McAndrew v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 2013 WL 5551453, *3 (M.D. Pa. 2013), citing Colburn v. Upper Darby Tp., 838 F.2d 663, 665-666 (3d Cir. 1988). Boyd v. U.S., D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 2828843.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

McLaughlin v. Kvaerner ASA, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 2129124. Richardson v. DHS, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 2060451. Thornton v. Broadspire, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 314536. Thompson v. County of Beaver, D.C.Pa.2006, 2006 WL 62822. Neuburger v. Thompson, D.C.Pa.2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 521. Mitchell v. Cellone, D.C.Pa.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 368. U.S. v. LTV Steel Co., D.C.Pa.2000, 116 F.Supp.2d 624. Rogan v. Giant Eagle, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 777. Saxe v. State College Area School Dist., D.C.Pa.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 621, reversed on other grounds C.A3d, 2001, 240 F.3d 200. Duffy v. County of Bucks, D.C.Pa.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 569. Carter v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 386. Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, D.C.Pa.1997, 176 F.R.D. 132. King v. M.R. Brown, Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 911 F.Supp. 161. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United Transp. Union Gen. Committee of Adjustment (PPR), D.C.Pa.1995, 908 F.Supp. 258. Ezenwa v. Gallen, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 978. Burks v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1995, 904 F.Supp. 421. Lindsay v. Kvortek, D.C.Pa.1994, 865 F.Supp. 264 (well-pleaded material allegations). Kessler v. Monsour, D.C.Pa.1994, 865 F.Supp. 234. Killian v. McCulloch, D.C.Pa.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1239. Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Agway Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 845 F.Supp. 252. Rogers v. Mount Union Borough by Zook, D.C.Pa.1993, 816 F.Supp. 308. Barrett v. City of Allentown, D.C.Pa.1993, 152 F.R.D. 50. Tersco, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., D.C.Pa.1992, 879 F.Supp. 445. Brossman Sales, Inc. v. Broderick, D.C.Pa.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1209. McNulty v. Borden, Inc., D.C.Pa.1979, 474 F.Supp. 1111. Coggins v. Carpenter, D.C.Pa.1979, 468 F.Supp. 270. Prochaska v. Fediaczko, D.C.Pa.1978, 458 F.Supp. 778. Wilkinson v. Abrams, D.C.Pa.1978, 81 F.R.D. 52, 55, citing Wright & Miller. Pawlak v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers of America, Local Union No. 764, D.C.Pa.1977, 444 F.Supp. 807. Murray v. Murphy, D.C.Pa.1977, 441 F.Supp. 120. Bagby v. Beal, D.C.Pa.1977, 439 F.Supp. 1257. Bulkin v. Western Kraft East, Inc., D.C.Pa.1976, 422 F.Supp. 437. Lohr v. Association of Catholic Teachers, Local 1776, D.C.Pa.1976, 416 F.Supp. 619. Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., D.C.Pa.1976, 415 F.Supp. 176. Rackin v. University of Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1974, 386 F.Supp. 992, 994 n. 1. United Mine Workers of America v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., D.C.Pa.1974, 378 F.Supp. 1206. In re Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co. Secs. & Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Pa.1974, 378 F.Supp. 441. Mastandrea v. Gurrentz Int'l Corp., D.C.Pa.1974, 65 F.R.D. 52. Miller v. Parsons, D.C.Pa.1970, 313 F.Supp. 1150. Sinchak v. Parente, D.C.Pa.1966, 262 F.Supp. 79.

Fourth Circuit Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co. Ltd., 708 F.3d 527, 539 (4th Cir. 2013). Bishop v. County of Macon, 484 Fed. Appx. 753 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 32.1). Mellon Investor Services, LLC v. Longwood Country Garden Centers, Inc., 263 Fed. Appx. 277 (4th Cir. 2008). Franks v. Ross, C.A.4th, 2002, 313 F.3d 184, on remand D.C.N.C.2003, 293 F.Supp.2d 599. Chisolm v. TranSouth Financial Corp., C.A.4th, 1996, 95 F.3d 331. Randall v. U.S., C.A.4th, 1994, 30 F.3d 518, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 1956, 514 U.S. 1107, 131 L.Ed.2d 849.

Maryland

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bhari Information Technology System Private Ltd. v. Sriram, 2013 WL 5811468, *1 (D. Md. 2013), opinion vacated and superseded, 2013 WL 6231389 (D. Md. 2013), citing Ibarra v. U.S., 120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997). Adams v. Montgomery College, 2010 WL 2813346, *2 (D. Md. 2010). Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 89 v. Prince George's County, Md., 645 F. Supp. 2d 492 (D. Md. 2009). Howell v. State Farm Ins. Cos., D.C.Md.2006, 448 F.Supp.2d 676. Beuster v. Equifax Information Servs., D.C.Md.2006, 435 F.Supp.2d 471. Brown v. McKesson Bioservices Corp., D.C.Md.2006, 2006 WL 616021. Schultz v. Braga, D.C.Md.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 637. Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp., D.C.Md.2003, 249 F.Supp.2d 703. Kress v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, D.C.Md.2002, 217 F.Supp.2d 682. Eniola v. Leasecomm Corp., D.C.Md.2002, 214 F.Supp.2d 520. Gray v. Metts, D.C.Md.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 426. Svezzese v. Duratek, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 2002 WL 1012967, affirmed C.A.4th, 2003, 67 Fed.Appx. 169. Abadian v. Lee, D.C.Md.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 481. Recupito v. Prudential Secs., Inc., D.C.Md.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 449. Thelen v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Md.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 688. In re Criimi Mae, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Md.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 652. Lafayette Fed. Credit Union v. U.S., D.C.Md.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 645. Smith-Berch, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, D.C.Md.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 602. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, D.C.Md.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 648, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 177 F.3d 245. Bender v. Suburban Hosp., D.C.Md.1998, 998 F.Supp. 631, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 159 F.3d 186. Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc., D.C.Md.1997, 989 F.Supp. 748, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 151 F.3d 180. Kohler v. Shenasky, D.C.Md.1995, 914 F.Supp. 1206. Lust v. Burke, D.C.Md.1994, 876 F.Supp. 1474, citing Wright & Miller (well-pleaded material allegations). Pinder v. Commissioners of Cambridge in the City of Cambridge, D.C.Md.1993, 821 F.Supp. 376, affirmed C.A.4th, 1994, 33 F.3d 368, reversed on other grounds C.A.4th, 1995, 54 F.3d 1169 (all “properly pleaded allegations”).

North Carolina Tims v. Carolinas Healthcare System, 2013 WL 5636743, *2 (W.D. N.C. 2013), citing Randall v. U.S., 30 F.3d 518, 522 (4th Cir. 1994). Alston v. North Carolina A & T State Univ., D.C.N.C.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 774. Spencer v. Town of Chapel Hill, D.C.N.C.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 655. Gottesman v. J.H. Batten, Inc., D.C.N.C.2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 604. Frye v. City of Kannapolis, D.C.N.C.1999, 109 F.Supp.2d 436. Stevenson ex rel. Stevenson v. Martin County Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.C.1999, 93 F.Supp.2d 644, affirmed C.A.4th, 2001, 3 Fed.Appx. 25. Krim v. Coastal Physician Group, Inc., D.C.N.C.1998, 81 F.Supp.2d 621, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 201 F.3d 436. Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.C.1998, 179 F.R.D. 177. Mullis v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank, D.C.N.C.1997, 994 F.Supp. 680. Cortes v. McDonald's Corp., D.C.N.C.1996, 955 F.Supp. 531. Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., D.C.N.C.1996, 951 F.Supp. 1224. Merck & Co. v. Lyon, D.C.N.C.1996, 941 F.Supp. 1443. Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Dockery, D.C.N.C.1995, 907 F.Supp. 147. Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., D.C.N.C.1995, 887 F.Supp. 811. Shanks v. Forsyth County Park Authority, Inc., D.C.N.C.1994, 869 F.Supp. 1231.

South Carolina Thurmond v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc., 2013 WL 5408842, *1 (D.S.C. 2013), citing Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). Smith v. Cumulus Broadcasting, LLC, 2010 WL 2756999, *1 (D.S.C. 2010). Bing v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., D.C.S.C.1965, 237 F.Supp. 911.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Virginia AvePoint, Inc. v. Power Tools, Inc., 2013 WL 5963034, *4 (W.D. Va. 2013), citing Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co. Ltd., 708 F.3d 527, 539 (4th Cir. 2013). Harris v. U.S., 2010 WL 2733448, *7 (E.D. Va. 2010). Sykes v. Meyler, D.C.Va.2006, 453 F.Supp.2d 936. Caldwell v. Green, D.C.Va.2006, 451 F.Supp.2d 811.

West Virginia Hurt v. U.S. CIR, D.C.W.Va.1995, 889 F.Supp. 248. Cook v. Espy, D.C.W.Va.1994, 856 F.Supp. 1095.

Fifth Circuit Sepulvado v. Louisiana Bd. of Pardons & Parole, C.A.5th, 2006, 171 Fed.Appx. 470, certiorari denied 127 S.Ct. 554, 549 U.S. 1014, 166 L.Ed.2d 412 (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). McConathy v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Corp., C.A.5th, 1998, 131 F.3d 558. Foster v. City of Lake Jackson, C.A.5th, 1994, 28 F.3d 425. Truman v. U.S., C.A.5th, 1994, 26 F.3d 592. Rubinstein v. Collins, C.A.5th, 1994, 20 F.3d 160, on remand D.C.Tex.1995, 162 F.R.D. 534. Reid v. Hughes, C.A.5th, 1978, 578 F.2d 634. Hargrave v. McKinney, C.A.5th, 1969, 413 F.2d 320.

Louisiana Baustian v. Louisiana, D.C.La.1996, 910 F.Supp. 274 (“well-pleaded averments”). Laspopoulos v. FBI, D.C.La.1995, 884 F.Supp. 214. Strain v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., D.C.La.1975, 68 F.R.D. 697.

Mississippi Gardner v. Clark, D.C.Miss.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 468.

Texas U.S. ex rel. Coppock v. Northrop Grumman Corp., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1796979. Torres de Maquera v. Yacu Runa Naviera, S.A., D.C.Tex.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 770. Marabella v. Autonation U.S.A. Corp., D.C.Tex.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 750. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Niro, Inc., D.C.Tex.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 712. St. Clair v. Johnny's Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., D.C.Tex.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 773. Nebout v. City of Hitchcock, D.C.Tex.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 702. Young v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., D.C.Tex.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 914. Quintanilla v. K-Bin, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 993 F.Supp. 560. Matthews v. High Island Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1998, 991 F.Supp. 840. K.U. by & through Michael U. v. Alvin Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1998, 991 F.Supp. 599. Stewart v. Potts, D.C.Tex.1997, 983 F.Supp. 678. Drain v. Galveston County, D.C.Tex.1997, 979 F.Supp. 1101. Sheppard v. Texas Dep't of Transportation, D.C.Tex.1994, 158 F.R.D. 592. De Francis v. Bush, D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 13.

Sixth Circuit Glazer v. Chase Home Finance LLC, 704 F.3d 453, 457 (6th Cir. 2013), citing Roberts v. Hamer, 655 F.3d 578, 581 (6th Cir. 2011). Yuhasz v. Brush Wellman, Inc., C.A.6th, 2003, 341 F.3d 559. Schlenk v. Ford Motor Credit Co., C.A.6th, 2002, 308 F.3d 619, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 288, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 141. Goad v. Mitchell, C.A.6th, 2002, 297 F.3d 497. Thomas v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., C.A.6th, 2002, 29 Fed.Appx. 319.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Begala v. PNC Bank, Ohio, Nat. Ass'n, C.A.6th, 2000, 214 F.3d 776, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 1082, 531 U.S. 1145, 148 L.Ed.2d 958. Bower v. Federal Express Corp., C.A.6th, 1996, 96 F.3d 200.

Kentucky Slappy v. Levell, D.C.Ky.2006, 2006 WL 83439. Gibson v. American Bankers Ins. Co., D.C.Ky.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 1037, affirmed C.A.6th, 2002, 289 F.3d 943.

Michigan Flagg v. Detroit, D.C.Mich.2006, 447 F.Supp.2d 824. Bowens v. Aftermath Entertainment, D.C.Mich.2003, 254 F.Supp.2d 629. Sumner v. Wayne County, D.C.Mich.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 822. Goins v. Ajax Metal Processing, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1057. U.S. ex rel. Moore v. University of Michigan, D.C.Mich.1994, 860 F.Supp. 400. Juide v. City of Ann Arbor, D.C.Mich.1993, 839 F.Supp. 497, affirmed C.A.6th, 1997, 107 F.3d 870. Bolden v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mich.1976, 422 F.Supp. 28.

Ohio Geiger v. City of Upper Arlington, D.C.Ohio 2006, 2006 WL 1888877. Savage v. Hatcher, D.C.Ohio 2002, 2002 WL 484986. Edwards v. Physician's Credit Bureau, D.C.Ohio 2001, 2001 WL 1678783 (unpublished). In re SmarTalk Teleservices, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ohio 2000, 124 F.Supp.2d 505. Ashiegbu v. Purviance, D.C.Ohio 1998, 76 F.Supp.2d 824, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 1311. Berridge v. Heiser, D.C.Ohio 1997, 993 F.Supp. 1136. Dorsey v. Tompkins, D.C.Ohio 1996, 917 F.Supp. 1195. Wilkins ex rel. U.S. v. Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1995, 885 F.Supp. 1055. City of Reynoldsburg v. Browner, D.C.Ohio 1993, 834 F.Supp. 963. Operation Badlaw, Inc. v. Licking County Gen. Health Dist. Bd. of Health, D.C.Ohio 1992, 866 F.Supp. 1059, affirmed C.A.6th, 1993, 991 F.2d 796.

Tennessee Moran Industries, Inc. v. Mr. Transmission of Chattanooga, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 712, 716 (E.D. Tenn. 2010). Schaeffer v. American Honda Motor Co., D.C.Tenn.1997, 976 F.Supp. 736.

Seventh Circuit Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc., 673 F.3d 609, 622 (7th Cir. 2012). Independent Trust Corp. v. Stewart Information Services Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934 (7th Cir. 2012). Albany Bank & Trust Co. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., C.A.7th, 2002, 310 F.3d 969. Stachon v. United Consumers Club, Inc., C.A.7th, 2000, 229 F.3d 673. Zimmerman v. Tribble, C.A.7th, 2000, 226 F.3d 568. Anderson v. Simon, C.A.7th, 2000, 217 F.3d 472, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 765, 531 U.S. 1073, 148 L.Ed.2d 666. Gastineau v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., C.A.7th, 1998, 137 F.3d 490. Stevens v. Umsted, C.A.7th, 1997, 131 F.3d 697. Mallett v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, C.A.7th, 1997, 130 F.3d 1245, appeal after remand C.A.7th, 2000, 248 F.3d 1158. Young v. Murphy, C.A.7th, 1996, 90 F.3d 1225. Palda v. General Dynamics Corp., C.A.7th, 1995, 47 F.3d 872. Starnes v. Capital Cities Media, Inc., C.A.7th, 1994, 39 F.3d 1394. Sherwin Manor Nursing Center, Inc. v. McAuliffe, C.A.7th, 1994, 37 F.3d 1216, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 172, 516 U.S. 862, 133 L.Ed.2d 113. Harris v. City of Auburn, C.A.7th, 1994, 27 F.3d 1284. Sidney S. Arst Co. v. Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund, C.A.7th, 1994, 25 F.3d 417.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Political Action Conference of Illinois v. Daley, C.A.7th, 1992, 976 F.2d 335. Duncan v. Nelson, C.A.7th, 1972, 466 F.2d 939, certiorari denied 93 S.Ct. 116, 175, 409 U.S. 894, 34 L.Ed.2d 152. Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., C.A.7th, 1958, 257 F.2d 417.

Illinois Papa John's Int'l, Inc. v. Rezko, D.C.Ill.2006, 446 F.Supp.2d 801. Gates v. Towery, D.C.Ill.2006, 435 F.Supp.2d 794. Lauer v. Nakon, D.C.Ill.2006, 2006 WL 418676. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Vuk Builders, Inc., D.C.Ill.2005, 406 F.Supp.2d 899. Chu v. Sabratek Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 100 F.Supp.2d 815. Davis v. Cash for Payday, Inc., D.C.Ill.2000, 193 F.R.D. 518. Ramirez v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1999, 82 F.Supp.2d 836. GreatAmerica Leasing Corp. v. Cozzi Iron & Metal, D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 875. Wardell v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 851. Blaz v. Michael Reese Hosp. Foundation, D.C.Ill.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 803. Tabor v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 988. Madsen v. Park City, D.C.Ill.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 938. Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1188, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1999, 179 F.3d 557. Payne v. Abbott Labs., D.C.Ill.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1145. Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Tang Indus., Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 889. Meek v. Springfield Police Dep't, D.C.Ill.1998, 990 F.Supp. 598. Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 985 F.Supp. 827. Valle v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 560. Harrell v. City of Jacksonville, D.C.Ill.1997, 976 F.Supp. 777, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1999, 169 F.3d 428. FDIC v. Gravee, D.C.Ill.1997, 966 F.Supp. 622. Hendrickson v. Gunther-Nash Mining Constr. Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 955 F.Supp. 87. Rehm v. Eagle Fin. Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1246. Conrad v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1997, 954 F.Supp. 180. Recreation Servs., Inc. v. Odyssey Fun World, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 952 F.Supp. 594. Codest Engineering v. Hyatt Int'l Corp., D.C.Ill.1996, 954 F.Supp. 1224. Blumenthal v. Murray, D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 623. Vitello v. Liturgy Training Publications, D.C.Ill.1996, 932 F.Supp. 1093. Stevens v. Umsted, D.C.Ill.1996, 921 F.Supp. 530, affirmed C.A.7th, 131 F.3d 697. Thomas v. Chicago Housing Authority, D.C.Ill.1996, 919 F.Supp. 1159. Tarver v. North American Co. for Life & Health Ins., D.C.Ill.1996, 919 F.Supp. 1128. Fernandez v. Wolff, D.C.Ill.1996, 919 F.Supp. 1120. RTC v. S & K Chevrolet Co., D.C.Ill.1996, 918 F.Supp. 1235, vacated in part on reconsideration on other grounds D.C.Ill.1996, 923 F.Supp. 135. Lanigan v. Village of East Hazel Crest, D.C.Ill.1996, 913 F.Supp. 1202. Dertz v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1995, 912 F.Supp. 319. Management Servs. of Illinois, Inc. v. Health Management Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 289. Rojicek v. Community Consolidated School Dist. 15, D.C.Ill.1995, 888 F.Supp. 878. Booker v. Ward, D.C.Ill.1995, 888 F.Supp. 869. Curcio v. Chinn Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 887 F.Supp. 190. Shipbaugh v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, D.C.Ill.1995, 883 F.Supp. 295. Wilson v. Cook County Bd. of Comm'rs, D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1163. Damato v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1156. Dandino v. Tieri, D.C.Ill.1994, 878 F.Supp. 129. Matthews v. Rollins Hudig Hall Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 874 F.Supp. 192, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1995, 72 F.3d 50. United Airlines, Inc. v. ALG, Incorporated, D.C.Ill.1995, 873 F.Supp. 147. Doe v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 883 F.Supp. 1126.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Battye v. Child Support Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 873 F.Supp. 103. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Area Pension Fund v. Feldman, D.C.Ill.1994, 872 F.Supp. 493. Moore v. Fidelity Financial Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 869 F.Supp. 557. Straka v. Francis, D.C.Ill.1994, 867 F.Supp. 767. Adams v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 865 F.Supp. 445. Antonelli v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1994, 863 F.Supp. 756, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1996, 81 F.3d 1422. Vickery v. Jones, D.C.Ill.1994, 856 F.Supp. 1313, affirmed C.A.7th, 1996, 100 F.3d 1334. Jackson v. Doria, D.C.Ill.1994, 851 F.Supp. 288. Nielsen v. Greenwood, D.C.Ill.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1233. Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., D.C.Ill.1994, 847 F.Supp. 88, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 52 F.3d 640. Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. Krain, D.C.Ill.1994, 843 F.Supp. 404. Clorox Co. v. Chromium Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 158 F.R.D. 120. Carbone v. Zollar, D.C.Ill.1993, 845 F.Supp. 534. U.S. v. $288,930.00 In U.S. Currency, D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 367. AM International, Inc. v. Graphic Management Associates, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 836 F.Supp. 487, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 44 F.3d 572. Napoli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1053, vacated on other grounds D.C.Ill.1996, 926 F.Supp. 780. Smith v. Lyles, D.C.Ill.1993, 822 F.Supp. 541. Eberhardt v. O'Malley, D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1090, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1994, 17 F.3d 1023. Flynn Beverage Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1174. Kas v. Caterpillar, Inc., D.C.Ill.1992, 815 F.Supp. 1158. Johnson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Ill.1992, 809 F.Supp. 602, affirmed C.A.7th, 1993, 9 F.3d 112. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Frigidaire, a Div. of General Motors Corp., D.C.Ill.1992, 146 F.R.D. 160. Quinones v. Coler, D.C.Ill.1987, 651 F.Supp. 1028, 1034. Spallone v. Village of Roselle, D.C.Ill.1984, 584 F.Supp. 1387. Wolf v. Carey, D.C.Ill.1977, 438 F.Supp. 545, affirmed without opinion C.A.7th, 1978, 582 F.2d 1282. Lake Shore Nat. Bank v. Knott Hotels Corp., D.C.Ill.1975, 69 F.R.D. 573. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, D.C.Ill.1969, 310 F.Supp. 1398, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1970, 435 F.2d 267, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 1383, 402 U.S. 909, 28 L.Ed.2d 650.

Indiana Panwar v. Access Therapies, Inc., 2013 WL 5486783, *4 (S.D. Ind. 2013), citing Bielanski v. County of Kane, 550 F.3d 632, 633 (7th Cir. 2008). Woodall v. AES Corporation, D.C.Ind.2002, 2002 WL 1461718. Henson v. CSC Credit Serv., D.C.Ind.1993, 830 F.Supp. 1204, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1994, 29 F.3d 280.

Wisconsin Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Nicholson, D.C.Wis.2006, 448 F.Supp.2d 1028. Hoffman v. Kelz, D.C.Wis.2006, 443 F.Supp.2d 1007. Metal Processing Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., D.C.Wis.1996, 926 F.Supp. 828. Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin v. Doyle, D.C.Wis.1993, 828 F.Supp. 1401, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 45 F.3d 1079. Petersen v. University of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, D.C.Wis.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1276. Weidenfeller v. Kidulis, D.C.Wis.1974, 380 F.Supp. 445.

Eighth Circuit Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 2010 WL 154994 (U.S. 2010). Forbes v. Arkansas Educational Television Communication Network Foundation, C.A.8th, 1994, 22 F.3d 1423, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 500, 513 U.S. 995, 130 L.Ed.2d 409. McCormack v. Citibank, N.A., C.A.8th, 1992, 979 F.2d 643, appeal after remand C.A.8th, 1996, 100 F.3d 532.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Barnes v. Dorsey, C.A.8th, 1973, 480 F.2d 1057. Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., C.A.8th, 1968, 402 F.2d 968, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 2096, 395 U.S. 961, 23 L.Ed.2d 748. Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Slayton, C.A.8th, 1966, 359 F.2d 106, reversed on other grounds sub nom. Levin v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp., 1967, 87 S.Ct. 927, 386 U.S. 162, 17 L.Ed.2d 834.

Iowa Holt v. Quality Egg, L.L.C., 777 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1168 (N.D. Iowa 2011). Mills v. Iowa Bd. of Regents, 770 F. Supp. 2d 986, 991 (S.D. Iowa 2011) ("factual allegations"). Beenken v. Chicago & Nw. R.R. Co., D.C.Iowa 1973, 367 F.Supp. 1337.

Minnesota Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A v. CVS Caremark Corp., 725 F. Supp. 2d 849, 851 (D. Minn. 2010) ("[T]he Court takes as true the properly-pleaded factual allegations in the Complaint.").

North Dakota Henry v. Link, D.C.N.D.1976, 408 F.Supp. 1204, order amended on other grounds D.C.N.D.1976, 417 F.Supp. 360.

Ninth Circuit Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013), citing Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Broudo v. Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A.9th, 2003, 339 F.3d 933. Wyler Summit Partnership v. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 135 F.3d 658, appeal after remand C.A.9th, 2000, 231 F.3d 546 (district court erred by resolving factual issue of whether provision in contract was solely for plaintiff's benefit).

Arizona Hisel v. Spencer, D.C.Ariz.2006, 2006 WL 2091666 In re American Continental Corp./Lincoln Savs. & Loan Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ariz.1993, 845 F.Supp. 1377.

California Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros. Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1203 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Anderson v. Continental Cas. Co., D.C.Cal.2003, 258 F.Supp.2d 1127, citing Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, Local 1625, AFL-CIO v. Schermerhorn, 1963, 83 S.Ct. 1461, 373 U.S. 746, 10 L.Ed.2d 678. U.S. v. Holt, D.C.Ga.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1374. Youngberg v. Bekins Co., D.C.Cal.1996, 930 F.Supp. 1396. Anthony v. County of Sacramento, Sheriff's Dep't, D.C.Cal.1994, 845 F.Supp. 1396.

Nevada Crockett & Myers, Ltd. v. Napier, Fitzgerald & Kirby, LLP., D.C.Nev.2006, 430 F.Supp.2d 1157.

Tenth Circuit Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 708 F.3d 1141, 1144 (10th Cir. 2013). County of Santa Fe, New Mexico v. Public Serv. Co. of New Mexico, C.A.10th, 2002, 311 F.3d 1031. MacArthur v. San Juan County, C.A.10th, 2002, 309 F.3d 1216, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 2252, 539 U.S. 902, 156 L.Ed.2d 110. Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, C.A.10th, 2002, 307 F.3d 1258. Ford v. West, C.A.10th, 2000, 222 F.3d 767. Herring v. Keenan, C.A.10th, 2000, 218 F.3d 1171, certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 96, 534 U.S. 840, 151 L.Ed.2d 56. Davis-Warren Auctioneers, J.V. v. FDIC, C.A.10th, 2000, 215 F.3d 1159. Keith v. Rizzuto, C.A.10th, 2000, 212 F.3d 1190, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 387, 531 U.S. 960, 148 L.Ed.2d 298. Kamplain v. Curry County Bd. of Comm'rs, C.A.10th, 1998, 159 F.3d 1248. Lee v. Gallup Auto Sales, Inc., C.A.10th, 1998, 135 F.3d 1359. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., C.A.10th, 1997, 130 F.3d 893, affirmed 119 S.Ct. 2139, 527 U.S. 471, 144 L.Ed.2d 450. McKenzie v. Renberg's Inc., C.A.10th, 1996, 94 F.3d 1478. Roman v. Cessna Aircraft Co., C.A.10th, 1995, 55 F.3d 542.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Jojola v. Chavez, C.A.10th, 1995, 55 F.3d 488. Maez v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph, Inc., C.A.10th, 1995, 54 F.3d 1488. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., C.A.10th, 1995, 46 F.3d 1491. Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dep't of Mental Health, C.A.10th, 1994, 41 F.3d 584. Brever v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., C.A.10th, 1994, 40 F.3d 1119. Ballen v. Prudential Bache Secs., Inc., C.A.10th, 1994, 23 F.3d 335. Horowitz v. Schneider Nat., Inc., C.A.10th, 1993, 992 F.2d 279. Lafoy v. HMO Colorado, C.A.10th, 1993, 988 F.2d 97.

Colorado Durham v. Lappin, D.C.Colo.2006, 2006 WL 2724091. Angres v. Smallworldwide PLC, D.C.Colo.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 1167. Shepherd v. U.S. Olympic Committee, D.C.Colo.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 1136. Full Draw Productions v. Easton Sports, Inc., D.C.Colo.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1001. Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy, D.C.Colo.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 1090. Dauro Advertising, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Colo.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 1165. Harris v. Morales, D.C.Colo.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1319. Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., D.C.Colo.1998, 178 F.R.D. 545. Sportsmen's Wildlife Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of the Interior, D.C.Colo.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1510. First Bet Joint Venture v. City of Central City, D.C.Colo.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1409.

Kansas Ice Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Inc., D.C.Kan.2006, 444 F.Supp.2d 1165. Huddleston v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 942 F.Supp. 504. Houck v. City of Prairie Village, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1996, 912 F.Supp. 1438. Houck v. City of Prairie Village, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1996, 912 F.Supp. 1428.

New Mexico Ward v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., D.C.N.M.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1285. Maya v. General Motors Corp., D.C.N.M.1996, 953 F.Supp. 1245.

Oklahoma Yingst v. Hudson Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2106407, *2 (N.D. Okla. 2010). Smith v. Wickline, D.C.Okl.1975, 396 F.Supp. 555.

Utah Ankers v. Rodman, D.C.Utah 1997, 995 F.Supp. 1329. Seolas v. Bilzerian, D.C.Utah 1997, 951 F.Supp. 978. Lambertsen v. Utah Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Utah 1995, 922 F.Supp. 533, affirmed C.A.10th, 1996, 79 F.3d 1024. Washington County v. U.S., D.C.Utah 1995, 903 F.Supp. 40.

Wyoming Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hunt, D.C.Wyo.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 1261.

Eleventh Circuit

Alabama Romero v. City of Clanton, D.C.Ala.2002, 220 F.Supp.2d 1313. Moore v. Alabama State Univ., D.C.Ala.1996, 945 F.Supp. 235. Ripp v. Dobbs Houses, Inc., D.C.Ala.1973, 366 F.Supp. 205.

Florida Dr. Fred Hatfield's Sportstrength Training Equip. Co. v. Balik, D.C.Fla.1997, 174 F.R.D. 496.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 876. Harding v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 907 F.Supp. 386. Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., D.C.Fla.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1363.

Georgia U.S. v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, D.C.Ga.1977, 439 F.Supp. 29. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Co., D.C.Ga.1972, 338 F.Supp. 1039, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1973, 476 F.2d 142. 21.1 Twombly case 2007, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 550 U.S. 544, 167 L.Ed.2d 929. 21.2 Quotation Id. at 1969, 550 U.S. at 563. 21.3 Quotation Id. at 1969, 550 U.S. at 563. 21.4 Twombly standard Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007), citing Wright & Miller. 21.5 Twombly factual plausibility standard

First Circuit ". . . Twombly and Iqbal make clear that a claim is not plausible when the 'complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability.'" Manning v. Boston Medical Center Corp., 725 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013) (Stahl, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Rodriguez-Ramos v. Hernandez-Gregorat, 685 F.3d 34, 42 (1st Cir. 2012). Feliciano-Hernandez v. Pereira-Castillo, 663 F.3d 527, 534 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2742, 183 L. Ed. 2d 615 (2012) (broad, conclusory civil rights allegation against high-ranking government officials fails to state claim). "If the factual allegations in the complaint are too meager, vague, or conclusory to remove the possibility of relief from the realm of mere conjecture, the complaint is open to dismissal." Santiago v. Puerto Rico, 655 F.3d 61, 73 (1st Cir. 2011), quoting S.E.C. v. Tambone, 597 F.3d 436, 442 (1st Cir. 2010). When there is no reading of the complaint in which the alleged conduct is just as in line with lawful conduct as with discrimination, the allegation has crossed the line from possible to probable. Roman-Oliveras v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority, 655 F.3d 43, 50 (1st Cir. 2011). "In resolving a motion to dismiss, a court should employ a two-pronged approach. It should begin by identifying and disregarding statements in the complaint that merely offer legal conclusion[s] couched as … fact or [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action. * * * Nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint must then be treated as true, even if seemingly incredible. If that factual content, so taken, allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, the claim has facial plausibility." Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12-13 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Hill v. Gozani, 638 F.3d 40, 55 (1st Cir. 2011). United Auto., Aerospace, Agr. Implement Workers of America Intern. Union v. Fortuño, 633 F.3d 37, 40 (1st Cir. 2011). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Sutliffe v. Epping School Dist., 584 F.3d 314, 325 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "But to survive a motion to dismiss (or a motion for judgment on the pleadings), the complaint must plead facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level, * * * such that the entitlement to relief is plausible." Citibank Global Markets, Inc. v. Rodriguez Santana, 573 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 2009), quoting Dixon v. Shamrock Financial Corp., 522 F.3d 76, 79 (1st Cir. 2008). "'To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must allege "a plausible entitlement to relief."'" Gargano v. Liberty Intern. Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45, 47 (1st Cir. 2009), quoting Fitzgerald v. Harris, 549 F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir. 2008).

Maine

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Pan Am Systems, Inc. v. Hardenbergh, 871 F. Supp. 2d 6, 11 (D. Me. 2012) ("Step one: isolate and ignore statements in the complaint that simply offer legal labels and conclusions or merely rehash cause-of-action elements. Step two: take the complaint's well-pled (i.e. non-conclusory, non-speculative) facts as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor, and see if they plausibly narrate a claim for relief."), quoting Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Committee, 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012). Maine Educ. Ass'n Benefits Trust v. Cioppa, 842 F. Supp. 2d 373, 376 (D. Me. 2012). Frontier Communications Corp. v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., 2010 WL 2651356, *1 (D. Me. 2010), aff'd, 2010 WL 3342201 (D. Me. 2010).

Massachusetts In re Marron, 499 B.R. 1, 4-5 (D. Mass. 2013) (appeal from order of Bankruptcy Court). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory v. Ropes & Gray LLP, 840 F. Supp. 2d 473, 477 (D. Mass. 2012) ("A suit will be dismissed if the complaint does not set forth 'factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory."), quoting U.S. ex rel. Hutcheson v. Blackstone Medical, Inc., 647 F.3d 377, 384 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 815, 181 L. Ed. 2d 525 (2011). Facey v. Dickhaut, 2012 WL 4361431, *2 (D. Mass. 2012) (collecting cases). U.S. ex rel. Carpenter v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 395, 400-401 (D. Mass. 2010).

New Hampshire Wilcox Industries Corp. v. Hansen, 870 F. Supp. 2d 296, 302 (D.N.H. 2012) ("In deciding a motion to dismiss, I must employ a two- pronged approach."), citing Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). Goldblatt v. Geiger, 867 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.N.H. 2012). King v. Friends of Kelly Ayotte, 860 F. Supp. 2d 118, 123 (D.N.H. 2012).

Puerto Rico Rishell v. Medical Card System, Inc., 2013 WL 6019212, *4 (D.P.R. 2013) ("A district court should not attempt to forecast the likelihood of success * * * ."). Rios-DaSilva v. One, Inc., 2013 WL 5912573, *2 (D.P.R. 2013). Reyes-Orta v. Highway and Transp. Authority, 843 F. Supp. 2d 216, 220-221 (D.P.R. 2012). Sanchez-Arroyo v. Department of Educ. of Puerto Rico, 842 F. Supp. 2d 416, 428-429 (D.P.R. 2012). Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl, 2010 WL 4861457, *5 (D.P.R. 2010), rev'd in part on other grounds, 663 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2011). Alvarez-Rivon v. Cengage Learning, Inc., 2010 WL 2834953, *2 (D.P.R. 2010).

Rhode Island Western Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio v. Caramadre, 847 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334 (D.R.I. 2012). Jefferson v. Gates, 2010 WL 2927529, *5 (D.R.I. 2010).

Second Circuit Dejesus v. HF Management Services, LLC, 726 F.3d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 918 (2014). "To be plausible, the complaint need not show a probability of plaintiff's success, but it must evidence more than a mere possibility of a right to relief." Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc., 723 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2013). Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Md. v. Citigroup, Inc., 709 F.3d 129, 140 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Although Twombly's holding rests on numerous justifications, at bottom its prime concern, like all cases interpreting Rule 12(b)(6), is isolating those cases that assert a plausible antitrust conspiracy (and thus warrant discovery to determine whether, in fact, such a conspiracy exists) from those that merely presume a conspiracy from parallel action. Plaintiffs' complaints are without question of the latter variety."). Galiano v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 684 F.3d 309, 314-315 (2d Cir. 2012) (plaintiff did not allege specific facts, only conclusory and speculative allegations of kickbacks). Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162, 182-185, 189 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 846, 184 L.Ed.2d 655 (2013) ("The choice between two plausible inferences that may be drawn from factual allegations is not a choice to be made by the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.") ("The question at the pleading stage is not whether there is a plausible alternative to the plaintiff's theory; the question is whether there are sufficient factual allegations to make the complaint's claim plausible."). Arditi v. Lighthouse Intern., 676 F.3d 294, 301 (2d Cir. 2012).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways, 662 F.3d 593, 596 (2d Cir. 2011) (" In reviewing a decision based on Rule 12(b)(6), our task 'is merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.'"), quoting Sims v. Artuz, 230 F.3d 14, 20 (2d Cir. 2000). "[A]llegations that Defendants substantially decreased Ideal's sales, profits, and local market share, and eliminated Ideal's dominant market position, by using racketeering proceeds to acquire, establish, and operate their Bronx business operation" should not have been characterized as labels and were sufficiently plausible to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Anza, 652 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1636, 182 L. Ed. 2d 246 (2012), quoting Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Anza, 2009 WL 1883272, *4 (S.D. N.Y. 2009). In an action against an asset management company alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with an initial public offering, the plaintiffs only were required to allege that the defendant "omitted material information that it was required to disclose or made material misstatements in its offering documents." Litwin v. Blackstone Group, L.P., 634 F.3d 706, 718 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 242, 181 L. Ed. 2d 138 (2011). Matson v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of New York, 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011). Giammatteo v. Newton, 452 Fed. Appx. 24, 29 (2d Cir. 2011) ("Notwithstanding conclusory labels and naked assertions that defendants violated her constitutional rights, Giammatteo does not allege facts that, taken as true, would permit the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendants deprived her of any federally-protected right."). Seidl v. American Century Companies, Inc., 427 Fed. Appx. 35 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 846, 181 L. Ed. 2d 549 (2011). Harper v. City of New York, 424 Fed. Appx. 36 (2d Cir. 2011) (pattern of issuing citations insufficient to allege city policy of doing so). Eberhart v. Crozier, 423 Fed. Appx. 57 (2d Cir. 2011). Castiglione v. Papa, 423 Fed. Appx. 10 (2d Cir. 2011). Mohammad v. New York State Higher Educ. Services Corp., 422 Fed. Appx. 61 (2d Cir. 2011). Gorham-DiMaggio v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 421 Fed. Appx. 97 (2d Cir. 2011). Lord v. International Marine Ins. Services, 420 Fed. Appx. 40 (2d Cir. 2011). "Where the plaintiff fails to define its proposed relevant market with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability and cross- elasticity of demand, or alleges a proposed relevant market that clearly does not encompass all interchangeable substitute products even when all factual inferences are granted in plaintiff's favor, the relevant market is legally insufficient and a motion to dismiss may be granted." Smugglers Notch Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Smugglers' Notch Management Company, Ltd., 414 Fed. Appx. 372, 374 (2d Cir. 2011), quoting Chapman v. New York State Div. for Youth, 546 F.3d 230, 238 (2d Cir. 2008). Astra Media Group, LLC v. Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC, 414 Fed. Appx. 334, 335-336 (2d Cir. 2011). Smith v. NYCHA, 410 Fed. Appx. 404, 405 (2d Cir. 2011). Regan v. New York State, Local Retirement System, 406 Fed. Appx. 568 (2d Cir. 2011). Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160-161 (2d Cir. 2010). Nixon v. Blumenthal, 409 Fed. Appx. 391, 392 (2d Cir. 2010). Colliton v. Donnelly, 399 Fed. Appx. 619 (2d Cir. 2010). Spagnola v. Chubb Corp., 574 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 2009), citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). South Cherry Street, LLC v. Hennessee Group LLC, 573 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2009), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Pension Committee of University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities LLC, 568 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2009) (complaint plausibly pleaded enough facts to show fraud), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Roman v. Donelli, 347 Fed. Appx. 662 (2d Cir. 2009). Without more specific allegations of knowing wrongdoing, "the amended complaint failed to meet the plausibility requirements of Twombly because it did not allege facts sufficient to complete the chain of causation needed to prove that defendants negligently made false statements." Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Communications, Inc., 347 Fed. Appx. 617, 620 (2d Cir. 2009).

Connecticut A. ex rel. A. v. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 2013 WL 5526624, *7 (D. Conn. 2013). Traylor v. Awwa, 2012 WL 4753417, *1 (D. Conn. 2012) ("However, the plaintiff must plead only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The function of a motion to dismiss is 'merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), citing Mytych v. May Dept. Stores Co., 34 F. Supp. 2d 130, 131 (D. Conn. 1999). Spears v. Libery Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 2012 WL 3202930, *5 (D. Conn. 2012). Monson v. Whitby School, Inc., 2010 WL 3023873, *1-2 (D. Conn. 2010).

New York Meng-Lin Liu v. Siemens A.G., 2013 WL 5692504, *2 (S.D. N.Y. 2013). Levine v. Landy, 860 F. Supp. 2d 184 (N.D. N.Y. 2012). Triano v. Town of Harrison, NY, 2012 WL 4474163, *2 (S.D. N.Y. 2012). Bowman v. Waterside Plaza, L.L.C., 2010 WL 2873051, *3 (S.D. N.Y. 2010) ("[A] complaint is now subject to dismissal unless its well-pled factual allegations, if credited, make the claim 'plausible.'"). "Rather than turning on the conceivability of an actionable claim, the Court clarified, the 'fair notice' standard turns on the plausibility of an actionable claim." Green v. Greene, 2010 WL 455456, *3 (N.D. N.Y. 2010). "The Court, therefore, does not require 'heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Cruz v. Reilly, 2009 WL 2567990, *1 (E.D. N.Y. 2009). The complaint must raise the right to relief above the speculative level. Automated Teller Machine Advantage LC v. Moore, 2009 WL 2431513 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).

Vermont Davis v. Vermont, Dept. of Corrections, 868 F. Supp. 2d 313, 321-322 (D. Vt. 2012), quoting Gadreault v. Grearson, 2011 WL 4915746 (D. Vt. 2011). Gadreault v. Grearson, 2011 WL 4915746, *4 (D. Vt. 2011) ("First, a court must accept a plaintiff's factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations in the plaintiff's favor. This assumption of truth, however, does not apply to legal conclusions, and [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Second, a court must determine whether the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations … plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Third Circuit S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion School Dist., 729 F.3d 248, 256 (3d Cir. 2013). Lampon-Paz v. Department of Homeland Sec., 532 Fed. Appx. 125 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (3d Cir. 2013) (for citation rules see Third Circuit LAR, App. I, IOP 5.7). James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675, 679 (3d Cir. 2012) ("Because this case comes to us upon a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, we accept the factual allegations contained in the Complaint as true, but we disregard rote recitals of the elements of a cause of action, legal conclusions, and mere conclusory statements."). Siwulec v. J.M. Adjustment Services, LLC, 465 Fed. Appx. 200, 202 (3d Cir. 2012). The court "must examine the context of a claim, including the underlying substantive law, in order to assess its plausibility." Renfro v. Unisys Corp., 671 F.3d 314, 321 (3d Cir. 2011). Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011). Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge, 54 V.I. 948, 632 F.3d 822, 826 (3d Cir. 2011). Wingate Inns Intern., Inc. v. Hightech Inn.com, LLC, 429 Fed. Appx. 152 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Beyer v. Borough, 428 Fed. Appx. 149 (3d Cir. 2011) (temporal proximity of protected conduct and termination of employment make it plausible that protected conduct was substantial factor in termination) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Wiggins v. String, 428 Fed. Appx. 117 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Delprato v. Day Chevrolet Inc., 427 Fed. Appx. 86 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). American Corporate Soc. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 424 Fed. Appx. 86 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Perano v. Township Of Tilden, 423 Fed. Appx. 234 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Riggs v. AHP Settlement Trust, 421 Fed. Appx. 136 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Jerry-El v. Beard, 419 Fed. Appx. 260 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Johnson v. Laundry Workers LCL 141 & Agents, 419 Fed. Appx. 146 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Brown v. DiGuglielmo, 418 Fed. Appx. 99 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

"[T]he court must first determine whether a claim is supported by well-pleaded factual allegations and, if so, the court must determine whether those well-pleaded factual allegations, which are entitled to an assumption of truth, plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Wilson v. City of Philadelphia, 415 Fed. Appx. 434, 436 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Boggi v. Medical Review and Accrediting Council, 415 Fed. Appx. 411, 414 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Abulkhair v. Bush, 413 Fed. Appx. 502, 507 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2884, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1197 (2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Young v. Dubow, 411 Fed. Appx. 456, 458 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit rule 28.3(a)). Winslow v. Prison Health Services, 406 Fed. Appx. 671, 674 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Robinson v. County of Allegheny, 404 Fed. Appx. 670, 672 (3d Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Golod v. Bank of America Corp., 403 Fed. Appx. 699, 702 (3d Cir. 2010) (for plaintiff to meet burden, she must offer factual allegations in support of her legal conclusions) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Sauers v. Lower Southampton Twp., 403 Fed. Appx. 661, 663 (3d Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Brookhart v. Rohr, 385 Fed. Appx. 67, 69 (3d Cir. 2010). Saltzman v. Independence Blue Cross, 384 Fed. Appx. 107, 111 (3d Cir. 2010). Cerome v. Moshannon Valley Correctional Center/Cornell Companies, Inc., 2010 WL 4948940 (3d Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Guirguis v. Movers Specialty Services, Inc., 346 Fed. Appx. 774 (3d Cir. 2009). Gattis v. Phelps, 344 Fed. Appx. 801 (3d Cir. 2009). "The plausibility standard 'asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.'" Miles v. Township of Barnegat, 343 Fed. Appx. 841, 844 (3d Cir. 2009), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Beightler v. Office of Essex County Prosecutor, 342 Fed. Appx. 829 (3d Cir. 2009). Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD, 342 Fed. Appx. 818 (3d Cir. 2009). "Stated differently, the '[f]actual allegations [of the complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" Munsif v. Cassel, 331 Fed. Appx. 954, 957 (3d Cir. 2009).

Delaware Myslewski v. City of Rehoboth Beach, 2013 WL 5656210 (D. Del. 2013). MONEC Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 2012 WL 4340653, *2 (D. Del. 2012), citing Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). Zazzali v. Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., 482 B.R. 495 (D. Del. 2012) ("At bottom, '[t]he complaint must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [each] necessary element" of a plaintiff's claim.'"), quoting Wilkerson v. New Media Technology Charter School Inc., 522 F.3d 315, 321 (3d Cir. 2008). Grynberg v. Total Compagnie Francaise Des Petroles, 2012 WL 4095186, *5 (D. Del. 2012).

New Jersey Khalil v. Napolitano, 2013 WL 5770499, *3 (D.N.J. 2013). Jeffrey Rapaport M.D., P.A. v. Robin S. Weingast & Associates, Inc., 859 F. Supp. 2d 706, 714 (D.N.J. 2012). Chellis v. New Century Transp., Inc., 843 F. Supp. 2d 551, 552 (D.N.J. 2012) ("The complaint must state sufficient facts to show that the legal allegations are not simply possible, but plausible."), citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). Piszczatoski v. Filko, 840 F. Supp. 2d 813, 818 (D.N.J. 2012) ("To withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must permit the 'reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged.'"), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).

Pennsylvania Adams v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc., 2013 WL 5676356, *2 (E.D. Pa. 2013). McAndrew v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 2013 WL 5551453, *3 (M.D. Pa. 2013). Trunzo v. Citi Mortg., 876 F. Supp. 2d 521, 531 (W.D. Pa. 2012) ("[O]ur inquiry is normally broken into three parts: (1) identifying the elements of the claim, (2) reviewing the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then (3) looking at the well-pleaded

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

components of the complaint and evaluating whether all of the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged."), quoting Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). Thrower v. Pennsylvania, 873 F. Supp. 2d 651, 653-654 (W.D. Pa. 2012), citing Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-211 (3d Cir. 2009). Brace v. County of Luzerne, 873 F. Supp. 2d 616, 620 (M.D. Pa. 2012), citing Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). K.S.S. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Com'rs, 871 F. Supp. 2d 389, 395 (E.D. Pa. 2012) ("Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in Twombly or Iqbal has altered some of the fundamental underpinnings of the Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review."). North v. Widener University, 869 F. Supp. 2d 630, 634 (E.D. Pa. 2012) ("In light of the decision in Iqbal, the Third Circuit set forth a two-part analysis to be applied by district courts when presented with a 12(b)(6) motion. First, the court must separate the legal elements and factual allegations of the claim, with the well-pleaded facts accepted as true but the legal conclusions disregarded. Second, the court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint demonstrate that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. If the court can only infer the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint must be dismissed because it has alleged, but has failed to show, that the pleader is entitled to relief.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). McLaren v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 499, 502 (E.D. Pa. 2012), citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008). Williams v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3779222, *2 (M.D. Pa. 2012) ("The Third Circuit interprets Twombly to require the plaintiff to describe 'enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of' each necessary element of the claims alleged in the complaint."), quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008). E.B. v. Woodland Hills School Dist., 2010 WL 2817201, *2-3 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Although the complaint must give the defendant only fair notice of what the claim is, it must contain sufficient facts to make the right to relief plausible on the face of the complaint. Sherk v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2009 WL 2412750 (E.D. Pa. 2009).

Virgin Islands Galloway v. Islands Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 2010 WL 2813645, *1 (D.V.I. 2010).

Fourth Circuit Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2013). Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) ("As this Court has noted, those decisions [Twombly and Iqbal] require that complaints in civil actions be alleged with greater specificity than previously was required."), citing Robertson v. Sea Pines Real Estate Companies, Inc., 679 F.3d 278, 288 (4th Cir. 2012). Robertson v. Sea Pines Real Estate Companies, Inc., 679 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2012) (allegation that multiple listing service's bylaws were anticompetitive is more than conclusory allegation of parallel conduct, because existence of bylaws proves collusion and agreement). Terry v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 2012 WL 2511066, *1 (4th Cir. 2012) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 32.1). Kendall v. Balcerzak, 650 F.3d 515, 522 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 402, 181 L. Ed. 2d 257 (2011). E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 445 (4th Cir. 2011) (district court erred in holding that supplier headquarter sites must be included in relevant geographic market definition for Sherman Antitrust cases). Simmons v. United Mortg. and Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 768 (4th Cir. 2011). Harris v. U.S., 417 Fed. Appx. 285, 287 (4th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)). Curley v. Adams Creek Associates, 409 Fed. Appx. 678, 679 (4th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)). "On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Monroe v. City of Charlotesville, Va., 579 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009). McLean v. U.S., 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009) (complaint must be plausible not just possible). In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, 566 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2009), rev'd on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 2296, 180 L. Ed. 2d 166 (2011). "The complaint must contain 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Pollard v. Pollard, 325 Fed. Appx. 270 (4th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)).

Maryland

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bhari Information Technology System Private Ltd. v. Sriram, 2013 WL 5811468, *2 (D. Md. 2013), opinion vacated and superseded, 2013 WL 6231389 (D. Md. 2013). U.S. v. Kernan Hosp., 880 F. Supp. 2d 676, 682 (D. Md. 2012). In re Municipal Mortg. & Equity, LLC, Securities and Derivative Litigation, 876 F. Supp. 2d 616, 625 (D. Md. 2012) ("Thus, if the well-pleaded facts contained within a complaint 'do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief.'"), quoting Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009). Grant v. Shapiro & Burson, LLP, 871 F. Supp. 2d 462, 467 (D. Md. 2012). Adams v. Montgomery College, 2010 WL 2813346, *2 (D. Md. 2010). "'[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged, but it has not show[n] … that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Abbott v. Gordon, 2009 WL 2426052, *3 (D. Md. 2009).

North Carolina Stack v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 5726249, *3 (M.D. N.C. 2013). Leonard v. Wake Forest University, 877 F. Supp. 2d 369, 371 (M.D. N.C. 2012) ("A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff provides enough factual content to enable the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."). E.E.O.C. v. PBM Graphics Inc., 877 F. Supp. 2d 334, 342-343 (M.D. N.C. 2012) (collecting cases). Fulford v. Alligator River Farms, LLC, 858 F. Supp. 2d 550, 554 (E.D. N.C. 2012) ("In other words, this plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to articulate facts that, when accepted as true, demonstrate that the plaintiff has stated a claim that makes it plausible he is entitled to relief."), citing Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009). Haberland v. Bulkeley, 2012 WL 4788442, *7 (E.D. N.C. 2012) ("In analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a court must determine whether the complaint is legally and factually sufficient."). Synovus Bank v. Karp, 2012 WL 3527929, *3-4 (W.D. N.C. 2012). Houey v. Carolina First Bank, 2012 WL 3278795, *4 (W.D. N.C. 2012). King v. United Way of Central Carolinas, Inc., 2009 WL 2432706 (W.D. N.C. 2009).

South Carolina Thurmond v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc., 2013 WL 5408842, *2 (D.S.C. 2013). Woods v. Boeing Co., 841 F. Supp. 2d 925, 927 (D.S.C. 2012). Anderson v. Ziehm Imaging, Inc., 2010 WL 2595297, *1 (D.S.C. 2010).

Virginia Davis v. Rao, 2013 WL 5999643, *3 (E.D. Va. 2013). McPhearson v. Anderson, 873 F. Supp. 2d 753, 756 (E.D. Va. 2012). CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne, 852 F. Supp. 2d 705, 716 (W.D. Va. 2012). Ainsworth v. Loudon County School Bd., 851 F. Supp. 2d 963, 971 (E.D. Va. 2012). Directory Assistants, Inc. v. Supermedia, LLC, 2012 WL 3329615, *2 (E.D. Va. 2012) ("Under these cases [Twombly and Iqbal], there are two essential requirements for a pleading: that its allegations be sufficient and that its allegations be plausible."). Yarney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 3075460, *2-3 (W.D. Va. 2010). Leggat v. Equifax Information Services, Inc., 2009 WL 2432371 (E.D. Va. 2009).

West Virginia Clay v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co., LLC, 955 F. Supp. 2d 588, 593-594 (N.D. W. Va. 2013). Tucker v. Thomas, 853 F. Supp. 2d 576, 583 (N.D. W. Va. 2012), citing Wright & Miller. Cozmyk v. Prompt Recovery Services, Inc., 851 F. Supp. 2d 991, 992-993 (S.D. W. Va. 2012). In re Massey Energy Co. Securities Litigation, 2012 WL 3156765, *6 (S.D. W. Va. 2012).

Fifth Circuit Lone Star Nat. Bank, N.A. v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., 729 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2013). Patrick v. Wal-Mart, Inc.—Store No. 155, 681 F.3d 614, 622 (5th Cir. 2012) ("To plead facial plausibility, a plaintiff must set forth factual content that permits the courts to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable."). Jones v. Liberty Bank & Trust Co., 461 Fed. Appx. 407, 409 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington County School Dist. ex rel. Bd. of Educ., 649 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2011), reh'g en banc ordered, 659 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2011), and on reh'g en banc, 675 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2012). Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011). Mandamus only may issue when there is a clear right to relief. The plaintiff failed to satisfy this standard when he pleaded facts that suggested that the defendant's may have failed in their duty to him rather than pleading an actual breach. Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2011). Del-Ray Battery Co. v. Douglas Battery Co., 635 F.3d 725, 729 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 559, 181 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2011). Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, Inc., 634 F.3d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 2011). Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 782 (5th Cir. 2011) (res ipsa loquitur is insufficient to plead manufacturing defect). Martco Ltd. Partnership v. Bruks Inc., 430 Fed. Appx. 332 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). A prisoner claiming denial of equal protection with respect to his parole failed to state a claim because he did not plead sufficient factual material so that a court could determine whether he was situated similarly to other prisoners. Although the plaintiff compared his behavior in prison to that of the other prisoners, he did not provide comparative information about the length of their sentences, the nature of their crimes, or other information considered by the parole board. Smith v. Kimbhal, 421 Fed. Appx. 377 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Higgenbotham v. Connatser, 420 Fed. Appx. 466 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Amanduron v. American Airlines, 416 Fed. Appx. 421, 423 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). C.H., II ex rel. L.H. v. Rankin County School Dist., 415 Fed. Appx. 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). The plaintiff did not state a sufficient claim for retaliation when he did not tie his act of writing a complaint letter to the disciplinary proceedings that he alleged were retaliatory. Hunter v. Sterling, 410 Fed. Appx. 830, 830-831 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). LaCroix v. Marshall County, Mississippi, 409 Fed. Appx. 794, 802 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Wainscott v. Dallas County, Tex., 408 Fed. Appx. 813, 815 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). When statements in a complaint that purport to show deception or estoppel are inadequate on their face, dismissal is proper if no facts are alleged that plausibly suggest their adequacy. City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148, 155-156 (5th Cir. 2010). Hershey v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 610 F.3d 239, 245-246 (5th Cir. 2010). Public Health Equipment & Supply Co., Inc. v. Clarke Mosquito Control Products, Inc., 410 Fed. Appx. 738, 740 (5th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Broyles v. Texas, 381 Fed. Appx. 370 (5th Cir. 2010) (rejecting argument that abrogation of "no set of facts" standard was dicta in Twombly). "'[T]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."'" Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009). Little v. KPMG LLP, 575 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2009). True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). "To resist dismissal, plaintiffs must plead 'enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Lexington Ins. Co. v. S.H.R.M. Catering Services, Inc., 567 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2009). "To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund, Inc. v. TXU Corp., 565 F.3d 200, 206 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Recently, the Supreme Court held that '[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Achee Holdings, LLC v. Silver Hill Financial, LLC, 342 Fed. Appx. 943, 944 (5th Cir. 2009). The "'plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."'" Dunn v. Prince, 327 Fed. Appx. 452, 453 (5th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4), quoting In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Quinn v. Roach, 326 Fed. Appx. 280 (5th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

"'To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."'" Puente v. Ridge, 324 Fed. Appx. 423, 427 (5th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4).

Louisiana Hall v. Louisiana, 2013 WL 5434632, *2 (M.D. La. 2013). Cargill, Inc. v. Degesch America, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 2d 667, 673 (E.D. La. 2012) ("In other words, the face of the complaint must contain enough factual matter to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiffs' claim."), citing Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232-233 (5th Cir. 2009). Culotta v. Sodexo Remote Sites Partnership, 864 F. Supp. 2d 466, 470 (E.D. La. 2012), citing Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009). Wuellner Oil & Gas, Inc v. EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., 861 F. Supp. 2d 775, 779 (W.D. La. 2012) ("While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must at least allege plausible grounds from which one could infer that the elements of the claim can be made out."). Cashman Equipment Corp. v. Rozel Operating Co., 854 F. Supp. 2d 406, 409-410 (M.D. La. 2012). Caillet v. Regions Financial Corp., 282 F.R.D. 406, 410 (W.D. La. 2012). PHI, Inc. v. Office & Professional Employees Intern. Union, 2010 WL 2740066, *4 (W.D. La. 2010), order amended on other grounds, 2010 WL 2835540 (W.D. La. 2010), aff'd, 440 Fed. Appx. 394 (5th Cir. 2011). Davis v. Evangelist, 2009 WL 2447897 (E.D. La. 2009).

Mississippi Faulkner Literary Rights, LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics Inc., 953 F. Supp. 2d 701, 706 (N.D. Miss. 2013). B & C Const. and Equipment, LLC v. Ovella, 880 F. Supp. 2d 735 (S.D. Miss. 2012). Williams v. Vanderbilt Mortg. & Finance, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 2d 677 (S.D. Miss. 2012). Taylor v. Chase Auto Financial Corp., 850 F. Supp. 2d 637, 640 (N.D. Miss. 2012) ("The court must not evaluate the likelihood of the claim's success, but instead ascertain whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible."), citing Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010). Corr Wireless Communications, L.L.C. v. AT & T, Inc., 2012 WL 3782601, *5 (N.D. Miss. 2012). Galada v. Gatson-Riley, 2010 WL 3120069, *4 (S.D. Miss. 2010), aff'd, 421 Fed. Appx. 460 (5th Cir. 2011).

Texas Tow v. Amegy Bank N.A., 498 B.R. 757, 765 (S.D. Tex. 2013). Woldetadik v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 2d 738, 740 (N.D. Tex. 2012) ("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."). Fisher v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, 879 F. Supp. 2d 581, 586 (N.D. Tex. 2012). Wesolek v. Layton, 871 F. Supp. 2d 620, 635 (S.D. Tex. 2012). U.S. ex rel. Colquitt v. Abbott Laboratories, 864 F. Supp. 2d 499, 530 (N.D. Tex. 2012) ("To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Where the facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has stopped short of showing that the pleader is plausibly entitled to relief.") (citations omitted). NuVasive, Inc. v. Renaissance Surgical Center North, L.P., 853 F. Supp. 2d 654, 658 (S.D. Tex. 2012). Joe W. and Dorothy Dorsett Brown Foundation v. Frazier Healthcare V, L.P., 2012 WL 3834029, *2 (W.D. Tex. 2012) ("Although a plaintiff's factual allegations need not establish the defendant is probably liable, they must establish more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.") (internal quotation marks omitted). City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 653 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd, 632 F.3d 148 (5th Cir. 2010). Verrando v. ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc., 2009 WL 2958370 (N.D. Tex. 2009), quoting In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).

Sixth Circuit "To overcome a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs' complaint must include sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, but plaintiffs need not show that recovery is probable." Haviland v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 730 F.3d 563, 574 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

16630 Southfield Ltd. Partnership v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 2013). Williams v. Duke Energy Intern., Inc., 681 F.3d 788, 799 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 933, 184 L.Ed.2d 724 (2013). Bridge v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355, 363 (6th Cir. 2012) (allegation that defendant impermissibly communicated with third parties regarding plaintiff's outstanding debt and ignored repeated requests to cease communications sufficient to state plausible claim for relief under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act). Wee Care Child Center, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 680 F.3d 841, 848 (6th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff pled no facts, "beyond mere conclusory statements," to prove antitrust injury). Heinrich v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc., 668 F.3d 393, 403 (6th Cir. 2012). Griffin v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., Pens. Plan Guide P 24012A, 2012 WL 2989231, *4 (6th Cir. 2012). "[P]laintiff must allege specific facts of price discrimination even if those facts are only within the head or hands of the defendants. The plaintiff may not use the discovery process to obtain these facts after filing suit." New Albany Tractor, Inc. v. Louisville Tractor, Inc., 650 F.3d 1046, 1051 (6th Cir. 2011). "In the few fraudulent-misrepresentation cases surviving motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs sufficiently explained why or how the defendants knew about the ARS market's impending illiquidity" or alleged market manipulation. In this case however, the plaintiff's vague allegations that the defendant knew of the market risks and failed to disclose them did not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Ashland, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 648 F.3d 461, 470-471 (6th Cir. 2011). Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673, 680 (6th Cir. 2011) (facts merely consistent with defendant's liability are not sufficient to meet plausibility standard). Ziss Bros. Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Independence, Ohio, 439 Fed. Appx. 467, 470 (6th Cir. 2011) (complaint that merely raises suspicion of legally cognizable right of action is not sufficient to survive motion to dismiss) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Shaffer v. Rawlings Co., 424 Fed. Appx. 422 (6th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). In a claim alleging a denial of the right of access to the courts, the complaint must allege deprivation of an arguable underlying claim with as much specificity as would be required if that claim was brought independently. Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed. Appx. 608, 612 (6th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Fabian v. Fulmer Helmets, Inc., 628 F.3d 278, 280 (6th Cir. 2010) (plausibility is more than possible but less than probable). Harris v. J.B. Robinson Jewelers, 627 F.3d 235, 243 (6th Cir. 2010). In re NM Holdings Co., LLC, 622 F.3d 613, 618 (6th Cir. 2010). Segal v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 581 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 2009). Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009). Hunter v. Secretary of U.S. Army, 565 F.3d 986, 992 (6th Cir. 2009) (" '[E]ven though a complaint need not contain "detailed" factual allegations, its "factual allegations 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."'"), quoting Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).

Kentucky Morgan v. HSBC Mortg. Services, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 2d 833, 836 (E.D. Ky. 2013). Griffin v. Jones, 2013 WL 5441650, *4 (W.D. Ky. 2013). GATX Corp. v. Addington, 879 F. Supp. 2d 633, 641 (E.D. Ky. 2012) ("This requires the complaint to show 'more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.'"), quoting Ashland, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 648 F.3d 461, 467-468 (6th Cir. 2011). Fuqua v. U.S., 869 F. Supp. 2d 814, 819 (W.D. Ky. 2012). Johnson v. Diamond Shine, Inc., 2012 WL 3598275, *10 (W.D. Ky. 2012). Morris Aviation, LLC v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 683, 695 (W.D. Ky. 2010) (court advised "to toss out a case unless the allegations meet some minimum standard of plausibility").

Michigan Berry v. Main Street Bank, 2013 WL 5651440, *2 (E.D. Mich. 2013). Moher v. U.S., 875 F. Supp. 2d 739, 750 (W.D. Mich. 2012) ("To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, rather than just speculative or conceivable.").

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Future Now Enterprises, Inc. v. Foster, 860 F. Supp. 2d 420 (E.D. Mich. 2012), citing Fabian v. Fulmer Helmets, Inc., 628 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2010). Talton v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 839 F. Supp. 2d 896, 904 (E.D. Mich. 2012) ("Under the new regime ushered in by Twombly and Iqbal, pleaded facts must be accepted by the reviewing court but conclusions may not be unless they are plausibly supported by the pleaded facts."). Washington v. Roosen, Varchetti & Oliver, PPLC, 2012 WL 4479159, *2 (W.D. Mich. 2012). Beaudin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 2806262, *1 (E.D. Mich. 2010).

Ohio Taylor v. City of Mason, 2013 WL 4832787, *2 (S.D. Ohio 2013). Polinsky v. Community Health Partners Regional Health Systems, 858 F. Supp. 2d 891, 893-894 (N.D. Ohio 2012). Miami Valley Mobile Health Services, Inc. v. ExamOne Worldwide, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 925, 930 (S.D. Ohio 2012). BAC Home Loans Servicing LP v. Fall Oaks Farm LLC, 848 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821-822 (S.D. Ohio 2012). Reeves v. PharmaJet, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 2d 791, 795 (N.D. Ohio 2012) ("Accordingly, the claims set forth in a complaint must be plausible, rather than conceivable."). Friedman v. Intervet Inc., 2010 WL 2817257, *1 (N.D. Ohio 2010). "A complaint must contain facts sufficient to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" McVicker v. Hartfield, Medicare & Medicaid P 302950, 2009 WL 2431257, *3 (S.D. Ohio 2009). "The plausibility requirement is not a 'probability requirement,' but requires 'more than a sheer possibility that the defendant has acted unlawfully.'" McCarthy v. City of Cleveland, 2009 WL 2424296, *2 (N.D. Ohio 2009), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds and remanded, 626 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2010).

Tennessee Montesi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 4522905, *2 (W.D. Tenn. 2013). Ward v. Knox County Bd. of Educ., 869 F. Supp. 2d 860, 868 (E.D. Tenn. 2012). Veasy v. Teach for America, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 688, 694-695 (M.D. Tenn. 2012). Tigrett v. Cooper, 855 F. Supp. 2d 733, 741 (W.D. Tenn. 2012). Nelson v. Shelton, 2010 WL 2803956, *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). "Under the new Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly standard, a complaint must allege 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' to withstand a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Arnold v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 2009 WL 2430822, *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2009).

Seventh Circuit D.B. ex rel. Kurtis B. v. Kopp, 725 F.3d 681, 684 (7th Cir. 2013). "These allegations may or may not be true, but they are plausible-and no more is required of a pleading. * * * [N]ot even that much is required of a pleading on the subject of the statute of limitations * * * [because c]omplaints need not anticipate defenses and attempt to defeat them." Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7th Cir. 2012) (Easterbrook, C.J.). Zemeckis v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., 679 F.3d 632, 635 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 584, 184 L. Ed. 2d 376 (2012). Independent Trust Corp. v. Stewart Information Services Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934-935 (7th Cir. 2012). Virnich v. Vorwald, 664 F.3d 206, 212 (7th Cir. 2011) (plausibility, not probability, required). Cole v. Milwaukee Area Technical College Dist., 634 F.3d 901, 903 (7th Cir. 2011). Estate of Davis v. Wells Fargo Bank, 633 F.3d 529, 533 (7th Cir. 2011). Heyde v. Pittenger, 633 F.3d 512, 516-17 (7th Cir. 2011). "[T]he complaint taken as a whole must establish a nonnegligible probability that the claim is valid, though it need not be so great a probability as such terms as 'preponderance of the evidence' connote." Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1569, 182 L. Ed. 2d 191 (2012). Ray v. City of Chicago, 629 F.3d 660, 662-663 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 100, 181 L. Ed. 2d 28 (2011). LaBella Winnetka, Inc. v. Village of Winnetka, 628 F.3d 937, 943 (7th Cir. 2010) (conclusory allegations unsupported by facts are insufficient). Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461, 465-466 (7th Cir. 2010).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

"A claim has facial plausibility 'when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'" Bissessur v. Indiana University Bd. of Trustees, 581 F.3d 599, 603 (7th Cir. 2009). In Twombly, "[t]he Court was careful to note that this did not impose a probability requirement on plaintiffs: 'a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.' The Court did require, however, that the plaintiffs' claim be 'plausible.' In other words, 'it simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence' supporting the plaintiff's allegations." Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). "Dismissal is required if, taking the properly pleaded facts in that light, the complaint fails to describe a claim that is plausible on its face." Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505, 510 (7th Cir. 2009). Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009). Crichton v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 576 F.3d 392, 395 (7th Cir. 2009) (court "will affirm the dismissal if he did not plead 'sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face"'").

Illinois Rosenstern v. Allergan, Inc., 2013 WL 5782382, *2 (N.D. Ill. 2013). Sellers v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 2d 992, 1003 (S.D. Ill. 2012). Shepard v. Madigan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 774, 779 (S.D. Ill. 2012), rev'd on other grounds, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012). Beaman v. Souk, 863 F. Supp. 2d 752, 759 (C.D. Ill. 2012). Hagan v. Quinn, 838 F. Supp. 2d 805, 809 (C.D. Ill. 2012). In the Seventh Circuit, the plaintiff must present legal arguments that support the substantive adequacy or legal merit of the complaint or that complaint is subject to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Cohee v. Peoria County Sheriff's Dept., 2011 WL 1526722 (C.D. Ill. 2011). James v. Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, 2009 WL 2567910 (S.D. Ill. 2009), aff'd, 373 Fed. Appx. 619 (7th Cir. 2010). Levy Restaurant Ltd. Partnership v. Williamson, 2009 WL 2409968 (N.D. Ill. 2009).

Indiana Rock v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 928 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1014 (S.D. Ind. 2013). Gluck v. WNIN Tri-State Public Media, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Ind. 2012). Smith v. Housing Authority of South Bend, 867 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1009 (N.D. Ind. 2012) ("First, a plaintiff must provide notice to defendants of her claims. Second, courts must accept a plaintiff's factual allegations as true, but some factual allegations will be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice to defendants of the plaintiff's claim. Third, in considering the plaintiff's factual allegations, courts should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements."), quoting Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Bean v. Indiana University, 855 F. Supp. 2d 857, 860-861 (S.D. Ind. 2012). Kruse v. GS Pep Technology Fund 2000 LP, 2012 WL 4322738, *2 (N.D. Ind. 2012) ("In order to satisfy the plausibility standard, a plaintiff's complaint must 'supply enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will yield evidence supporting the plaintiff's allegations.'"), quoting Independent Trust Corp. v. Stewart Information Services Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). Sidell v. CRF First Choice, Inc., 2010 WL 2732913, *1 (S.D. Ind. 2010) ("Plaintiff, for her part, must do more than solely recite the elements of a claim; she must plead with sufficient particularity so that her right to relief appears as more than mere conjecture.").

Wisconsin Smith v. Encore Capital Group Inc., 2013 WL 4507855, *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013). SJ Properties Suites v. Specialty Finance Group, LLC, 864 F. Supp. 2d 776, 781 (E.D. Wis. 2012) ("As the court of appeals for this circuit has stated 'the plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together.'"), quoting Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010). Jones v. International Ass'n of Bridge Structural Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, 864 F. Supp. 2d 760, 765 (E.D. Wis. 2012) ("To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."). Tocholke v. Wisc., 2010 WL 2430999, *1-2 (E.D. Wis. 2010), aff'd, 413 Fed. Appx. 889 (7th Cir. 2011).

Eighth Circuit Freitas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 703 F.3d 436, 438 (8th Cir. 2013).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Cox v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 685 F.3d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 2012). E-Shops Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 678 F.3d 659, 663 (8th Cir. 2012). Christiansen v. West Branch Community School Dist., 674 F.3d 927, 934 (8th Cir. 2012) ("A gallimaufry of labels, conclusions, formulaic recitations, naked assertions and the like will not pass muster."). Young v. Jackson, 417 Fed. Appx. 592 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (for citation rules see Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(i)). Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., 628 F.3d 451, 459 (8th Cir. 2010). Junk v. Terminix Intern. Co., 628 F.3d 439, 445 (8th Cir. 2010). Detroit General Retirement System v. Medtronic, Inc., 621 F.3d 800, 804-805 (8th Cir. 2010). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient 'to raise a right to relief above the speculative level… .'" Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861, 865 (8th Cir. 2009). "After Twombly, we have said that a plaintiff 'must assert facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that the pleader has the right he claims …, rather than facts that are merely consistent with such a right.'" Gregory v. Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 473 (8th Cir. 2009), quoting Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 509 F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir. 2007). Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2009).

Arkansas J.D. Fields & Co., Inc. v. Nucor-Yamato Steel, 2013 WL 5467104, *4 (E.D. Ark. 2013). ABF Freight System, Inc. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, 2012 WL 3134342, *3 (W.D. Ark. 2012). Peace v. Bank of America, 2010 WL 996005, *1 (E.D. Ark. 2010).

Iowa Meighan v. TransGuard Ins. Co. of America, Inc., 2013 WL 5596915, *4 (N.D. Iowa 2013). Danaher v. Harrington, 838 F. Supp. 2d 867, 870 (S.D. Iowa 2012). Fesler v. Whelen Engineering Co., Inc., 716 F. Supp. 2d 831, 832-834 (S.D. Iowa 2010).

Minnesota Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co. v. ADT LLC, 2013 WL 5728211 (D. Minn. 2013). Labrant v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 2d 671, 675 (D. Minn. 2012) ("When analyzing a complaint on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts should read the complaint 'as a whole, not parsed piece by piece to determine whether each allegation, in isolation, is plausible.'"), quoting Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009). Khoday v. Symantec Corp., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1010 (D. Minn. 2012). Tatone v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 857 F. Supp. 2d 821, 831 (D. Minn. 2012) (shotgun pleading does not satisfy Twombly/Iqbal plausibility requirement). Grover-Tsimi v. Minnesota, 2010 WL 2732508, *4 (D. Minn. 2010), aff'd, 449 Fed. Appx. 529 (8th Cir. 2011). The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations. Still, it must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. If the court cannot infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct, the complain has not shown entitlement to relief. Sales Bd. v. Pfizer, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Minn. 2009).

Missouri Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection Dist., 2013 WL 5707875, *3 (E.D. Mo. 2013), on reconsideration in part, 2014 WL 466234 (E.D. Mo. 2014). Wong v. Bann-Cor Mortg., 878 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1004 (W.D. Mo. 2012), on reconsideration, 2013 WL 149709 (W.D. Mo. 2013). Nelson v. Special Administrative Bd. of St. Louis Public Schools, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1110 (E.D. Mo. 2012). PB & J Software, LLC v. Acronis, Inc., 2012 WL 4372523, *2 (E.D. Mo. 2012) ("Accordingly, in the event of a conflict between Twombly and the Forms, the Forms control."), citing In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation, 681 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Al Ousseynov Ba v. O'Connor, 2010 WL 2775401 (E.D. Mo. 2010). In re Nuvaring Products Liability Litigation, 2009 WL 2425391 (E.D. Mo. 2009).

Nebraska Colombo Candy & Tobacco Wholesale Co. v. Ameristar Casino Council Bluffs, Inc., 2013 WL 5308333, *2 (D. Neb. 2013). Nebraska ex rel. Bruning v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 877 F. Supp. 2d 777, 790 (D. Neb. 2012).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

U.S. ex rel. Cox v. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Inc., 2010 WL 2218614, *1-2 (D. Neb. 2010).

North Dakota Kuhn v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 2012 WL 4442798, *1 (D.N.D. 2012). Kangas v. Kieffer, 2012 WL 1424388, *3 (D.N.D. 2012), aff'd, 2012 WL 6684784 (8th Cir. 2012). Peak North Dakota, LLC v. Wilkinson, 2010 WL 2813508, *3 (D.N.D. 2010).

South Dakota Cathedral Square Partners Ltd. Partnership v. South Dakota Housing Development Authority, 2013 WL 4434182, *3 (D.S.D. 2013). Braunesreither v. Keating, 2012 WL 5384663, *1 (D.S.D. 2012). O'Neal v. Remington Arms Co., LLC, 2012 WL 3834842, *1 (D.S.D. 2012) ("To meet the Iqbal standard, a plaintiff must allege a claim that is facially plausible, not merely plausible."). Northern Valley Communications, LLC v. Qwest Communications Co., LLC, 2012 WL 523683, *2 (D.S.D. 2012).

Ninth Circuit Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013). Chavez v. U.S., 683 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2012) (supervisory liability). Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Sec., 669 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 2012). U.S. v. Union Auto Sales, Inc., 2012 WL 2870333, *1 (9th Cir. 2012). "First, to be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint or counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively. Second, the factual allegations that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation." Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101, 182 L. Ed. 2d 882 (2012). Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 850, 181 L. Ed. 2d 550 (2011). Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. U.S., 648 F.3d 708, 721 (9th Cir. 2011) (to survive Rule 12(b)(6) motion, plaintiff does not need to demonstrate its claim, but only must allege sufficient factual matter to state plausible claim). Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011). al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2009), rev'd and remanded, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (2011). "In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory "factual content," and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). "A 'complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."'" Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2009). Delta Mechanical, Inc. v. Garden City Group, Inc., 345 Fed. Appx. 232 (9th Cir. 2009).

Alaska Alaska v. Kerry, 2013 WL 5269760, *6 (D. Alaska 2013). Nicdao v. Chase Home Finance, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1061 (D. Alaska 2012).

Arizona Grand Canyon Skywalk Development, LLC v. Hualapai Indian Tribe of Arizona, 2013 WL 4478778, *3 (D. Ariz. 2013). Snyder v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., 873 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1147 (D. Ariz. 2012) ("Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8's pleading standard demands more than 'an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.'"), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Arizona Hosp. and Healthcare Ass'n v. Betlach, 862 F. Supp. 2d 978, 980 (D. Ariz. 2012) ("Dismissal is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or lacks sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory."), citing Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Xcentric Ventures, L.L.C. v. Borodkin, 2012 WL 5465000, *3 (D. Ariz. 2012).

California

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Huy Thanh Vo v. Nelson & Kennard, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1085 n.4 (E.D. Cal. 2013) ("Twombly imposed an apparently-new 'plausibility' gloss on the previously well-known Rule 8(a) standard, and retired the long-established 'no set of facts' standard of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957), although it did not overrule the case outright. See Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir. 2009) * * *. The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged the difficulty of applying the resulting standard, given the 'perplexing' mix of standards the Supreme Court has applied in recent cases."). California Council of the Blind v. County of Alameda, 2013 WL 5770560, *3 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transport, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1163 (E.D. Cal. 2012). TransFresh Corp. v. Ganzerla & Assoc., Inc., 862 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1015-16 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Sambreel Holdings LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 2012 WL 5995240, *3 (S.D. Cal. 2012). Kingsburg Apple Packers, Inc. v. Ballantine Produce Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2817056 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Young v. City of Visalia, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Hawaii Aana v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intern., Inc., 2013 WL 4047110, *15 (D. Haw. 2013). Fisher v. Kealoha, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D. Haw. 2012). Turner v. Hawaii First Inc., 2012 WL 4903314, *3 (D. Haw. 2012). Herschelman v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 2010 WL 4448224, *3 (D. Haw. 2010). Haskins v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2010 WL 2816698, *2 (D. Haw. 2010).

Idaho Sommer v. Elmore County, 2012 WL 4523449, *1 (D. Idaho 2012). Swendsen v. Corey, 2010 WL 2867806, *2 (D. Idaho 2010).

Montana Montana Caregivers Ass'n, LLC v. U.S., 841 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1149 (D. Mont. 2012). Steinmetz v. U.S. Postal Service, 2010 WL 2175872, *1 (D. Mont. 2010).

Nevada Frudden v. Pilling, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1271 (D. Nev. 2012) ("A formulaic recitation of a cause of action with conclusory allegations is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts showing that a violation is plausible, not just possible."). Waterfall Homeowners Ass'n v. Viega, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 571, 573 (D. Nev. 2012), on reconsideration, 2012 WL 5944634 (D. Nev. 2012) ("When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests.").

Oregon Nicol v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1069 (D. Or. 2012). Jane Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1125 (D. Or. 2010).

Washington Westcott v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, 862 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1115 (W.D. Wash. 2012). "Apart from factual sufficiency, a complaint is also subject to dismissal where it lacks a cognizable legal theory, or where the allegations on their face show that relief is barred for some legal reason." Phillips v. World Pub. Co., 822 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1117 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Old Republic Title, Ltd. v. Kelley, 2010 WL 4259599, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2010). Deming v. First Franklin, 2010 WL 2194830, *1-2 (W.D. Wash. 2010).

Tenth Circuit Slater v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 719 F.3d 1190, 1196 (10th Cir. 2013). Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, USA, 681 F.3d 1172, 1178 (10th Cir. 2012). Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2012) ("Accordingly, in examining a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), we will disregard conclusory statements and look only to whether the remaining, factual allegations plausibly suggest the defendant is

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

liable. * * * In other words, Rule 8(a)(2) still lives. There is no indication the Supreme Court intended a return to the more stringent pre-Rule 8 pleading requirements."). Boles v. Newth, 479 Fed. Appx. 836, 838-839 (10th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 581, 184 L. Ed. 2d 381 (2012). Silver v. Glass, 459 Fed. Appx. 691, 696 (10th Cir. 2012). Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 680 F.3d 1194, 1201-1202 (10th Cir. 2011). Leverington v. City of Colorado Springs, 643 F.3d 719 (10th Cir. 2011). Merryfield v. Jordan, 431 Fed. Appx. 743 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Grossman v. Fannie Mae, 431 Fed. Appx. 699 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Lewis v. McKinley County Bd. of County Com'rs, 425 Fed. Appx. 723 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Tyler v. Tsurumi (America), Inc., 425 Fed. Appx. 702 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Fournerat v. Wisconsin Law Review, 420 Fed. Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 290, 181 L. Ed. 2d 175 (2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Young v. United Parcel Services, Inc. Employees' Short Term Disability Plan, 416 Fed. Appx. 734, 737 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Marshall v. Milyard, 415 Fed. Appx. 850, 852 (10th Cir. 2011) (use of de minimus force by prison guard was insufficient to allege constitutional violation) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Kenney v. Swift Trans. Inc., 410 Fed. Appx. 143, 144-145 (10th Cir. 2011) (failure to allege any facts in complaint made it proper for district court to dismiss it) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Rocha v. CCCF Admin., 408 Fed. Appx. 141, 144 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3067, 180 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2011) (subjective impressions of feeling cold do not present sufficient factual matter to make out claim for cruel and unusual punishment) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Matthews v. LaBarge, Inc., 407 Fed. Appx. 277, 279-280 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). U.S. ex rel. Lemmon v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 614 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2010). Dias v. City and County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1178 (10th Cir. 2009). "In this circuit, this means that '[t]he allegations must be enough that, if assumed to be true, the plaintiff plausibly (not just speculatively) has a claim for relief.'" Edge v. Payne, 342 Fed. Appx. 395, 398 (10th Cir. 2009). "A complaint will survive dismissal if it alleges a plausible claim for relief. A claim is 'plausible' if the '[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 324 Fed. Appx. 717, 718 (10th Cir. 2009). Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) ("Thus, the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.").

Colorado Maxfield v. Bressler, 2013 WL 6076473, *2 (D. Colo. 2013). Kennedy v. Colorado RS, LLC, 872 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1148 (D. Colo. 2012). D.R. Horton, Inc.-Denver v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America, 860 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1251 (D. Colo. 2012). Campbell v. Milyard, 2010 WL 3023360, *3 (D. Colo. 2010), judgment aff'd, 2012 WL 3871654 (10th Cir. 2012).

Kansas Enneking v. Schmidt Builders Supply Inc., 875 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1277 (D. Kan. 2012). Nkemakolam v. St. John's Military School, 2012 WL 3583593, *1 (D. Kan. 2012), citing Phillips v. Bell, 365 Fed. Appx. 133, 137-138 (10th Cir. 2010). Cooper v. Old Dominion Freight Line, 2010 WL 2609385, *2 (D. Kan. 2010).

New Mexico Pena v. Greffet, 922 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1217 (D.N.M. 2013). E.E.O.C. v. Pitre, Inc., 2012 WL 6161945, *3 (D.N.M. 2012) ("Without weighing the evidence, the court must evaluate whether it is plausible, and not merely possible, that the plaintiff is entitled to relief under the relevant law."), citing Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Lymon v. Aramark Corp., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1214-1215 (D.N.M. 2010), aff'd, 2012 WL 4829190 (10th Cir. 2012).

Oklahoma Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1212 (W.D. Okla. 2013). Hitch Enterprises, Inc. v. Cimarex Energy Co., 859 F. Supp. 2d 1249, 1255-57 (W.D. Okla. 2012). Gooding v. Ketcher, 838 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1236 (N.D. Okla. 2012). Von Downum v. Synthes, 2012 WL 5463900, *5-6 (N.D. Okla. 2012). Michael v. Newton-Embry, 2011 WL 4007335 (W.D. Okla. 2011). "Under the Twombly standard, 'the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.'" Hnath v. Hereford, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1138 (N.D. Okla. 2010), quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008). Shelton-Heppel v. Parker Pest Control, Inc., 2010 WL 2737130, *1 (W.D. Okla. 2010).

Eleventh Circuit Sheppard v. Bank of America, NA, 2013 WL 5613767, *1 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (for citation rules see Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.1 and Eleventh Circuit Rules 36-2 and 36-3). Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) ("This negligent failure-to-warn claim is more than a mere recitation of the elements of the cause of action. The facts alleged in the complaint are plausible and raise a reasonable expectation that discovery could supply additional proof of [defendant] Carnival's liability."). GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244, 1254 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 856, 184 L.Ed.2d 656 (2013) ("This necessarily requires that a plaintiff include factual allegations for each essential element of his or her claim."). Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267, 1275 (11th Cir. 2012). Lawrence v. Bank of America, N.A., 455 Fed. Appx. 904, 906-907 (11th Cir. 2012) (allegation that bank ought to have recognized pattern of unusual transactions insufficient to plead plausibly bank's actual knowledge). "This standard says that to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must file a complaint containing fact allegations that are plausible on their face: a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Henderson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 436 Fed. Appx. 935, 937 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Johnson v. Wellborn, 418 Fed. Appx. 809 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Martinez v. Ashtin Leasing, Inc., 417 Fed. Appx. 883, 885 (11th Cir. 2011) ("[T]he mere act of reporting a suspected crime to the police is insufficient to establish state action for purposes of a false arrest claim.") (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Duru v. HSBC Card Services, Inc., 411 Fed. Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1338 (11th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff had obligation to indicate that he could provide enough evidence to suggest plausible definition of relevant product market). Jemison v. Mitchell, 380 Fed. Appx. 904 (11th Cir. 2010). Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) (abrogated by, Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 132 S. Ct. 1702, 182 L. Ed. 2d 720 (2012)). Peart v. Shippie, 345 Fed. Appx. 384 (11th Cir. 2009). Brown v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, 342 Fed. Appx. 552 (11th Cir. 2009).

Alabama Arthur v. Thomas, 2013 WL 5434694, *1 (M.D. Ala. 2013). Tuscumbia City School System v. Pharmacia Corp., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 1244 (N.D. Ala. 2012). E.E.O.C. v. Joe Ryan Enterprises, Inc., 281 F.R.D. 660, 662 (M.D. Ala. 2012). Molex Co., LLC v. Andress, 2012 WL 3505584, *11-12 (N.D. Ala. 2012). Continental Motors, Inc. v. Jewell Aircraft, Inc., 2012 WL 3113136, *2 (S.D. Ala. 2012).

Florida Degutis v. Financial Freedom, LLC, 2013 WL 5705438, *4 (M.D. Fla. 2013). Ceant v. Aventura Limousine & Transp. Service, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1376 (S.D. Fla. 2012). Parker v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2012). Rodriguez v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 859 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2012).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Hill v. Hoover Co., 2012 WL 4510855, *2 (N.D. Fla. 2012). Lippman v. City of Miami, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1240, 1257 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Osorio v. U.S., 2009 WL 2430889 (S.D. Fla. 2009).

Georgia Barker ex rel. U.S. v. Columbus Regional Healthcare System, Inc., Medicare & Medicaid P 304646, 2013 WL 5550430 (M.D. Ga. 2013). Mehta v. Foskey, 877 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1372-1373 (S.D. Ga. 2012). Lyttle v. U.S., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1268-1269 (M.D. Ga. 2012). Georgia State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Kemp, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1328 (N.D. Ga. 2012). Bank of the Ozarks v. Khan, 2012 WL 5451634, *4 (N.D. Ga. 2012). Adkinson v. Burnside, 2010 WL 2465017, *2 (M.D. Ga. 2010).

D.C. Circuit RSM Production Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP, 682 F.3d 1043, 1048 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 860, 184 L.Ed.2d 658 (2013) (conclusory allegations of knowledge insufficient to plead scienter with plausibility). Hettinga v. U.S., 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 860, 184 L.Ed.2d 658 (2013). Rudder v. Williams, 666 F.3d 790, 794 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In re Interbank Funding Corp. Securities Litigation, 629 F.3d 213, 218 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Vila v. Inter-American Investment, Corp., 570 F.3d 274 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (denying motion to dismiss). "A court may dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) if, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the plaintiff has nonetheless failed to state plausible grounds for relief." Winder v. Erste, 566 F.3d 209, 213 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Budik v. Howard University Hospital, 2013 WL 5423103, *2 (D.D.C. 2013). Toxco Inc. v. Chu, 724 F. Supp. 2d 16, 21-22 (D.D.C. 2010). Partovi v. Matuszewski, 647 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009), aff'd, 2010 WL 3521597 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The court required "sufficiently detailed factual allegations" that raised the right to relief above the speculative level. Bostic v. U.S. Capitol Police, 644 F. Supp. 2d 106, 109 (D.D.C. 2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).

Federal Circuit K-Tech Telecommunications, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1282-1283 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 1026 (2014). Kam-Almaz v. U.S., 682 F.3d 1364, 1367-1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation, 681 F.3d 1323, 1331-1332, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]o the extent the parties argue that Twombly and its progeny conflict with the Forms [in the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] and create differing pleadings requirements, the Forms control."). In a suit against the government alleging unfair performance evaluation, the plaintiff must plead facts that give rise to a plausible inference that the ratings were arbitrary and capricious. This could be done by alleging facts that excused the delays that were the basis for the negative reviews. Todd Const., L.P. v. U.S., 656 F.3d 1306, 1316-1317 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Pupols v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 413 Fed. Appx. 232, 234 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3009, 180 L. Ed. 2d 834 (2011) (for citation rules see Seventh Circuit Rule 53).

See also Shoucair v. Williams, 2010 WL 5015348, *3 (E.D. Mich. 2010) ("The Sixth Circuit noted that '[e]xactly how implausible is "implausible" remains to be seen, as such a malleable standard will have to be worked out in practice.'"), quoting Courie v. Alcoa Wheel & Forged Products, 577 F.3d 625, 629-630 (6th Cir. 2009).

Compare "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must set forth 'factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.'" New York v. Amgen Inc., 652 F.3d 103, 109 (1st Cir.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

2011), quoting U.S. ex rel. Hutcheson v. Blackstone Medical, Inc., 647 F.3d 377, 384 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 815, 181 L. Ed. 2d 525 (2011). After citing to the Twombly plausibility standard, the court went on to state that "[w]hile plaintiffs are not required to plead all the facts serving as a basis for the claim, the complaint must 'provide the opponent with fair notice of a claim and the grounds on which that claim is based.'" Oss Nokalva, Inc. v. European Space Agency, 2009 WL 2424702 (D.N.J. 2009), aff'd on other grounds, 617 F.3d 756 (3d Cir. 2010), quoting Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 175 (3d Cir. 2007).

But see Guzman v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 679 F.3d 425, 429 (6th Cir. 2012) ("We will affirm the district court['s dismissal] only if 'it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'"), quoting Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 452 (6th Cir. 2003). Putnam Family Partnership v. City of Yucaipa, Cal., 673 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2012) ("Dismissal is proper when * * * plaintiffs 'can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle [them] to relief.'"), quoting Aguayo v. U.S. Bank, 653 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 106, 184 L. Ed. 2d 23 (2012). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) ("Dismissal is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him to relief."). McCauley v. Georgia, 466 Fed. Appx. 832, 835 (11th Cir. 2012) ("A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should only be granted where 'the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief.'"), quoting Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1275 (11th Cir. 2005). Kunda v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 671 F.3d 464, 467 (4th Cir. 2011) (court applied Conley "no set of facts" standard in order to determine plausibility). Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010) ("As we understand it, the Court is saying instead that the plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together. In other words, the court will ask itself could these things have happened, not did they happen."). The court questioned whether the Iqbal and Twombly plausibility standard were applicable in all situations. Smith v. Duffey, 576 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2009) (Posner, J.) (granting motion under any reasonable reading of Rule 12(b)(6)). Hayden v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, 2012 WL 162328, *2 (D.N.D. 2012) ("A complaint shall not be dismissed for its failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim entitling him to relief.").

See generally Miller, From Conley to Twombly to Iqbal: A Double Play on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 60 Duke L.J. 1 (2010). 21.6 Universal application "Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1953, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 369 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1583, 182 L.Ed.2d 172 (2012). Henderson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 436 Fed. Appx. 935 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Kivisto v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, 413 Fed. Appx. 136, 138 (11th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 577, 181 L.Ed.2d 441 (2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). 21.7 Common sense and judicial experience "[D]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw on its experience and common sense." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co. Ltd., 708 F.3d 527, 543 (4th Cir. 2013). Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Committee, 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012). Fabian v. Fulmer Helmets, Inc., 628 F.3d 278, 281 (6th Cir. 2010) (common sense helps determine which inferences reasonably may be drawn). Harris v. J.B. Robinson Jewelers, 627 F.3d 235, 243 (6th Cir. 2010). Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2010). Ruston v. Town Bd. for Town of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55, 58-59 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 824, L.Ed.2d 556 (2010).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009). “ ‘Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will … be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.’”, South Cherry Street, LLC v. Hennessee Group LLC, 573 F.3d 98, 110 (2d Cir. 2009). "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Howard v. City of Girard, Ohio, 2009 WL 2998216, *2 (6th Cir. 2009). Diaz-Colon v. Toledo-Davila, 922 F. Supp. 2d 189, 197 (D.P.R. 2013), citing Grajales v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 682 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir. 2012). Berry v. Main Street Bank, 2013 WL 5651440, *3 (E.D. Mich. 2013). J.D. Fields & Co., Inc. v. Nucor-Yamato Steel, 2013 WL 5467104, *5 (E.D. Ark. 2013). Ironwood Homes, Inc. v. Bowen, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1289 (D. Or. 2010). Fesler v. Whelen Engineering Co., Inc., 716 F. Supp. 2d 831, 833 (S.D. Iowa 2010). Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl, 2010 WL 4861457, *6 (D.P.R. 2010). Burnley v. Norwood, 2010 WL 3063779 (E.D. Va. 2010) (plaintiff's pleading implausible according to common sense and judicial experience). Kingsburg Apple Packers, Inc. v. Ballantine Produce Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2817056, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Wood v. Wood, 2010 WL 2813760, *3 (S.D. W. Va. 2010). Adams v. Montgomery College, 2010 WL 2813346, *2 (D. Md. 2010). Beaudin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 2806262, *1 (E.D. Mich. 2010). Desperado Motor Racing & Motorcycles, Inc. v. Robinson, 2010 WL 2757523, *2 (S.D. Tex. 2010). PHI, Inc. v. Office & Professional Employees Intern. Union, 2010 WL 2740066, *4 (W.D. La. 2010), order amended, 2010 WL 2835540 (W.D. La. 2010) ("Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is, therefore, a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."). Frontier Communications Corp. v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., 2010 WL 2651356, *1 (D. Me. 2010), aff'd, 2010 WL 3342201 (D. Me. 2010). Wright v. Porters Restoration, Inc., 2010 WL 2559877, *1 (N.D. Ind. 2010) ("Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief requires the Court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."). In re: In re: Mirapex Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 2520567, *2 (D. Minn. 2010). Buzzell v. Wallins, 2010-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P 50467, 105 A.F.T.R.2d 2010-2912, 2010 WL 2399685, *2 (E.D. Va. 2010), aff'd, 106 A.F.T.R.2d 2010-6476, 2010 WL 3870671 (4th Cir. 2010), quoting Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2009). Shepard v. Applebee's Intern., Inc., 2010 WL 1418588, *1 (D. Kan. 2010). Freeston v. Bishop, White & Marshall, P.S., 2010 WL 1186276, *3 (W.D. Wash. 2010). Allstate Ins. Co. v. Valley Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, P.C., 2009 WL 3245388, *2 (E.D. N.Y. 2009). Dewey v. Lauer, 2009 WL 3234276, *1 (D. Colo. 2009). Carimate v. Ginsglobal Index Funds, 2009 WL 3233538, *4 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Raines v. Hollingsworth, 2009 WL 3233430, *10 (D.S.D. 2009). U.S. ex rel. Dugan v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 2009 WL 3232080, *13 (D. Md. 2009). Rothman v. City of Northfield, 2009 WL 3230837, *2 (D.N.J. 2009). Hackworth v. Rangel, 2009 WL 3211003, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Hackett v. Levenhagen, 2009 WL 3200688, *1 (N.D. Ind. 2009). Ford Motor Co. v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., 2009 WL 3190418, *13 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of America v. A.G. Cullen Constructions, Inc., 2009 WL 3166437, *2 (W.D. Pa. 2009). Leonard H. Chanda & Associates, L.P. v. Meridian Metropolitan Dist., 2009 WL 3158168, *5 (D. Colo. 2009). Harvey v. City of Fresno, 2009 WL 3157524, *10 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Pape v. Bd. of Educ. of the Wappingers Cent. School Dist., 2009 WL 3151200, *5 (S.D. N.Y. 2009). "In determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, the Court draws on its judicial experience and common sense." Greenlee v. Delmar Gardens of Overland Park, 2009 WL 3126160, *2 (D. Kan. 2009). Century Indem. Co. v. Marine Group, LLC, 2009 WL 3125477, *2 (D. Or. 2009). Allen v. Roth, 2009 WL 3076105, *3 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

See generally Miller, From Conley to Twombly to Iqbal: A Double Play on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 60 Duke L.J. 1 (2010). 21.8 Iqbal reiterated Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).

See also Lavalais v. Village of Melrose Park, 734 F.3d 629, 632-633 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2013). "To render their explanation plausible, plaintiffs must do more than allege facts that are merely consistent with both their explanation and defendants' competing explanation." In re Century Aluminum Co. Securities Litigation, 729 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir. 2013). Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir. 2013). "While '[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement,"' it demands 'more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.' * * * Unless the alleged facts push a claim 'across the line from conceivable to plausible,' the complaint must be dismissed." Massachusetts Retirement Systems v. CVS Caremark Corp., 716 F.3d 229, 237 (1st Cir. 2013), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 680, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-1951, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1973-1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Budik v. Howard University Hospital, 2013 WL 5423103, *2 (D.D.C. 2013) ("[R]aising a 'sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully' fails to satisfy the facial plausibility requirement."), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). 21.9 Sixth Circuit opinion 16630 Southfield Ltd. Partnership v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502, 505 (6th Cir. 2013). 21.10 Seventh Circuit opinion Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010).

See also "Finding the Twombly/Iqbal urge irresistible, many lawyers fail to appreciate the distinction between determining whether a claim for relief is 'plausibly stated,' the inquiry required by Twombly/Iqbal, and divining whether actual proof of that claim is 'improbable,' a feat impossible for a mere mortal, even a federal judge." Barker ex rel. U.S. v. Columbus Regional Healthcare System, Inc., Medicare & Medicaid P 304646, 2013 WL 5550430, *4 (M.D. Ga. 2013). 21.11 More plausible Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162, 185 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 846, 184 L. Ed. 2d 655 (2013). 22 Legal conclusions

First Circuit Haag v. U.S., 736 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2013). Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Committee, 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012) (ignore "legal labels and conclusions"). Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp., C.A.1st, 2006, 447 F.3d 324 (opinion withdrawn, rehearing granted). Eastern Food Servs., Inc. v. Pontifical Catholic Univ. Servs. Ass'n, Inc., C.A.1st, 2004, 357 F.3d 1 (“conclusory terms”). New England Cleaning Servs., Inc. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, C.A.1st, 1999, 199 F.3d 542 (plaintiff's allegations that it terminated agreement and had no collective bargaining agreement in effect at time of grievances are not assertions of fact, but involve legal conclusions). Abbott v. U.S., C.A.1st, 1998, 144 F.3d 1. RTC v. Driscoll, C.A.1st, 1993, 985 F.2d 44. Kadar Corp. v. Milbury, C.A.1st, 1977, 549 F.2d 230, 235, quoting Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Maine Levitt v. Sonardyne, Inc., 918 F. Supp. 2d 74, 83 (D. Me. 2013), citing San Geronimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Acevedo-Vila, 687 F.3d 465, 471 (1st Cir. 2012) (en banc).

Massachusetts In re Marron, 499 B.R. 1, 8 (D. Mass. 2013) ("In his complaint, the Trustee merely cites the relevant statute and states 'the 2005 Mortgage, the Confirmatory Mortgage and the Second Mortgage are each subject to the Trustee's powers under 11 U.S.C. § 544.' That is a legal conclusion rather than a fact, which is not enough to state a claim."). Abdallah v. Bain Capital LLC, 880 F. Supp. 2d 190 (D. Mass. 2012). George v. National Water Main Cleaning Co., 2011 WL 841226 (D. Mass. 2011). In re Fidelity/Apple Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mass.1997, 986 F.Supp. 42 (unsupported assertions and legal conclusions). Masso v. United Parcel Serv. of America, Inc., D.C.Mass.1995, 884 F.Supp. 610. Lindner Dividend Fund, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, D.C.Mass.1995, 880 F.Supp. 49.

Puerto Rico Rishell v. Medical Card System, Inc., 2013 WL 6019212, *4 (D.P.R. 2013) ("[T]he Court can disregard statements that ‘offer legal conclusions couched as fact,’ because the plaintiff must do more than "parrot the elements of the cause of action."), quoting OcasioOcasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 11-12 (1st Cir. 2011). MMB Development Group, Ltd. v. Westernbank Puerto Rico, 762 F. Supp. 2d 356, 364 (D.P.R. 2010). MARPOR Corp. v. DFO, LLC, 2010 WL 4922693 (D.P.R. 2010). Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl, 2010 WL 4861457, *6 (D.P.R. 2010). Guadarrama v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 127. Maldonado-Cordero v. AT & T, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 177. Martinez Colon v. Santander Nat. Bank, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 53. Rosich v. Circus & Circus Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 148. International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180.

Rhode Island Okpoko v. Heinauer, 796 F. Supp. 2d 305, 321 (D.R.I. 2011). DM Research, Inc. v. College of American Pathologists, D.C.R.I.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 226, affirmed C.A.1st, 1999, 170 F.3d 53 (bald assertions, subjective characterizations, and legal conclusions).

Second Circuit In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 118, 124 (2d Cir. 2013). Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Md. v. Citigroup, Inc., 709 F.3d 129, 135-136 (2d Cir. 2013) ("The ultimate existence of an 'agreement' under antitrust law, however, is a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation. * * * A plaintiff's job at the pleading stage, in order to overcome a motion to dismiss, is to allege enough facts to support the inference that a conspiracy actually existed."). New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, 709 F.3d 109, 120 (2d Cir. 2013). Lomako v. New York Institute of Technology, 440 Fed. Appx. 1 (2d Cir. 2011). Mohammad v. New York State Higher Educ. Services Corp., 422 Fed. Appx. 61 (2d Cir. 2011). Lord v. International Marine Ins. Services, 420 Fed. Appx. 40 (2d Cir. 2011). Morpurgo v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor, 417 Fed. Appx. 96, 97 (2d Cir. 2011). Regan v. New York State, Local Retirement System, 406 Fed. Appx. 568 (2d Cir. 2011). Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160-161 (2d Cir. 2010). Tarshis v. Riese Organization, C.A.2d, 2000, 211 F.3d 30. Cooper v. Parsky, C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 433, on remand D.C.N.Y.2000, 2000 WL 1277593. Leeds v. Meltz, C.A.2d, 1996, 85 F.3d 51.

Connecticut Williams v. Community Solutions, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Conn. 2013). Consolmagno v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 44292, 2011 WL 4804774 (D. Conn. 2011).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

New York Hemmerdinger Corp. v. Ruocco, 2013 WL 5516194, *3 (E.D. N.Y. 2013). Daniels v. Wesley Gardens Corp., 2011 WL 1598962 (W.D. N.Y. 2011). Fowlkes v. Parker, 2010 WL 5490739 (N.D. N.Y. 2010). Legal conclusions are not taken as true. They may form the framework of a complaint but also must be supported by factual allegations. Levista, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2010 WL 5067843 (E.D. N.Y. 2010), judgment aff'd, 2011 WL 6117276 (2d Cir. 2011). Bowman v. Waterside Plaza, L.L.C., 2010 WL 2873051, *3 (S.D. N.Y. 2010). Vossler v. Phasecom America, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 1628903 (legal conclusions and vague factual allegations were not enough to prevent dismissal). Amsterdam Tobacco Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 210. Reisner v. Stoller, D.C.N.Y.1999, 51 F.Supp.2d 430. Magee v. Nassau County Medical Center, D.C.N.Y.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 154 (conclusory allegations are not enough to state claim). Ross v. Mitsui Fudosan, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 522 (conclusory allegations that merely state general legal conclusions necessary to prevail on merits and are unsupported by factual averments). Phillips v. Merchants Ins. Group, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 99. Barth v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1998, 178 F.R.D. 371 (mere conclusions of law). National Ass'n of College Bookstores, Inc. v. Cambridge Univ. Press, D.C.N.Y.1997, 990 F.Supp. 245. Anonymous v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1997, 987 F.Supp. 131. Hogan v. DC Comics, D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 82. Russell v. Northrop Grumman Corp., D.C.N.Y.1996, 921 F.Supp. 143. Amaker v. Hakes, D.C.N.Y.1996, 919 F.Supp. 127. National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Heary Bros. Lightning Protection Co., D.C.N.Y.1995, 931 F.Supp. 169. Tout v. Erie Community College, D.C.N.Y.1995, 923 F.Supp. 13. Cohen v. Litt, D.C.N.Y.1995, 906 F.Supp. 957. Chrzanowski v. Lichtman, D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 751. Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of No. Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.-Pension Fund v. Canny, D.C.N.Y.1995, 876 F.Supp. 14. Craft v. McNulty, D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 121. Falik v. Parker Duryee Rosoff & Haft, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 228. Heine v. Newman, Tannenbaum, Helpern, Syracuse & Hirschtritt, D.C.N.Y.1994, 856 F.Supp. 190. Segarra v. Messina, D.C.N.Y.1994, 153 F.R.D. 22. Packer v. Yampol, D.C.N.Y.1986, 630 F.Supp. 1237, 1241, citing Wright & Miller. Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. New York, D.C.N.Y.1981, 520 F.Supp. 1278, 1308, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 1982, 691 F.2d 1070. M & M Transportation Co. v. U.S. Industries, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1976, 416 F.Supp. 865. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, allegations and statements in the complaint as to matters of law must be left in question for the decision of the court. Overstock Book Co. v. Barry, D.C.N.Y.1969, 305 F.Supp. 842, affirmed on other grounds, C.A.2d, 1970, 436 F.2d 1289. U.S. v. Bimba, D.C.N.Y.1964, 233 F.Supp. 966.

Third Circuit Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013), citing Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2007). An allegation that an agreement has been reached in a contract dispute is a legal assertion, not a factual one, and thus should be ignored by the court in the context of a motion to dismiss. Cotter v. Newark Housing Authority, 422 Fed. Appx. 95 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Wilson v. City of Philadelphia, 415 Fed. Appx. 434, 436 (3d Cir. 2011) (conclusory allegations not entitled to presumption of truth) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Golod v. Bank of America Corp., 403 Fed. Appx. 699, 702 (3d Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Miles v. Tp. of Barnegat, 343 Fed. Appx. 841 (3d Cir. 2009). Guirguis v. Movers Specialty Services, Inc., 2009 WL 3041992 (3d Cir. 2009).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., C.A.3d, 1997, 132 F.3d 902, citing Wright & Miller.

Delaware King v. Doe, 2011 WL 2669221 (D. Del. 2011), subsequent determination, 2011 WL 4351797 (D. Del. 2011). Northern Michigan Hosps., Inc. v. Health Net Federal Services, LLC, 2008 WL 2233964 (D. Del. 2008).

New Jersey Khalil v. Napolitano, 2013 WL 5770499, *3 (D.N.J. 2013), citing Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Oss Nokalva, Inc. v. European Space Agency, 2009 WL 2424702 (D.N.J. 2009). Mosher v. New Jersey, D.C.N.J.2007, 2007 WL 1101230. McLeod v. Still, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 372986. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 550. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 539. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 498. Rowe v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, D.C.N.J.1999, 191 F.R.D. 398. Florian Greenhouse, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 521. Township of West Orange v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 408. Ramirez v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1998, 998 F.Supp. 425. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. Robinson v. Fauver, D.C.N.J.1996, 932 F.Supp. 639. Biase v. Kaplan, D.C.N.J.1994, 852 F.Supp. 268. Sixth Camden Corp. v. Township of Evesham, County of Burlington, D.C.N.J.1976, 420 F.Supp. 709, 720, quoting Wright & Miller. Camero v. Kostos, D.C.N.J.1966, 253 F.Supp. 331.

Pennsylvania Pumphrey v. Smith, 2010 WL 4983675 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Simmons v. Bernardi, 2010 WL 2804868, *2 (M.D. Pa. 2010). Logue v. West Penn Multi-List, Inc., 2010 WL 2720787, *2 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Boggi v. Medical Review and Accrediting Council, 39 Nat'l Disability Law Rep. P 256, 2009 WL 2951022 (E.D. Pa. 2009). Mitchell v. Cellone, D.C.Pa.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 368. Campbell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 1020811, citing Wright & Miller. Constar, Inc. v. National Distribution Centers, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 319. Cortes v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 255, citing Wright & Miller. Bar Technologies Inc. v. Conemaugh & Black Lick R.R. Co., D.C.Pa.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 512. FTC v. Commonwealth Marketing Group, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 530. Klavan v. Crozer-Chester Medical Center, D.C.Pa.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 436. Sunquest Information Sys., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 644 (court need not credit bald assertions or legal conclusions). Breyer v. Meissner, D.C.Pa.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 540, affirmed C.A.3d, 2000, 214 F.3d 416. Breyer v. Meissner, D.C.Pa.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 521, reversed on other grounds C.A.3d, 2000, 214 F.3d 416. Avellino v. Herron, D.C.Pa.1997, 991 F.Supp. 722. Pearson v. Miller, D.C.Pa.1997, 988 F.Supp. 848, quoting Wright & Miller. Gardiner v. Mercyhurst College, D.C.Pa.1995, 942 F.Supp. 1050. Hetzel v. Swartz, D.C.Pa.1995, 909 F.Supp. 261. Burks v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1995, 904 F.Supp. 421. RTC v. Farmer, D.C.Pa.1993, 836 F.Supp. 1123. RTC v. Farmer, D.C.Pa.1993, 823 F.Supp. 302. Wexco Inc. v. IMC, Incorporated, D.C.Pa.1993, 820 F.Supp. 194. Courts should not assume the truth of a conclusory allegation when there are no supporting facts. Bethlehem Plaza v. Campbell, D.C.Pa.1975, 403 F.Supp. 966.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Herman v. C.O. Porter Mach. Co., D.C.Pa.1971, 333 F.Supp. 416. A conclusion of law, rather than an assertion of fact, should not be treated as admitted for purposes of testing the sufficiency of the complaint. Lemon v. Kurtzman, D.C.Pa.1969, 310 F.Supp. 35, reversed on other grounds 1971, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 403 U.S. 602, 29 L.Ed.2d 745. Sinchak v. Parente, D.C.Pa.1966, 262 F.Supp. 79.

Virgin Islands Thomas v. Rijos, 780 F. Supp. 2d 376, 379 (D.V.I. 2011). Government Guarantee Fund of the Republic of Finland v. Hyatt Corp., D.C.Virgin Islands 1997, 955 F.Supp. 441.

See also Environmental Ass'n of St. Thomas & St. John v. Department of Planning & Natural Resources, Terr.Virgin Islands 2002, 2002 WL 655506 (legal conclusions either alleged or inferred from pleaded facts).

Fourth Circuit Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co. Ltd., 708 F.3d 527, 548 (4th Cir. 2013). Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171, 180 (4th Cir. 2012) (allegation that parole board no longer exercises discretion is legal, not factual). Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (applying Twombly/Iqbal standard, court does not accord deference to legal conclusions). Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir. 2011) ("bare legal conclusions"). Braun v. Maynard, 652 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 2011). Simmons v. United Mortg. and Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 768 (4th Cir. 2011). Masterson v. Ihara, 442 Fed. Appx. 849 (4th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)). Monroe v. City of Charlotesville, Va., 579 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2009). Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009). Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates Ltd. Partnership, C.A.4th, 2000, 213 F.3d 175. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, C.A.4th, 1999, 178 F.3d 231. Labram v. Havel, C.A.4th, 1995, 43 F.3d 918 (statement that defendant owed plaintiff fiduciary duty was legal conclusion and was not accepted by court since no persuasive authority was cited to support plaintiff's claim). Randall v. U.S., C.A.4th, 1994, 30 F.3d 518, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 1956, 514 U.S. 1107, 131 L.Ed.2d 849. Estate Constr. Co. v. Miller & Smith Holding Co., C.A.4th, 1994, 14 F.3d 213. Schatz v. Rosenberg, C.A.4th, 1991, 943 F.2d 485, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 1475, 503 U.S. 936, 117 L.Ed.2d 619. A legal conclusion is insufficient in itself to survive a motion to dismiss. District 28, United Mine Workers of America, Inc. v. Wellmore Coal Corp., C.A.4th, 1979, 609 F.2d 1083.

Maryland Caire v. Conifer Value Based Care, LLC, 29 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 134, 2013 WL 5973151, *13 (D. Md. 2013). Hufford v. Bank United, FSB, 2011 WL 4985920, *2 (D. Md. 2011) ("legal conclusions drawn from the facts"), quoting Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009). Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 89 v. Prince George's County, Md., 645 F. Supp. 2d 492 (D. Md. 2009). Abbott v. Gordon, 2009 WL 2426052 (D. Md. 2009). Onawola v. Johns Hopkins Univ., D.C.Md.2006, 412 F.Supp.2d 529, citing Wright & Miller. Schultz v. Braga, D.C.Md.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 637. Kress v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, D.C.Md.2002, 217 F.Supp.2d 682. Recupito v. Prudential Secs., Inc., D.C.Md.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 449. Smith-Berch, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, D.C.Md.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 602. Maryland Minority Contractor's Ass'n, Inc. v. Maryland Stadium Authority, D.C.Md.1998, 70 F.Supp.2d 580. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc., D.C.Md.1992, 808 F.Supp. 446.

North Carolina Tims v. Carolinas Healthcare System, 2013 WL 5636743, *2 (W.D. N.C. 2013), citing Randall v. U.S., 30 F.3d 518, 522 (4th Cir. 1994).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Basnight v. Potter, 2011 WL 1366376, *1 (E.D. N.C. 2011) (court will not consider as true " 'legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement' "), quoting Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). Murphy v. Danzig, D.C.N.C.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 519. Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., D.C.N.C.1996, 951 F.Supp. 1224. Wetherington v. Phillips, D.C.N.C.1974, 380 F.Supp. 426, affirmed without opinion C.A.4th, 1975, 526 F.2d 591.

South Carolina In re MI Windows and Doors, Inc. Products Liability Litigation, 914 F. Supp. 2d 744, 748 (D.S.C. 2012). Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.S.C.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 487.

Virginia Davis v. Rao, 2013 WL 5999643, *3 (E.D. Va. 2013). Scheel v. Harris, 2011 WL 2559880 (W.D. Va. 2011). Leggat v. Equifax Information Services, Inc., 2009 WL 2432371 (E.D. Va. 2009). Frontline Test Equip., Inc. v. Greenleaf Software, Inc., D.C.Va.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 583. Wenzler v. Warden of G.R.C.C., D.C.Va.1996, 949 F.Supp. 399. Westmoreland v. Brown, D.C.Va.1995, 883 F.Supp. 67. Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, D.C.Va.1993, 825 F.Supp. 1251.

West Virginia F.D.I.C. v. Baldini, 2013 WL 6044412, *10 (S.D. W. Va. 2013). Yarney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 3075460, *2 (W.D. Va. 2010).

Fifth Circuit Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez v. Lewis, 427 Fed. Appx. 352 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 466, 181 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2011) (legal conclusions purporting to be factual allegations not sufficient to survive motion to dismiss) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Richards v. JRK Property Holdings, 405 Fed. Appx. 829, 831 (5th Cir. 2010) ("[The plaintiff's] assertion of racial discrimination is a legal conclusion that the court is not required to accept and does not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.") (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Blackburn v. City of Marshall, C.A.5th, 1995, 42 F.3d 925. “[C]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, C.A.5th, 1993, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (Goldberg, J.). Associated Builders, Inc. v. Alabama Power Co., C.A.5th, 1974, 505 F.2d 97.

Louisiana In re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation, 940 F. Supp. 2d 367, 376 (E.D. La. 2013). T Moore Services, LLC v. Rentrop Tugs Inc., 2011 WL 976738 (W.D. La. 2011). Global Marine Shipping (No. 10) Ltd. v. Finning Int'l Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 31246548, quoting Wright & Miller. Small v. Strain, D.C.La.2001, 2001 WL 1631341, citing Wright & Miller (unpublished). Odlan Holdings, LLC v. City of New Orleans, D.C.La.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 503. In re Air Bag Prods. Liability Litigation, D.C.La.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 792. Reyes v. Sazan, D.C.La.1997, 981 F.Supp. 973, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1999, 168 F.3d 158. Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., D.C.La.1996, 930 F.Supp. 241, affirmed C.A.5th, 1997, 106 F.3d 1245. Todd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.C.La.1996, 924 F.Supp. 59. Baustian v. Louisiana, D.C.La.1996, 910 F.Supp. 274. Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. v. Alpine Ocean Seismic Surveys, D.C.La.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1578.

Mississippi

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Lowe v. American Eurocopter, LLC, 24 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 40, 2010 WL 5232523, *5 (N.D. Miss. 2010) (" '[L]egal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not prevent a motion to dismiss.' "), quoting Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002). Galada v. Gatson-Riley, 2010 WL 3120069, *3 (S.D. Miss. 2010). Horne v. Time Warner Operations, Inc., D.C.Miss.1999, 119 F.Supp.2d 624.

Texas Maldonado v. City of Pearsall, Tex., 2013 WL 5615078 (W.D. Tex. 2013), citing Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir. 1994). Atwater Partners of Texas LLC v. AT & T, Inc., 2011 WL 1004880 (E.D. Tex. 2011). Myers v. Kaufman County, 2010 WL 5480651 (N.D. Tex. 2010). Verando v. ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc., 2009 WL 2958370 (N.D. Tex. 2009). In re Electronic Data Sys. Corp. “ERISA” Litigation, D.C.Tex.2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 658 (“conclusory allegations”). Keane v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., D.C.Tex.2004, 297 F.Supp.2d 921 (“conclusory allegations”). Meghani v. Shell Oil Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 747. Roventini v. Pasadena Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1013, vacated on other grounds D.C.Tex.1998, 183 F.R.D. 500.

Sixth Circuit Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Youth Alive, Inc., 732 F.3d 645, 649 (6th Cir. 2013). Republic Bank & Trust Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 683 F.3d 239, 246 (6th Cir. 2012). Boland v. Holder, 682 F.3d 531, 534 (6th Cir. 2012). Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F.3d 430, 444 (6th Cir. 2012) ("To conduct this analysis, a court should first identify factual allegations that are entitled to a presumption of truth-that is, those allegations that are more than just legal conclusions."). Severe Records, LLC v. Rich, 658 F.3d 571, 578 (6th Cir. 2011). Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2011) (claim that plaintiffs "were treated differently because of gender-based discrimination" was legal conclusion couched as factual allegation and should not have been accepted as true without factual support). Schellenberg v. Tp. of Bingham, 436 Fed. Appx. 587, 598 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1145, 181 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2012) (legal conclusions presented as factual allegations not entitled to presumption of truth on motion to dismiss). Bishop v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 520 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008). Montgomery v. Huntington Bank & Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc., C.A.6th, 2003, 346 F.3d 693. Gean v. Hattaway, C.A.6th, 2003, 330 F.3d 758. Tahfs v. Proctor, C.A.6th, 2003, 316 F.3d 584. Thomas v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., C.A.6th, 2002, 29 Fed.Appx. 319. Gregory v. Shelby County, Tennessee, C.A.6th, 2000, 220 F.3d 433. Claybrook v. Birchwell, C.A.6th, 2000, 199 F.3d 350, appeal after remand C.A.6th, 2001, 274 F.3d 1098. Jackson v. City of Columbus, C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737 (unwarranted legal conclusions). Nelson v. Miller, C.A.6th, 1999, 170 F.3d 641. Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., C.A.6th, 1998, 135 F.3d 389. In re Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., C.A.6th, 1997, 123 F.3d 394, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 1675, 523 U.S. 1106, 140 L.Ed.2d 813. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. v. Tatum, C.A.6th, 1995, 58 F.3d 1101, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 1041, 516 U.S. 1158, 134 L.Ed.2d 189. LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority, C.A.6th, 1995, 55 F.3d 1097. In re DeLorean Motor Co., C.A.6th, 1993, 991 F.2d 1236. Blackburn v. Fisk Univ., C.A.6th, 1971, 443 F.2d 121.

Kentucky Ashland Hosp. Corp. v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers Local 575, 807 F. Supp. 2d 633 (E.D. Ky. 2011) (legal conclusions unsupported by well-pleaded facts need not be accepted as true). Morris Aviation, LLC v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., 2010 WL 2961183, *9 (W.D. Ky. 2010).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

In re Foley, 2010 WL 2612585, *2 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2010), citing Wright & Miller. In re Bluegrass Mortg. Services, Inc., 2010 WL 2368279, *2 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2010), quoting Wright & Miller.

Michigan Berry v. Main Street Bank, 2013 WL 5651440, *3 (E.D. Mich. 2013). Baker v. County of Missaukee, 2011 WL 1670953 (W.D. Mich. 2011). Beaudin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 2806262 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (distinguishing facts from legal conclusions). Van Poperin v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2010 WL 2805294 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (distinguishing between facts and legal conclusions). Lipa v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 572 F. Supp. 2d 841 (E.D. Mich. 2008). Brown v. Scott, D.C.Mich.2004, 329 F.Supp.2d 905, citing Wright & Miller. Although RICO pleadings are to be liberally construed, the applicable standard does not require the district court to accept legal conclusions unsupported by the facts pleaded. Jersevic v. Kuhl, D.C.Mich.2002, 2002 WL 84624, citing Wright & Miller (unpublished). Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., D.C.Mich.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 1087. Zolman v. IRS, D.C.Mich.1999, 87 F.Supp.2d 763. Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art & Design, D.C.Mich.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 829, affirmed C.A.6th, 2001, 244 F.3d 521. American Special Risk Ins. Co. ex rel. So. Macomb Disposal Authority v. City of Centerline, D.C.Mich.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 944. Akella v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, D.C.Mich.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 716. Benedict v. Cooperstock, D.C.Mich.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 754 (court will not accept legal conclusions or opinions even if couched as factual allegations). Organic Chems. Site PRP Group v. Total Petroleum, Inc., D.C.Mich.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 660. Christian Memorial Cultural Center, Inc. v. Michigan Funeral Directors Ass'n, D.C.Mich.1998, 998 F.Supp. 772. Teamsters Local 372, Detroit Mailers Union Local 2040 v. Detroit Newspapers, D.C.Mich.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1052. Amway Distributors Benefits Ass'n v. Federal Ins. Co., D.C.Mich.1997, 990 F.Supp. 936 (bare assertions of legal conclusions). Bordas v. Washtenaw County, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 979. Fox v. Van Oosterum, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 597, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 176 F.3d 342. Goins v. Ajax Metal Processing, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1057. Havenick v. Network Express, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 981 F.Supp. 480. Kearney v. Jandernoa, D.C.Mich.1997, 979 F.Supp. 576. Gibson v. Sain, D.C.Mich.1997, 979 F.Supp. 557, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 1998, 159 F.3d 230. Van Domelen v. Menominee County, D.C.Mich.1996, 935 F.Supp. 918. Emery v. U.S., D.C.Mich.1996, 920 F.Supp. 788. Parkhurst v. North American Financial Servs. Cos., D.C.Mich.1996, 919 F.Supp. 270. Kramer v. Van Dyke Public Schools, D.C.Mich.1996, 918 F.Supp. 1100. EEOC v. Sara Lee Corp., D.C.Mich.1995, 923 F.Supp. 994. Bolden v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mich.1976, 422 F.Supp. 28. Vermilion Foam Prods. Co. v. General Elec. Co., D.C.Mich.1974, 386 F.Supp. 255.

Ohio Dickinson v. Zanesville Metropolitan Housing Authority, 2013 WL 5487101, *4 (S.D. Ohio 2013). Harris v. Smith, 2011 WL 2413490, *2 (N.D. Ohio 2011) ("A court is 'not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'"), quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986). Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley, 728 F. Supp. 2d 928, 931 (S.D. Ohio 2010). Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Manges, 2010 WL 5394730 (S.D. Ohio 2010). Pearl v. City of Wyoming, 2010 WL 3075158, *3 (S.D. Ohio 2010) ("The admonishment to construe the plaintiff's claim liberally when evaluating a motion to dismiss does not relieve a plaintiff of his obligation to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements and allege more than bare assertions of legal conclusions."), citing Wright & Miller. Ghaster v. City of Rocky River, 2010 WL 2802682 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (distinguishing legal conclusions from factual allegations). McCarthy v. City of Cleveland, 2009 WL 2424296 (N.D. Ohio 2009). Aaron v. Bob Evans Restaurant, D.C.Ohio 2007, 477 F.Supp.2d 853.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Geiger v. City of Upper Arlington, D.C.Ohio 2006, 2006 WL 1888877. Merzin v. Provident Financial Group, Inc., D.C.Ohio 2004, 311 F.Supp.2d 674, citing Wright & Miller. More than bare assertions of legal conclusions are required to satisfy the notice pleading standard. Savage v. Hatcher, D.C.Ohio 2002, 2002 WL 484986. More than bare assertions of legal conclusions is required to satisfy the notice pleading standard. Edwards v. Physician's Credit Bureau, D.C.Ohio 2001, 2001 WL 1678783 (unpublished). In re SmarTalk Teleservices, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ohio 2000, 124 F.Supp.2d 505. Weber v. National Football League, D.C.Ohio 2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 667. Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. Iams Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 107 F.Supp.2d 883, affirmed C.A.6th, 2001, 254 F.3d 607. Culberson v. Doan, D.C.Ohio 1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 701. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 35 F.Supp.2d 597. Harris v. City of Cleveland, D.C.Ohio 1999, 190 F.R.D. 215, affirmed C.A.6th, 2001, 7 Fed.Appx. 452. Jackson v. City of Columbus, D.C.Ohio 1998, 67 F.Supp.2d 839, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737 (unwarranted legal conclusions). Hollar v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ohio 1998, 43 F.Supp.2d 794. Spivey v. Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1998, 999 F.Supp. 987. Petrone v. Cleveland State Univ., D.C.Ohio 1998, 993 F.Supp. 1119. U.S. ex rel. Roby v. Boeing Co., D.C.Ohio 1998, 184 F.R.D. 107. Dalton v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp., D.C.Ohio 1997, 979 F.Supp. 1187. Yanacos v. Lake County, Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1996, 953 F.Supp. 187. Orick v. Banziger, D.C.Ohio 1996, 945 F.Supp. 1084, citing Wright, Miller & Cooper, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 178 F.3d 1295. Czupih v. Card Pak Inc., D.C.Ohio 1996, 916 F.Supp. 687. Klusty v. Taco Bell Corp., D.C.Ohio 1995, 909 F.Supp. 516. I-Star Communications Corp. v. City of East Cleveland, D.C.Ohio 1995, 885 F.Supp. 1035. U.S. ex rel. Roy v. Anthony, D.C.Ohio 1994, 914 F.Supp. 1504. Misch v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Ohio 1994, 896 F.Supp. 734, citing Wright & Miller. Heights Community Congress v. Smythe, Cramer Co., D.C.Ohio 1994, 862 F.Supp. 204. Cione v. Gorr, D.C.Ohio 1994, 843 F.Supp. 1199. Mackey v. Cleveland State Univ., D.C.Ohio 1993, 837 F.Supp. 1396. E.J. v. Hamilton County, Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1989, 707 F.Supp. 314, citing Wright & Miller.

Tennessee Montesi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 4522905, *3 (W.D. Tenn. 2013). Savoie v. Martin, 2010 WL 4982543 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). Arnold v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 2009 WL 2430822 (M.D. Tenn. 2009). Klonowski v. Jack Daniel's Distillery, 2008 WL 2323234 (E.D. Tenn. 2008). Maxwell v. Stanley Works, D.C.Tenn.2006, 2006 WL 1967012. Aldridge v. U.S., D.C.Tenn.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 802. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 807. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 943. Tennessee Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Board of Educ. Of Putnam County, Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 808. Grindstaff v. Green, D.C.Tenn.1996, 946 F.Supp. 540, affirmed C.A.6th, 1998, 133 F.3d 416. Scarborough v. Brown Group, Inc., D.C.Tenn.1995, 935 F.Supp. 954. Burnett v. Tyco Corp., D.C.Tenn.1996, 932 F.Supp. 1039. Ketron v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Authority, D.C.Tenn.1996, 919 F.Supp. 280. Sharp v. Rainey, D.C.Tenn.1996, 910 F.Supp. 394. Cash v. Brooks, D.C.Tenn.1995, 906 F.Supp. 450. In re Imagepoint Inc., 2010 WL 3037436, *3 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2010) ("Undeniably, a complaint must contain more than bare assertions or legal conclusions.").

Seventh Circuit

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 683 F.3d 328, 334 (7th Cir. 2012). Virnich v. Vorwald, 664 F.3d 206, 212 (7th Cir. 2011). Kolbe & Kolbe Health & Welfare Benefit Plan v. Medical College of Wisconsin, Inc., 657 F.3d 496, 502 (7th Cir. 2011). County of McHenry v. Insurance Co. of the West, C.A.7th, 2006, 438 F.3d 813. Steidl v. Gramley, C.A.7th, 1998, 151 F.3d 739 (when factual allegations conflict with legal conclusion, factual allegations are decisive). Sneed v. Rybicki, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 478. Panaras v. Liquid Carbonic Indus. Corp., C.A.7th, 1996, 74 F.3d 786. Mescall v. Burrus, C.A.7th, 1979, 603 F.2d 1266. Mitchell v. Archibald & Kendall, Inc., C.A.7th, 1978, 573 F.2d 429.

Illinois Jafri v. Chandler LLC, 48 Nat'l Disability Law Rep. P 65, 2013 WL 5513238, *1 (N.D. Ill. 2013), citing Reger Development, LLC v. National City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 763 (7th Cir. 2010). Stansberry v. Uhlich Children's Home, D.C.Ill.2003, 264 F.Supp.2d 681 (bare legal conclusions to narrated facts that fail to outline basis of claims). International Bhd. of Teamsters Local 734 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 34 F.Supp.2d 656, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 196 F.3d 818, appeal after remand C.A.7th, 2000, 208 F.3d 579 (court not bound by plaintiff's legal characterizations). Jones v. Detella, D.C.Ill.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 824. Neuma, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 952. Howard v. Local 152 of Int'l Constr. & Gen. Laborers' Union of America, D.C.Ill.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1213. McLaughlin v. Cook County Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ill.1998, 993 F.Supp. 661 (bare legal conclusions attached to narrated facts). Sterling v. Kazmierczak, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1186 (bare legal conclusions attached to narrated facts). Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Peters, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 787. Evans v. Allen, D.C.Ill.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1102. Codest Engineering v. Hyatt Int'l Corp., D.C.Ill.1996, 954 F.Supp. 1224. Yellow Cab Co. v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1996, 919 F.Supp. 1133. Erickson v. Board of Governors of State Colleges & Univs. for Northeastern Illinois Univ., D.C.Ill.1995, 911 F.Supp. 316. Lindgren v. Moore, D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1183. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Gofen & Glossberg, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 713. Mollfulleda v. Phillips, D.C.Ill.1994, 882 F.Supp. 689. Bergquist v. U.S. National Weather Serv., D.C.Ill.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1221. A.I. Credit Corp. v. Hartford Computer Group, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 847 F.Supp. 588, 596, citing Wright & Miller. Genin, Trudeau & Co., Ltd. v. Integra Dev. Int'l, D.C.Ill.1994, 845 F.Supp. 611, 614, citing Wright & Miller. U.S. v. Beethoven Associates Ltd. Partnership, D.C.Ill.1994, 843 F.Supp. 1257, citing Wright & Miller. Goodwin-Kuntu v. Hoechst-Roussel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 157 F.R.D. 445. Eret v. Continental Holding, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 358. Anderson v. Humana, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 368, affirmed C.A.7th, 1994, 24 F.3d 889. Kas v. Caterpillar, Inc., D.C.Ill.1992, 815 F.Supp. 1158. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., D.C.Ill.1990, 739 F.Supp. 1210. Hooker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., D.C.Ill.1982, 551 F.Supp. 1060, 1064, citing Wright & Miller. Cohen v. Illinois Institute of Technology, D.C.Ill.1974, 384 F.Supp. 202, affirmed C.A.7th, 1975, 524 F.2d 818, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 1683, 425 U.S. 943, 48 L.Ed.2d 187. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, D.C.Ill.1969, 310 F.Supp. 1398, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1970, 435 F.2d 267, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 1383, 402 U.S. 909, 28 L.Ed.2d 650. Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., D.C.Ill.1969, 295 F.Supp. 139.

Indiana Panwar v. Access Therapies, Inc., 2013 WL 5486783, *4 (S.D. Ind. 2013). Gill v. Marandet, 2008 WL 2333154 (N.D. Ind. 2008).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Miceli v. Ansell, Inc., D.C.Ind.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 929 (court will not accept bare legal conclusions). Coats v. Kraft Foods, Inc., D.C.Ind.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 862. Town of Ogden Dunes v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 996 F.Supp. 850. Bradley v. Work, D.C.Ind.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1446, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 154 F.3d 704. Buck Creek Coal, Inc. v. United Workers of America, D.C.Ind.1995, 917 F.Supp. 601. Tracy v. Bittles, D.C.Ind.1993, 820 F.Supp. 396. Washington v. Foresman, D.C.Ind.1993, 148 F.R.D. 241. McCrum v. Elkhart County Dep't of Public Welfare, D.C.Ind.1992, 806 F.Supp. 203.

Wisconsin McCulley v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, D.C.Wis.1994, 851 F.Supp. 1271. Kaufmann v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1993, 840 F.Supp. 641, 651 (“[l]egal conclusions without factual support”). Stockheimer v. Underwood, D.C.Wis.1977, 428 F.Supp. 192. Weise v. Reisner, D.C.Wis.1970, 318 F.Supp. 580.

Eighth Circuit Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health, 735 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2013). Outdoor Cent., Inc. v. GreatLodge.com, Inc., 643 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2011). Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., 628 F.3d 451, 459 (8th Cir. 2010). Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. In re K-tel Int'l, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.8th, 2002, 300 F.3d 881. Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., C.A.8th, 1968, 402 F.2d 968, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 2096, 395 U.S. 961, 23 L.Ed.2d 748.

Iowa Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dep't, D.C.Iowa 2003, 255 F.Supp.2d 971 (court need not blindly accept legal conclusions), citing Wright & Miller. Webster Indus., Inc. v. Northwood Doors, Inc., D.C.Iowa 2002, 234 F.Supp.2d 981, citing Wright & Miller. Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, D.C.Iowa 2002, 212 F.Supp.2d 1034, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Schultzen v. Woodbury Cent. Community School Dist., D.C.Iowa 2002, 187 F.Supp.2d 1099, citing Wright & Miller (“conclusory allegations of law”). Phillips Kiln Servs., Ltd. v. International Paper Co., D.C.Iowa 2002, 2002 WL 1712870, citing Wright & Miller. Conclusory allegations need not and will not be taken as true; rather, the court will consider whether the facts alleged in the complaint, accepted as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Iowa Health Sys. v. Trinity Health Corp., D.C.Iowa 2001, 177 F.Supp.2d 897, citing Wright & Miller (“conclusory allegations of law”). Mercer v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, D.C.Iowa 1999, 79 F.Supp.2d 1055, citing Wright & Miller. Adler v. I & M Rail Link, L.L.C., D.C.Iowa 1998, 13 F.Supp.2d 912, citing Wright & Miller. Terra Indus., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Iowa 1997, 990 F.Supp. 679, citing Wright & Miller. Leiberkneckt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., D.C.Iowa 1997, 980 F.Supp. 300, citing Wright & Miller. Powell v. Tordoff, D.C.Iowa 1995, 911 F.Supp. 1184, 1189, citing Wright & Miller. Reynolds v. Condon, D.C.Iowa 1995, 908 F.Supp. 1494, 1503, citing Wright & Miller.

Minnesota Meecorp Capital Markets, LLC v. PSC of Two Harbors, LLC, 2010 WL 2946984, *1 (D. Minn. 2010). Moubry v. Independent School Dist. No. 696, D.C.Minn.1996, 951 F.Supp. 867.

Missouri Kramer v. America's Wholesale Lenders, 2011 WL 577390 (E.D. Mo. 2011).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Holt v. Bose, 2011 WL 3679820 (D. Neb. 2011).

North Dakota Peak North Dakota, LLC v. Wilkinson, 2010 WL 2813508, *3 (D.N.D. 2010).

South Dakota Alltell Communications, LLC v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 52 Communications Reg. (P & F) 712, 2011 WL 796409 (D.S.D. 2011). Webb v. Lawrence County, D.C.S.D.1996, 950 F.Supp. 960, affirmed C.A.8th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1131.

Ninth Circuit U.S. v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011). Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 850, 181 L.Ed.2d 550 (2011). Northern Highlands I, II, LLC v. Comerica Bank, 328 Fed. Appx. 358, 359 (9th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3) ("need not assume the truth of opinions, factual and legal conclusions, or arguments") SFPP, L.P. v. Union Pacific R. Co., 274 Fed. Appx. 549 (9th Cir. 2008). Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California, C.A.9th, 1998, 159 F.3d 1178. Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, C.A.9th, 1994, 18 F.3d 752.

Arizona M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Lerner, 2010 WL 5232970 (D. Ariz. 2010). Phoenix Payment Solutions, Inc. v. Towner, 2008 WL 2263765 (D. Ariz. 2008). Bailey v. IRS, D.C.Ariz.1999, 188 F.R.D. 346, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 893. Lara v. Cowan, D.C.Ariz.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1456.

California Cannon v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 917 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2013), citing Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). "Legal conclusions need not be taken as true merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. Similarly, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss." Escalante v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4975658, *1 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Kingsburg Apple Packers, Inc. v. Ballantine Produce Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2817056, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Young v. City of Visalia, 2009 WL 2567847 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Anderson v. Fishback, 2009 WL 2423327 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Nera v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 2009 WL 2423109 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Froehlich v. Leavitt, Medicare & Medicaid 302443, 2008 WL 2397473 (E.D. Cal. 2008). California Alliance of Child & Family Servs. v. Allenby, D.C.Cal.2006, 459 F.Supp.2d 919. Leon v. County of San Diego, D.C.Cal.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 1197. Barapind v. Reno, D.C.Cal.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132 (conclusions of law). Roe v. Unocal Corp., D.C.Cal.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1073 (conclusory legal allegations). U.S. v. Crisp, D.C.Cal.1999, 190 F.R.D. 546. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., D.C.Cal.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 1013 (conclusory legal allegations). Industrial Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. Henry, D.C.Cal.1995, 909 F.Supp. 1368, reversed on other grounds C.A.9th, 1997, 125 F.3d 1305. Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 874 F.Supp. 1072. Steiner v. Hale, D.C.Cal.1994, 868 F.Supp. 284 (“conclusory allegations of law”). In re Cypress Semiconductor Secs. Litigation, D.C.Cal.1994, 864 F.Supp. 957. MAI Systems Corp. v. UIPS, D.C.Cal.1994, 856 F.Supp. 538. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, D.C.Cal.1977, 429 F.Supp. 407.

Guam Wendt v. Director of Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 2011 WL 1559830 (D. Guam 2011).

Hawaii

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Aana v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intern., Inc., 2013 WL 4047110, *15 (D. Haw. 2013). Herschelman v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 2010 WL 4448224, *2 (D. Haw. 2010). Williams v. Rickard, 2010 WL 2640102, *3 (D. Haw. 2010). State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, D.C.Haw.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 1111.

Montana Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library, 2011 WL 4499043 (D. Mont. 2011) (legal conclusions cast as factual allegations need not be accepted as true if conclusions cannot be reasonably drawn from supporting facts). Engebretson v. Mahoney, 2010 WL 2683202, *2 (D. Mont. 2010) ("[T]he Court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.").

Nevada Robins v. Wolf Firm, 2010 WL 2817202, *1 (D. Nev. 2010). Pesci v. IRS, D.C.Nev.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 1189, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 225 F.3d 663. Paradise v. Robinson & Hoover, D.C.Nev.1995, 883 F.Supp. 521. Churchill v. Barach, D.C.Nev.1994, 863 F.Supp. 1266. Hallett v. U.S. Department of Navy, D.C.Nev.1994, 850 F.Supp. 874. Mirin v. Justices of the Supreme Ct. of Nevada, D.C.Nev.1976, 415 F.Supp. 1178.

Oregon Jane Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1125 (D. Or. 2010).

Washington Cycle Barn, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales Inc., 701 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1201 (W.D. Wash. 2010). Old Republic Title, Ltd. v. Kelley, 2010 WL 4259599, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2010).

Tenth Circuit Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff's allegation that she was targeted because of her race conclusory and not entitled to presumption of truth). Johnson v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 1162, 1165 (10th Cir. 2011) ("naked legal conclusion"). Bixler v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 756 (10th Cir. 2010). Bryan v. Stillwater Bd. of Realtors, C.A.10th, 1977, 578 F.2d 1319. Mitchell v. King, C.A.10th, 1976, 537 F.2d 385. Ogden River Water Users' Ass'n v. Weber Basin Water Conservancy, C.A.10th, 1956, 238 F.2d 936.

Colorado Kirzhner v. Silverstein, 2010 WL 2985615, *4 (D. Colo. 2010) ("In evaluating the plausibility of a given claim, the Court 'need not accept conclusory allegations' without supporting factual averments."), quoting Southern Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste Management, a Div. of Waste Management of Texas, Inc., 161 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir. 1998).

Kansas Shepard v. Applebee's Intern., Inc., 2010 WL 1418588, *1 (D. Kan. 2010). McCarty v. Bailey, 2008 WL 2435555 (D. Kan. 2008). Brooks v. Sauceda, D.C.Kan.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1115, affirmed C.A.10th, 2000, 242 F.3d 387. Deere & Co. v. Zahm, D.C.Kan.1993, 837 F.Supp. 346, 353 (court must distinguish between “well-pled facts” and “conclusory allegations”).

New Mexico Lymon v. Aramark Corp., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1214-1215 (D.N.M. 2010).

Oklahoma Hnath v. Hereford, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1138 (N.D. Okla. 2010) (court need not accept as true legal conclusion presented as factual allegation).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Yingst v. Hudson Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2106407, *2 (N.D. Okla. 2010). Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., D.C.Okl.1976, 74 F.R.D. 357. Warner v. Croft, D.C.Okl.1975, 406 F.Supp. 717, 719 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller. Epic Enterprises, Inc. v. Brothers, D.C.Okl.1975, 395 F.Supp. 773, 776, citing Wright & Miller. Kelso v. U.S., D.C.Okl.1974, 66 F.R.D. 443, 446, citing Wright & Miller.

Utah Rodeback v. Utah Financial, 2010 WL 2757243, *1 (D. Utah 2010). Jensen v. Reeves, D.C.Utah 1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 1265, affirmed C.A.10th, 2001, 3 Fed.Appx. 905. United Mine Workers of America v. Utah, D.C.Utah 1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1298, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.10th, 2000, 229 F.3d 982. Lambertsen v. Utah Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Utah 1995, 922 F.Supp. 533, affirmed C.A.10th, 1996, 79 F.3d 1024. Washington County v. U.S., D.C.Utah 1995, 903 F.Supp. 40.

Eleventh Circuit Mack v. City of High Springs, 486 Fed. Appx. 3 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Kendall v. Thaxton Road LLC, 443 Fed. Appx. 388 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Cline v. Tolliver, 434 Fed. Appx. 823 (11th Cir. 2011) (formulaic allegations that were no more than legal conclusions were not sufficient to state claim for relief) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Bell v. HCR Manor Care Facility of Winter Park, 432 Fed. Appx. 908 (11th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 459, 181 L. Ed. 2d 299 (2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Duru v. HSBC Card Services, Inc., 411 Fed. Appx. 240, 241 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Christman v. Holmes, 2011 WL 3823136 (11th Cir. 2011) (legal conclusions are not allegations that court must accept as true) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2010) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth). Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009). Oxford Asset Management, Ltd. v. Jaharis, C.A.11th, 2002, 297 F.3d 1182 (legal conclusions masquerading as facts).

Alabama Arthur v. Thomas, 2013 WL 5434694, *1 (M.D. Ala. 2013). Davis v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp., 2011 WL 3489886 (N.D. Ala. 2011).

Florida Van Vechten v. Elenson, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1289 (S.D. Fla. 2013), citing Kivisto v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC, 413 Fed. Appx. 136, 138 (11th Cir. 2011). Crim v. Manalich, 2010 WL 2757223, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2010). Burns v. Rice, D.C.Fla.1998, 39 F.Supp.2d 1350. Campos v. INS, D.C.Fla.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 1337. A plaintiff may not merely “label” his or her claims to survive a motion to dismiss. DiGiro v. Pall Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1471. Harding v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 907 F.Supp. 386. Ellen S. v. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners, D.C.Fla.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1489.

Georgia Damian v. Montgomery County Bankshares, Inc., 2013 WL 5951960, *3 (N.D. Ga. 2013). Wise v. Heddell, 2010 WL 2688730, *8 (M.D. Ga. 2010). Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., D.C.Ga.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1356.

D.C. Circuit Hettinga v. U.S., 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 2013 WL 57173 (U.S. 2013). In re Interbank Funding Corp. Securities Litigation, 629 F.3d 213, 218 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Taylor v. FDIC, C.A.1997, 132 F.3d 753, 328 U.S.App.D.C. 52.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., C.A.1994, 16 F.3d 1271, 305 U.S.App.D.C. 60. Okusami v. Psychiatric Institute of Washington, Inc., C.A.1992, 959 F.2d 1062, 1069, 295 U.S.App.D.C. 58, citing Wright & Miller. Slinski v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 5422969, *3 (D.D.C. 2013), citing Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Diaby v. Bierman, 795 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2011) (court need not accept as true legal conclusions or inferences unsupported by facts in complaint). G'Sell v. Carven, 724 F. Supp. 2d 101, 106-107 (D.D.C. 2010). Partovi v. Matuszewski, 647 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009). Bostic v. U.S. Capitol Police, 644 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.D.C. 2009). Fraternal Order of Police. v. Gates, 562 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008). Alston v. District of Columbia, 561 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2008) (mem. op.). Singh v. South Asian Soc. of the George Washington Univ., D.C.D.C.2007, 2007 WL 1521050. Hunter v. Corrections Corp. of America, D.C.D.C.2006, 441 F.Supp.2d 78. Rasul v. Rumsfeld, D.C.D.C.2006, 433 F.Supp.2d 58. Mansfield v. Billington, D.C.D.C.2006, 432 F.Supp.2d 64. Rasul v. Rumsfeld, D.C.D.C.2006, 414 F.Supp.2d 26. Zhu v. Gonzales, D.C.D.C.2006, 2006 WL 1274767. Keith v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., D.C.D.C.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 31 (“conclusory allegations”). Kilpatrick v. Riley, D.C.D.C.2000, 98 F.Supp.2d 9. Alexis v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 35. Appleton v. U.S., D.C.D.C.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 83. Shapiro, Lifschitz, & Schram, P.C. v. Hazard, D.C.D.C.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 66. Slaby v. Fairbridge, D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 22. Gillet v. King, D.C.D.C.1996, 931 F.Supp. 9, affirmed C.A.1997, 132 F.3d 1481, 348 U.S.App.D.C. 135. Jackson v. Culinary School of Washington, D.C.D.C.1992, 788 F.Supp. 1233, 1265 n. 35, citing Wright & Miller, remanded on other grounds C.A.1994, 27 F.3d 573, 307 U.S.App.D.C. 123, certiorari granted, vacated on other grounds 1995, 115 S.Ct. 2573, 515 U.S. 1139, 132 L.Ed.2d 824. Legal conclusions are not admitted for purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Donald v. Orfila, D.C.D.C.1985, 618 F.Supp. 645, affirmed on other grounds C.A.1986, 788 F.2d 36, 252 U.S.App.D.C. 134. 23 Unsupported conclusions

First Circuit Dixon v. Shamrock Financial Corp., 522 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2008). In re Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., C.A.1st, 2006, 431 F.3d 36 (court need not credit unsupportable conclusions). Serpa Corp. v. McWane, Inc., C.A.1st, 1999, 199 F.3d 6. LaChapelle v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 142 F.3d 507. A reviewing court need not swallow the plaintiff's invective hook, line, and sinker; bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like need not be credited. Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n, C.A.1st, 1998, 142 F.3d 26. Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 137 F.3d 12. Aulson v. Blanchard, C.A.1st, 1996, 83 F.3d 1. Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation, C.A.1st, 1993, 993 F.2d 962. Ochoa Realty Corp. v. Faria, C.A.1st, 1987, 815 F.2d 812, 814. Colon-Rodriguez v. Astra/Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, 831 F. Supp. 2d 545, 549 (D.P.R. 2011). Jefferson v. Gates, 2010 WL 2927529, *5 (D.R.I. 2010). Nieves–Hernandez v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority, D.C.Puerto Rico 2006, 2006 WL 1704572. Leopoldo Fontanillas, Inc. v. Luis Ayala Colon Sucesores, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 579 (bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, and periphrastic circumlocutions). Rivera de Leon v. Maxon Engineering Servs., Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 550 (bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, and periphrastic circumlocutions).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Torres Ocasio v. Melendez, D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 505 (bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, and periphrastic circumlocutions). Data Research Corp. v. Rey Hernandez, D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 261 F.Supp.2d 61 (bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions). Patterson v. Omnipoint Communications, Inc., D.C.Mass.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 222, affirmed C.A.1st, 2001, 23 Fed.Appx. 17. Varney v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Mass.2000, 118 F.Supp.2d 63. Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Warehouse, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 256 (unsupportable conclusions). Santiago v. Garcia, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 84 (unsupportable conclusions). Llewellyn-Waters v. University of Puerto Rico, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 159. Rosich v. Circus & Circus Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 148. P.L.A.Y., Incorporated v. NIKE, Incorporated, D.C.Mass.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 60 (bald assertions, periphrastic circumlocutions, unsubstantiated conclusions, or outright vituperation). The pleading requirement is not entirely a toothless tiger. A court need not accept bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like. U.S. v. $40,000.00 in U.S. Currency, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 999 F.Supp. 234. A court need not accept a plaintiff's bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like. Lebron v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hosp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 995 F.Supp. 241. Boston Scientific Corp. v. Schneider (Europe) AG, D.C.Mass.1997, 983 F.Supp. 245. Penney v. Town of Middleton, D.C.N.H.1994, 888 F.Supp. 332. Lee v. Life Ins. Co. of No. America, D.C.R.I.1993, 829 F.Supp. 529, affirmed C.A.1st, 1994, 23 F.3d 14. FDIC v. S. Prawer & Co., D.C.Me.1993, 829 F.Supp. 439. Caribe BMW, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, D.C.Puerto Rico 1993, 821 F.Supp. 802, vacated on other grounds C.A.1st, 1994, 19 F.3d 745. Lillios v. Justices of New Hampshire Dist. Ct., D.C.N.H.1990, 735 F.Supp. 43.

Second Circuit Cantor Fitzgerald Inc. v. Lutnick, C.A.2d, 2002, 313 F.3d 704 (no credence given to conclusory allegations). It is not proper to assume that the plaintiff can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the antitrust laws in ways that have not been alleged. George Haug Co. v. Rolls Royce Motor Cars Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 148 F.3d 136. A.J. Sheepskin Leather & Outerwear, Inc. v. USF Insurance Co., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 503727 (conclusory allegations). Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. v. American Rock Salt Co., D.C.N.Y.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 520. Thayer v. Dial Industrial Sales, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 263. Milman v. Box Hill Sys. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 220. Kirkpatrick v. Rays Group, D.C.N.Y.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 204. Commer v. Keller, D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 266. Donohue v. Teamsters Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training & Vacation & Sick Leave Trust Funds, D.C.N.Y.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 273. Honess 52 Corp. v. Town of Fishkill, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 294. Davis v. Goode, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 82. Status Int'l S.A. v. M & D Maritime Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 182 (conclusory allegations unsupported by factual assertions). Yamen v. Board of Educ. of the Arlington Cent. School Dist., D.C.N.Y.1996, 909 F.Supp. 207. Landy v. Mitchell Petroleum Technology Corp., D.C.N.Y.1990, 734 F.Supp. 608.

Third Circuit Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc., 730 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2013). Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013). Kundratic v. Thomas, 407 Fed. Appx. 625, 627 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., C.A.3d, 2000, 232 F.3d 173, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 2000, 532 U.S. 1038, 149 L.Ed.2d 1003. Maio v. Aetna, Inc., C.A.3d, 2000, 221 F.3d 472. City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co., C.A.3d, 1998, 147 F.3d 256. Mitchell v. Cellone, D.C.Pa.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 368.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Krisa v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., D.C.Pa.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 316. Cortes v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 255, citing Wright & Miller. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 550. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. IVAX Corporation, D.C.N.J.2000, 77 F.Supp.2d 606. Oh v. AT & T Corporation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 551. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 498. Prevard v. Fauver, D.C.N.J.1999, 47 F.Supp.2d 539. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 190 F.R.D. 331. In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 189 F.R.D. 117. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Roussel Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 460. Florian Greenhouse, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 521. Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 518. Ramirez v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1998, 998 F.Supp. 425. Compton v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, D.C.Pa.1998, 995 F.Supp. 554. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. RTC v. Farmer, D.C.Pa.1993, 823 F.Supp. 302. Wexco Inc. v. IMC, Incorporated, D.C.Pa.1993, 820 F.Supp. 194. Burns v. Cover Studios, Inc., D.C.Pa.1993, 818 F.Supp. 888. Albert Einstein Medical Center v. National Benefit Fund, D.C.Pa.1989, 740 F.Supp. 343. Berry v. Hamblin, D.C.Pa.1973, 356 F.Supp. 306.

Fourth Circuit Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009) ("unreasonable conclusions"). Yarney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 3075460, *2 (W.D. Va. 2010). Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp., D.C.Md.2003, 249 F.Supp.2d 703. Gray v. Metts, D.C.Md.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 426 (“unsupported legal allegations”). Swedish Civil Aviation Admin. v. Project Management Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 190 F.Supp.2d 785 (“unsupported legal conclusions”). “The court … need not accept unsupported legal allegations, or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events.” Eniola v. Leasecomm Corp., D.C.Md.2002, 2002 WL 1822411, 2 (Chasanow, J.). Volpone v. Caldera, D.C.Va.1999, 190 F.R.D. 177 (unsupported and conclusory allegations). Frontline Test Equip., Inc. v. Greenleaf Software, Inc., D.C.Va.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 583. U.S. v. High Point Chem. Corp., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 770. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, D.C.Md.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 648, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 177 F.3d 245 (conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events). Battles v. Anne Arundel County Bd. of Educ., D.C.Md.1995, 904 F.Supp. 471, affirmed C.A.4th, 1996, 95 F.3d 41.

Fifth Circuit Stanton v. U.S., C.A.5th, 1970, 434 F.2d 1273. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698 (plaintiff must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations). Hutchison v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., D.C.Tex.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 629. Global Marine Shipping (No. 10) Ltd. v. Finning Int'l Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 31246548, quoting Wright & Miller. Meghani v. Shell Oil Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 747. Meador v. Oryx Energy Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 658. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Niro, Inc., D.C.Tex.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 712. Piraino v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tex.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 889. Hazelton v. City of Grand Prairie, Texas, D.C.Tex.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 570. In re Air Bag Prods. Liability Litigation, D.C.La.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 792. Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 423, summary judgment granted in part, denied in part on other grounds D.C.Miss.2001, 2001 WL 1543890. Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., D.C.Tex.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 618.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Matthews v. High Island Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1998, 991 F.Supp. 840. Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 177 F.R.D. 387 (conclusory allegations, as opposed to specific facts). Roventini v. Pasadena Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1013, vacated on other grounds D.C.Tex.1998, 183 F.R.D. 500. Lowery v. Carrier Corp., D.C.Tex.1997, 953 F.Supp. 151. Washington v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Tex.1996, 953 F.Supp. 762. Cook v. Fidelity Invs., D.C.Tex.1995, 908 F.Supp. 438. Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., D.C.Tex.1993, 818 F.Supp. 971, affirmed C.A.5th, 1994, 14 F.3d 1061. Bartley v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.Tex.1992, 824 F.Supp. 624. Webber v. White, D.C.Tex.1976, 422 F.Supp. 416, 429, citing Wright & Miller.

Sixth Circuit Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. Iams Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 107 F.Supp.2d 883, affirmed C.A.6th, 2001, 254 F.3d 607. Doe v. Johnson, D.C.Mich.1993, 817 F.Supp. 1382. Randolph County Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n v. Sutliffe, D.C.Ohio 1991, 775 F.Supp. 1113. Phipps v. Armour, D.C.Tenn.1971, 335 F.Supp. 768.

Seventh Circuit County of McHenry v. Insurance Co. of the West, C.A.7th, 2006, 438 F.3d 813. LeBlang Motors, Ltd. v. Subaru of America, Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 148 F.3d 680. Sneed v. Rybicki, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 478. Fries v. Helsper, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 452, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 337, 525 U.S. 930, 142 L.Ed.2d 278. The plaintiff cannot state a claim by attaching a bare conclusion to the facts he narrates. Kyle v. Morton High School, C.A.7th, 1998, 144 F.3d 448. Tamari v. Bache & Co. (Lebanon) S.A.L., C.A.7th, 1977, 565 F.2d 1194, certiorari denied 98 S.Ct. 1450, 435 U.S. 905, 55 L.Ed.2d 495. Didzerekis v. Stewart, D.C.Ill.1999, 41 F.Supp.2d 840 (court not required to accept unsupported conclusions of law). Morgan v. Ameritech, D.C.Ill.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 1087. Vakharia v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care Centers, D.C.Ill.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1028. Smith v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1998, 992 F.Supp. 1027. Meek v. Springfield Police Dep't, D.C.Ill.1998, 990 F.Supp. 598. McKay v. Town & Country Cadillac, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 991 F.Supp. 966. Vasquez v. Gertler & Gertler, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1997, 987 F.Supp. 652. Naguib v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 1082. Wooten v. Acme Steel Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 524. Balcerzak v. City of Milwaukee, D.C.Wis.1997, 980 F.Supp. 983. Hendrickson v. Gunther-Nash Mining Constr. Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 955 F.Supp. 87. Robinson v. Howell, D.C.Ind.1995, 902 F.Supp. 836, citing Wright & Miller. Booker v. Ward, D.C.Ill.1995, 888 F.Supp. 869. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Gofen & Glossberg, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 713. Landfair v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1106. Taylor v. Anderson, D.C.Ill.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1024. Nunley v. Kloehn, D.C.Wis.1994, 158 F.R.D. 614. Brainerd v. Potratz, D.C.Ill.1976, 421 F.Supp. 836, affirmed without opinion C.A.7th, 1977, 566 F.2d 1177.

Eighth Circuit Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale School Dist., C.A.8th, 1998, 133 F.3d 649 (conclusory allegations). Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, D.C.Iowa 2002, 212 F.Supp.2d 1034, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Phillips Kiln Servs., Ltd. v. International Paper Co., D.C.Iowa 2002, 2002 WL 1712870, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Mercer v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, D.C.Iowa 1999, 79 F.Supp.2d 1055. Terra Indus., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Iowa 1997, 990 F.Supp. 679. Spinks v. City of St. Louis Water Div., D.C.Mo.1997, 176 F.R.D. 572 (conclusory allegations of law). U.S. v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n, D.C.Mo.1966, 263 F.Supp. 340, reversed per curiam on other grounds 1967, 88 S.Ct. 106, 389 U.S. 27, 19 L.Ed.2d 28.

Ninth Circuit Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009) ("unwarranted conclusions"). Pareto v. FDIC, C.A.9th, 1998, 139 F.3d 696. In re Sagent Technology, Inc., Derivative Litigation, D.C.Cal.2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 1079 (“conclusory allegations”). Barapind v. Reno, D.C.Cal.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132. In re Li, D.C.Haw.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1052. Gutierrez v. Givens, D.C.Cal.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1077. City of Merced v. Fields, D.C.Cal.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1326. Gutierrez v. Givens, D.C.Cal.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1033 (conclusory allegations that do not follow from description of facts). Barry v. Ratelle, D.C.Cal.1997, 985 F.Supp. 1235. Unsupported conclusions could not be taken as true on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief. Gomez v. Pima County, D.C.Ariz.1976, 426 F.Supp. 816.

Tenth Circuit Adams v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc., C.A.10th, 2003, 340 F.3d 1083 (“conclusory allegations”). Ruiz v. McDonnell, C.A.10th, 2002, 299 F.3d 1173, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 1908, 538 U.S. 999, 155 L.Ed.2d 826. Witt v. Roadway Express, C.A.10th, 1998, 136 F.3d 1424, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 188, 525 U.S. 881, 142 L.Ed.2d 153, on remand D.C.Kan.2001, 164 F.Supp.2d 1232 (conclusory allegations). State ex rel. Graves v. U.S., D.C.Kan.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 1094, affirmed and remanded on other grounds C.A.10th, 2001, 249 F.3d 1213. Full Draw Productions v. Easton Sports, Inc., D.C.Colo.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1001. Steinert v. Winn Group, Inc., D.C.Kan.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 1234. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1173. Lange v. Showbiz Pizza Time, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1150. Ortega v. Nguyen, D.C.Kan.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1178. Prager v. LaFaver, D.C.Kan.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 906, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 180 F.3d 1185. A court does not accept conclusory allegations as true, but a party's intent or discriminatory animus may be alleged generally. Cordova v. Vaughn Municipal School Dist. Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.M.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 1216. A court may not assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that it has not alleged, or that the defendant has violated laws in ways that the plaintiff has not alleged. Brunetti v. Rubin, D.C.Colo.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1408. Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1312. Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1299. Dickerson v. Leavitt Rentals, D.C.Kan.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1242, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 153 F.3d 726, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 882, 525 U.S. 1110, 142 L.Ed.2d 781. Mills v. Kansas, Eighth Judicial Dist., D.C.Kan.1998, 994 F.Supp. 1356. Shoup v. Higgins Rental Center, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 991 F.Supp. 1265. Mein v. Pool Co. Disabled Int'l Employee Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, Pool Co., D.C.Colo.1998, 989 F.Supp. 1337. Robertson v. Board of County Comm'rs of County of Morgan, D.C.Colo.1997, 985 F.Supp. 980, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 166 F.3d 1222. Morrison v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C., D.C.Colo.1997, 983 F.Supp. 937. A court cannot assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the laws in ways that have not been alleged. Freeman v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., D.C.Kan.1997, 176 F.R.D. 581. Sportsmen's Wildlife Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of the Interior, D.C.Colo.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1510. Lyman v. Nabil's Inc., D.C.Kan.1995, 903 F.Supp. 1443. In re Longhorn Secs. Litigation, D.C.Okl.1983, 573 F.Supp. 255.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Eleventh Circuit Gonzalez v. Reno, C.A.11th, 2003, 325 F.3d 1228. Oxford Asset Management, Ltd. v. Jaharis, C.A.11th, 2002, 297 F.3d 1182. Gomer ex rel. Gomer v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ala.2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 1262 (unsupported legal conclusions). Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 876. U.S. v. Air Florida, Inc., D.C.Fla.1982, 534 F.Supp. 17, 20, citing Wright & Miller.

D.C. Circuit Browning v. Clinton, C.A.2002, 292 F.3d 235, 352 U.S.App.D.C. 4. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 522. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 515. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 507. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 21. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 16. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 10. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 2. 24 Unwarranted inferences Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc., 730 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2013). Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013). U.S. ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc., 707 F.3d 451, 455 (4th Cir. 2013). Severe Records, LLC v. Rich, 658 F.3d 571, 578 (6th Cir. 2011) ("unwarranted factual inferences"). Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 850 (2011). Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 643 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Katyle v. Penn Nat. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 466 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 115, 181 L. Ed. 2d 39 (2011) (court need not credit unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments drawn from facts in complaint). Simmons v. United Mortg. and Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 768 (4th Cir. 2011). Masterson v. Ihara, 442 Fed. Appx. 849 (4th Cir. 2011) (neither unwarranted inferences nor unreasonable conclusions or arguments need be taken as true) (for citation rules see Fourth Circuit Rule 36(c)). Kundratic v. Thomas, 407 Fed. Appx. 625, 627 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009). Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009). Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009). Zaluski v. United American Healthcare Corp., 527 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2008). J & R Marketing, SEP v. General Motors Corp., 519 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2008). Thomas v. New Mexico Corrections Dept., 272 Fed. Appx. 727 (10th Cir. 2008). Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp., C.A.1st, 2006, 447 F.3d 324 (opinion withdrawn, rehearing granted). Montgomery v. Huntington Bank & Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc., C.A.6th, 2003, 346 F.3d 693 (unwarranted factual inferences). Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Gean v. Hattaway, C.A.6th, 2003, 330 F.3d 758. In re K-tel Int'l, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.8th, 2002, 300 F.3d 881. Thomas v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., C.A.6th, 2002, 29 Fed.Appx. 319. Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., C.A.3d, 2000, 232 F.3d 173, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 2000, 532 U.S. 1038, 149 L.Ed.2d 1003. National Ass'n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Bd. of Psychology, C.A.9th, 2000, 228 F.3d 1043, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 1602, 532 U.S. 972, 149 L.Ed.2d 469. Maio v. Aetna, Inc., C.A.3d, 2000, 221 F.3d 472. Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates Ltd. Partnership, C.A.4th, 2000, 213 F.3d 175, citing Wright & Miller. Claybrook v. Birchwell, C.A.6th, 2000, 199 F.3d 350, appeal after remand C.A.6th, 2001, 274 F.3d 1098 (unwarranted factual inferences).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California, C.A.9th, 1998, 159 F.3d 1178. City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co., C.A.3d, 1998, 147 F.3d 256. Pareto v. FDIC, C.A.9th, 1998, 139 F.3d 696. Bradley v. Chiron Corp., C.A.Fed., 1998, 136 F.3d 1317, citing Wright & Miller. In re VeriFone Secs. Litigation, C.A.9th, 1993, 11 F.3d 865. Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., C.A.8th, 1968, 402 F.2d 968, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 2096, 395 U.S. 961, 23 L.Ed.2d 748. Ryan v. Scoggin, C.A.10th, 1957, 245 F.2d 54. Ogden River Water Users' Ass'n v. Weber Basin Water Conservancy, C.A.10th, 1956, 238 F.2d 936. Ashland Hosp. Corp. v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers Local 575, 807 F. Supp. 2d 633, 638 (E.D. Ky. 2011) ("unwarranted factual inferences"). Hufford v. Bank United, FSB, 2011 WL 4985920, *2 (D. Md. 2011) ("unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions or arguments"), quoting Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009). Adler v. Anchor Funding Services, LLC, 2011 WL 1843226, *2 (W.D. N.C. 2011) ("'unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments'"), quoting Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates Ltd. Partnership, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). Baker v. County of Missaukee, 2011 WL 1670953, *2 (W.D. Mich. 2011) ("unwarranted factual inferences"). Basnight v. Potter, 2011 WL 1366376 (E.D. N.C. 2011). "This Court also declines to consider 'unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.'" Wheeling Hosp., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Health Services and Educ. Corp., 2010 WL 4977987 (N.D. W. Va. 2010), quoting Wahi v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 615 n.26 (4th Cir. 2009). Zepeda v. Tate, 2010 WL 4977596, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010), quoting Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2001) ("conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences"). Yarney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 3075460, *2 (W.D. Va. 2010). Morris Aviation, LLC v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., 2010 WL 2961183, *9 (W.D. Ky. 2010). Kingsburg Apple Packers, Inc. v. Ballantine Produce Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2817056, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Logue v. West Penn Multi-List, Inc., 2010 WL 2720787, *2 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Williams v. Rickard, 2010 WL 2640102, *3 (D. Haw. 2010) ("However, conclusory allegations of law, unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss."). Bilyeu v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 2010 WL 2595129, *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). "But, the Court is not required 'to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.’” Young v. City of Visalia, 2009 WL 2567847, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009), quoting In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation, 536 F.3d 1049, 1056–1057 (9th Cir. 2008). Alexander v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, 2008 WL 2397300 (S.D. Ohio 2008) In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, 2008 WL 2368212 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) (mem. op.). Martinez v. Warner, 2008 WL 2331957 (E.D. Pa. 2008). Mosher v. New Jersey, D.C.N.J.2007, 2007 WL 1101230. “The Court, however, is not obligated to draw an inference that is not supported by the facts presented.” Burnett v. Sharma, D.C.D.C.2007, 2007 WL 1020782, *9. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Nicholson, D.C.Wis.2006, 448 F.Supp.2d 1028. Flagg v. Detroit, D.C.Mich.2006, 447 F.Supp.2d 824. Whitesell v. Town of Morrisville, D.C.N.C.2006, 446 F.Supp.2d 419. Freightliner of Knoxville, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Vans, LLC, D.C.Tenn.2006, 438 F.Supp.2d 869. Mansfield v. Billington, D.C.D.C.2006, 432 F.Supp.2d 64 (inferences unwarranted by the facts set out). Rasul v. Rumsfeld, D.C.D.C.2006, 414 F.Supp.2d 26. Onawola v. Johns Hopkins Univ., D.C.Md.2006, 412 F.Supp.2d 529, citing Wright & Miller. Hilton v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 1307900. Wilson v. Board of Trustees of Community College of Baltimore County, D.C.Md.2004, 333 F.Supp.2d 392, citing Wright & Miller. Mitchell v. Cellone, D.C.Pa.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 368. Keith v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., D.C.D.C.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 31 (unsupported inferences). Aldridge v. U.S., D.C.Tenn.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 802 (“unwarranted factual inferences”).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

In re Sagent Technology, Inc., Derivative Litigation, D.C.Cal.2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 1079. Foley v. Marquez, D.C.Cal.2003, 2003 WL 22288160 (“unreasonable inferences”). Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, D.C.Iowa 2002, 212 F.Supp.2d 1034, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., D.C.Cal.2002, 194 F.Supp.2d 1040, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds and remanded C.A.9th, 2003, 349 F.3d 1191 (“unreasonable inferences”). Schultzen v. Woodbury Cent. Community School Dist., D.C.Iowa 2002, 187 F.Supp.2d 1099. Global Marine Shipping (No. 10) Ltd. v. Finning Int'l Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 31246548, quoting Wright & Miller. Phillips Kiln Servs., Ltd. v. International Paper Co., D.C.Iowa 2002, 2002 WL 1712870, citing Wright & Miller. Iowa Health Sys. v. Trinity Health Corp., D.C.Iowa 2001, 177 F.Supp.2d 897, citing Wright & Miller. Small v. Strain, D.C.La.2001, 2001 WL 1631341, citing Wright & Miller (unpublished). Cortes v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 255, citing Wright & Miller. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 550. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. IVAX Corporation, D.C.N.J.2000, 77 F.Supp.2d 606. State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, D.C.Haw.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 1111. Oh v. AT & T Corporation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 551. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 539. Barapind v. Reno, D.C.Cal.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132 (unreasonable inferences). FTC v. Commonwealth Marketing Group, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 530. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 498. American Special Risk Ins. Co. ex rel. So. Macomb Disposal Authority v. City of Centerline, D.C.Mich.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 944. Akella v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, D.C.Mich.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 716. Culberson v. Doan, D.C.Ohio 1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 701. Cauchi v. Brown, D.C.Cal.1999, 51 F.Supp.2d 1014. Prevard v. Fauver, D.C.N.J.1999, 47 F.Supp.2d 539. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 943. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 35 F.Supp.2d 597. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 190 F.R.D. 331. In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 189 F.R.D. 117. Campos v. INS, D.C.Fla.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 1337. Tennessee Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of Putnam County, Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 808. Miceli v. Ansell, Inc., D.C.Ind.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 929 (court need not strain to find inferences favorable to pleader). Organic Chems. Site PRP Group v. Total Petroleum, Inc., D.C.Mich.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 660. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 31. Slaby v. Fairbridge, D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 22. Spivey v. Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1998, 999 F.Supp. 987. Ramirez v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1998, 998 F.Supp. 425. Petrone v. Cleveland State Univ., D.C.Ohio 1998, 993 F.Supp. 1119. It is improper to assume that the plaintiff can prove facts that it has not alleged. Mruz v. Caring, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 991 F.Supp. 701. U.S. ex rel. Roby v. Boeing Co., D.C.Ohio 1998, 184 F.R.D. 107. Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 177 F.R.D. 387. Diaz v. Carlson, D.C.Cal.1997, 5 F.Supp.2d 809, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 142 F.3d 443 (unreasonable inferences). Amway Distributors Benefits Ass'n v. Federal Ins. Co., D.C.Mich.1997, 990 F.Supp. 936. Terra Indus., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Iowa 1997, 990 F.Supp. 679. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. Fox v. Van Oosterum, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 597, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 176 F.3d 342. Leslie v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1997, 986 F.Supp. 900 (facts not alleged). Spinks v. City of St. Louis Water Div., D.C.Mo.1997, 176 F.R.D. 572. Burks v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1995, 904 F.Supp. 421. Steiner v. Hale, D.C.Cal.1994, 868 F.Supp. 284.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Violanti v. Emery Worldwide A-CF Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1251, 1255 (“Conclusory allegations of law, unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences need not be accepted as true.”) (McClure, J.). Waye v. First Citizen's Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1994, 846 F.Supp. 310. Gen-Probe Inc. v. Center For Neurologic Study, D.C.Cal.1993, 853 F.Supp. 1215. Mackey v. Cleveland State Univ., D.C.Ohio 1993, 837 F.Supp. 1396. City of Heath, Ohio v. Ashland Oil, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1993, 834 F.Supp. 971. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc., D.C.Md.1992, 808 F.Supp. 446, citing Wright & Miller. 25 Unwarranted deductions Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC, 733 F.3d 1251, 1254 (9th Cir. 2013). Modelist v. Miller, 445 Fed. Appx. 737 (5th Cir. 2011) ("conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions or legal conclusions"), quoting Southland Securities Corp. v. INSpire Ins. Solutions, Inc., 365 F.3d 353, 361 (5th Cir. 2004) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (court need not accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences"). Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009). U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc., C.A.5th, 2003, 336 F.3d 375. Oxford Asset Management, Ltd. v. Jaharis, C.A.11th, 2002, 297 F.3d 1182. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, C.A.9th, 2000, 231 F.3d 520. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 496. Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., C.A.5th, 1994, 14 F.3d 1061. Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., C.A.8th, 1968, 402 F.2d 968, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 2096, 395 U.S. 961, 23 L.Ed.2d 748. Levy v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 WL 2493055, *1 (D. Haw. 2011) ("conclusory allegations of law, unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences"). T Moore Services, LLC v. Rentrop Tugs Inc., 2011 WL 976738, *2 (W.D. La. 2011) ("[c]onclusory allegations and unwarranted deductions of fact"). Wheeler v. Terrible Herbst, 2010 WL 4983302, *2 (D. Nev. 2010) ("allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences"). Galada v. Gatson-Riley, 2010 WL 3120069, *3 (S.D. Miss. 2010). Williams v. Rickard, 2010 WL 2640102, *3 (D. Haw. 2010) ("However, conclusory allegations of law, unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss."). GMAC Inc. v. Wiggins, 2010 WL 597972, *1 (M.D. Ga. 2010) ("Indeed, 'conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual deductions or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.'"), quoting Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003). Young v. City of Visalia, 2009 WL 2567847 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Kennard v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., D.C.Tex.2006, 420 F.Supp.2d 601. Schultz v. Braga, D.C.Md.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 637. Foley v. Marquez, D.C.Cal.2003, 2003 WL 22288160. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698. Hutchison v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., D.C.Tex.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 629. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., D.C.Cal.2002, 194 F.Supp.2d 1040, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds and remanded C.A.9th, 2003, 349 F.3d 1191. Guerrero v. Gates, D.C.Cal.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 1287. Migliori v. Boeing No. American, Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 1001. Cortes v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 255, citing Wright & Miller. Thayer v. Dial Industrial Sales, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 263. Piraino v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tex.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 889. Pesci v. IRS, D.C.Nev.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 1189, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 225 F.3d 663. Addison v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Miss.1999, 58 F.Supp.2d 729. U.S. v. Crisp, D.C.Cal.1999, 190 F.R.D. 546. Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.S.C.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 487.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 242. Lowery v. Carrier Corp., D.C.Tex.1997, 953 F.Supp. 151. Washington v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Tex.1996, 953 F.Supp. 762. Murphy v. Cadillac Rubber & Plastics, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1108. Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S.A. Glas, Inc., D.C.Tex.1996, 940 F.Supp. 1026. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1995, 910 F.Supp. 609. Cohen v. Litt, D.C.N.Y.1995, 906 F.Supp. 957. Falik v. Parker Duryee Rosoff & Haft, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 228. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1388. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1492, 1495 reversed on other grounds C.A.9th, 1996, 76 F.3d 259 (court need not accept as true “conclusory allegations,” “unreasonable inferences or unwarranted deductions of fact”). FDIC v. Harrington, D.C.Tex.1994, 844 F.Supp. 300. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1994, 155 F.R.D. 215. A court must convert if it considers supplemental material filed subsequently to the complaint. Kaufmann v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1993, 840 F.Supp. 641. Wilkerson v. U.S., D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 440. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1158, 1160 (“Conclusory allegations and unwarranted deductions of fact are not accepted as true.”) (Kovachevich, J.). Gersten v. Rundle, D.C.Fla.1993, 833 F.Supp. 906. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1503, affirmed C.A.9th, 1993, 10 F.3d 667. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, D.C.Cal.1977, 429 F.Supp. 407. International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180. Herman v. C.O. Porter Mach. Co., D.C.Pa.1971, 333 F.Supp. 416. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, D.C.Ill.1969, 310 F.Supp. 1398, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1970, 435 F.2d 267, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 1383, 402 U.S. 909, 28 L.Ed.2d 650. Sinchak v. Parente, D.C.Pa.1966, 262 F.Supp. 79. 26 Footless conclusions Ryan v. Scoggin, C.A.10th, 1957, 245 F.2d 54. Young v. City of Visalia, 2009 WL 2567847 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Kell v. American Capital Strategies, Ltd., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 156. Davis v. Dillard Nat. Bank, D.C.N.C.2003, 2003 WL 21297331. Cortes v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 255, citing Wright & Miller. Graham v. Prudential Home Mortgage Co., D.C.Kan.1999, 186 F.R.D. 651. 26.5 Mere conclusory statements Dejesus v. HF Management Services, LLC, 726 F.3d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 2014 WL 102456 (U.S. 2014), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1940, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). 27 Form of factual allegation Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1583, 181 L.Ed.2d 172 (2012) (conclusory and bare allegations are not well-pleaded and thus not entitled to presumption of truth). Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko v. Bell Atl. Corp., C.A.2d, 2002, 294 F.3d 307 quoting Wright & Miller (Sack, J., concurring and dissenting), amended and superseded on other grounds C.A.2d, 2002, 305 F.3d 89, reversed on other grounds 2004, 124 S.Ct. 872, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 823. Jackson v. City of Columbus, C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737 (summary allegations). Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., C.A.1st, 1996, 103 F.3d 186. Nelson v. Monroe Regional Medical Center, C.A.7th, 1991, 925 F.2d 1555, 1559, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 285, 502 U.S. 903, 116 L.Ed.2d 236.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Blackburn v. Fisk Univ., C.A.6th, 1971, 443 F.2d 121. Pauling v. McElroy, C.A.1960, 278 F.2d 252, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 372, certiorari denied 81 S.Ct. 61, 364 U.S. 835, 5 L.Ed.2d 60. Matheson v. Virgin Islands Community Bank, Corp., D.C.Virgin Islands 2003, 297 F.Supp.2d 819. Mitchell v. Cellone, D.C.Pa.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 368. DeNune v. Consolidated Capital of No. America, Inc., D.C.Ohio 2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 844. U.S. ex rel. Harris v. Bernad, D.C.D.C.2003, 275 F.Supp.2d 1. Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp., D.C.Md.2003, 249 F.Supp.2d 703 (legal conclusions couched as conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events). Foley v. Marquez, D.C.Cal.2003, 2003 WL 22288160 (“conclusory legal allegations case in the form of factual allegations”). Miller v. Pacific Shore Funding, D.C.Md.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 977, affirmed C.A.4th, 2004, 92 Fed.Appx. 933 (“a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”). Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, D.C.Iowa 2002, 212 F.Supp.2d 1034, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., D.C.Cal.2002, 194 F.Supp.2d 1040, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds and remanded C.A.9th, 2003, 349 F.3d 1191. Global Marine Shipping (No. 10) Ltd. v. Finning Int'l Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 31246548. Phillips Kiln Servs., Ltd. v. International Paper Co., D.C.Iowa 2002, 2002 WL 1712870, citing Wright & Miller. Small v. Strain, D.C.La.2001, 2001 WL 1631341, citing Wright & Miller (unpublished). Munger v. U.S., D.C.Md.2000, 116 F.Supp.2d 672. Thelen v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Md.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 688. In re Milestone Scientific Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 425. Constar, Inc. v. National Distribution Centers, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 319. M.K. v. Tenet, D.C.D.C.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 12. Migliori v. Boeing No. American, Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 1001. Gebhardt v. Allspect, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 331. Cortes v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 255, citing Wright & Miller. In re American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 424. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 550. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Niro, Inc., D.C.Tex.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 712. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. IVAX Corporation, D.C.N.J.2000, 77 F.Supp.2d 606. Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. Iams Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 107 F.Supp.2d 883, affirmed C.A.6th, 2001, 254 F.3d 607. Parrish v. HBO & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 85 F.Supp.2d 792. Oh v. AT & T Corporation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 551. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 539. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 498. In re Li, D.C.Haw.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1052. HQM, Limited v. Hatfield, D.C.Md.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 500 (legal conclusions couched as factual allegations). Prevard v. Fauver, D.C.N.J.1999, 47 F.Supp.2d 539. York v. Huerta-Garcia, D.C.Cal.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 1231 (court will not accept legal conclusions cast as factual allegations). In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 190 F.R.D. 331. In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 189 F.R.D. 117. Hollar v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ohio 1998, 43 F.Supp.2d 794. Pegasus Holdings v. Veterinary Centers of America, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 38 F.Supp.2d 1158. EP Medsystems, Inc. v. Echocath, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 726, reversed on other grounds C.A.3d, 2000, 235 F.3d 865. In re MobileMedia Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 901. Shapiro, Lifschitz, & Schram, P.C. v. R.E. Hazard, Jr., D.C.D.C.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 66 (deductions couched as factual allegations not presumed true). Films of Distinction, Inc. v. Allegro Film Productions, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1068. Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1035. Florian Greenhouse, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 521.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

United Mine Workers of America v. Utah, D.C.Utah 1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1298, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.10th, 2000, 229 F.3d 982. Carter v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 386, citing Wright & Miller. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 31. In re Stratosphere Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Nev.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1096. Christian Memorial Cultural Center, Inc. v. Michigan Funeral Directors Ass'n, D.C.Mich.1998, 998 F.Supp. 772. Bender v. Suburban Hosp., D.C.Md.1998, 998 F.Supp. 631, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 159 F.3d 186. Ramirez v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1998, 998 F.Supp. 425. Petrone v. Cleveland State Univ., D.C.Ohio 1998, 993 F.Supp. 1119. Teamsters Local 372, Detroit Mailers Union Local 2040 v. Detroit Newspapers, D.C.Mich.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1052. Mruz v. Caring, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 991 F.Supp. 701. Diaz v. Carlson, D.C.Cal.1997, 5 F.Supp.2d 809, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 142 F.3d 443, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 225, 525 U.S. 898, 142 L.Ed.2d 185. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. Bordas v. Washtenaw County, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 979. Goins v. Ajax Metal Processing, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1057. Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1303. Meek v. County of Riverside, D.C.Cal.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1410, affirmed in part, dismissed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 183 F.3d 962, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 499, 528 U.S. 1005, 145 L.Ed.2d 386. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 522. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 515. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 507. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 21. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 16. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 10. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 2. TWC Cable Partners v. Cableworks, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 966 F.Supp. 305. Government Guarantee Fund of the Republic of Finland v. Hyatt Corp., D.C.Virgin Islands 1997, 955 F.Supp. 441. National Coalition Gov. of Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 176 F.R.D. 329. Yanacos v. Lake County, Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1996, 953 F.Supp. 187. Murphy v. Cadillac Rubber & Plastics, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1108. Legal conclusions masquerading as factual allegations are not accepted for Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 876. Howard v. Town of Jonesville, D.C.La.1996, 935 F.Supp. 855. Crawford v. American Institute of Professional Careers, Inc., D.C.Ariz.1996, 934 F.Supp. 335. Bureerong v. Uvawas, D.C.Cal.1996, 922 F.Supp. 1450. Dogloo, Inc. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, D.C.Cal.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1383. Cardwell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.S.C.1993, 821 F.Supp. 406. Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n, Inc., D.C.Nev.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1366. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union Welfare Fund v. Gentner, D.C.Nev.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1354, affirmed C.A.9th, 1995, 50 F.3d 719. Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., D.C.N.J.1992, 820 F.Supp. 834. Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., D.C.N.J.1992, 809 F.Supp. 1172. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Co., D.C.Ga.1972, 338 F.Supp. 1039, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1973, 476 F.2d 142. Stewart v. Hevelone, D.C.Neb.1968, 283 F.Supp. 842. In re Natale, Bkrtcy.D.C.N.Y.1992, 136 B.R. 344, 348, citing Wright & Miller.

See also Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., C.A.5th, 2003, 339 F.3d 359, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 1173, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 1206 (conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc., C.A.5th, 2003, 336 F.3d 375 (conclusory allegations). In re Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.3d, 2002, 311 F.3d 198 (legal conclusions draped in guise of factual allegations may not benefit from presumption of truthfulness). Oxford Asset Management, Ltd. v. Jaharis, C.A.11th, 2002, 297 F.3d 1182 (legal conclusions masquerading as facts). Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., C.A.5th, 2002, 296 F.3d 376, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 1287, 537 U.S. 1200, 154 L.Ed.2d 1041 (conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions). Russell v. Choicepoint Servs., Inc., D.C.La.2004, 302 F.Supp.2d 654 (“legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions”). Miller v. Continental Airlines, D.C.Cal.2003, 260 F.Supp.2d 931. In re Capstead Mortgage Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Tex.2003, 258 F.Supp.2d 533 (conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice). Bowens v. Aftermath Entertainment, D.C.Mich.2003, 254 F.Supp.2d 629 (no presumption of truthfulness to any legal conclusion, opinion, or deduction, even if it is couched as factual allegation). Gathright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., D.C.Ga.2003, 2003 WL 1964799 (legal conclusions masquerading as facts), citing Oxford Asset Management v. Jaharis, C.A.11th, 2002, 297 F.3d 1182. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698 (conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions). Gray v. Metts, D.C.Md.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 426 (“conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events”). Swedish Civil Aviation Admin. v. Project Management Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 190 F.Supp.2d 785 (“legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events”). Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196 (“conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions”). Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 423, summary judgment granted in part, denied in part on other grounds D.C.Miss.2001, 2001 WL 1543890 (legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions). Matthews v. High Island Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1998, 991 F.Supp. 840 (legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions). 28 Code pleading Walker Distrib. Co. v. Lucky Lager Brewing Co., C.A.9th, 1963, 323 F.2d 1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 507, 385 U.S. 976, 17 L.Ed.2d 438. 29 Bald statement While the plaintiff need not state a prima facie case in his or her complaint, "no plaintiff is exempt from her obligation to 'allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of her claim.’” Puente v. Ridge, 324 Fed. Appx. 423, 428 (5th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4), quoting Mitchell v. Crescent River Port Pilots Ass'n, 265 Fed. Appx. 363, 370 (5th Cir. 2008). U.S. ex rel. Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., C.A.1st, 2004, 360 F.3d 220. In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., C.A.1st, 2003, 324 F.3d 12 (bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, and opprobrious epithets woven into fabric of complaint). In re Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.3d, 2002, 311 F.3d 198 (bald assertions). Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., C.A.1st, 2002, 310 F.3d 13 (no weight given to bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, and opprobrious epithets). Krantz v. Prudential Invs. Fund Management LLC, C.A.3d, 2002, 305 F.3d 140, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 928, 537 U.S. 1113, 154 L.Ed.2d 787. Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of So. Africa, C.A.2d, 2002, 300 F.3d 230 (“bald assertions” of harm not enough to defeat Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Tarshis v. Riese Organization, C.A.2d, 2000, 211 F.3d 30. Abbott v. U.S., C.A.1st, 1998, 144 F.3d 1. LaChapelle v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 142 F.3d 507. A reviewing court need not swallow the plaintiff's invective hook, line, and sinker; bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like need not be credited. Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n, C.A.1st, 1998, 142 F.3d 26. Cooper v. Parsky, C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 433, on remand D.C.N.Y.2000, 2000 WL 1277593 (bald assertions).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 137 F.3d 12 (bald assertions). Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., C.A.3d, 1997, 132 F.3d 902, citing Wright & Miller. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., C.A.1st, 1996, 103 F.3d 186. RTC v. Driscoll, C.A.1st, 1993, 985 F.2d 44, 48 (dismissing action since, after two years of litigation, complaint still lacks “a single, coherent, specific description” of wrongdoing by defendant). Colle v. Brazos County, Texas, C.A.5th, 1993, 981 F.2d 237. The lower court properly dismissed a civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim for relief when the complaint contained a series of broad conclusory statements and contained no reference to individual defendants other than in the title to the action. Jackson v. Nelson, C.A.9th, 1968, 405 F.2d 872. “No claim for relief is stated if the complaint pleads facts insufficient to show that a legal wrong has been committed, or omits an averment necessary to establish the wrong or fails so to link the parties with the wrong as to entitle the plaintiff to redress.” Sutton v. Eastern Viavi Co., C.A.7th, 1943, 138 F.2d 959, 960 (Lindley, J.). "The admonishment to construe the plaintiff's claim liberally when evaluating a motion to dismiss does not relieve a plaintiff of his obligation to satisfy federal notice pleading requirements and allege more than bare assertions of legal conclusions." Waldon v. Cincinnati Public Schools, 941 F. Supp. 2d 884, 887 (S.D. Ohio 2013), citing Wright & Miller. Crown Coal & Coke Co. v. Powhatan Mid-Vol Coal Sales, L.L.C., 929 F. Supp. 2d 460, 460 (W.D. Pa. 2013), quoting Wright & Miller. Logue v. West Penn Multi-List, Inc., 2010 WL 2720787, *2 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Scott v. Town of Monroe, D.C.Conn.2004, 306 F.Supp.2d 191. Copeland v. Home & Community Health Servs., D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 144 (bald assertions and conclusions of law will not suffice). DeRay v. Larson, D.C.Conn.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 706 (bald assertions and conclusions of law will not suffice to state claim). Bowens v. Aftermath Entertainment, D.C.Mich.2003, 254 F.Supp.2d 629 (although pleading standard is liberal, bald assertions and conclusions of law will not enable complaint to survive). Baskerville v. Blot, D.C.N.Y.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 723. Viera-Marcano v. Ramirez-Sanchez, D.C.Puerto Rico 2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 397. Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196. Bellis v. Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 193149 (unpublished). Gonzalez v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs. Fishkill Correctional Facility, D.C.N.Y.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 335. Patterson v. Omnipoint Communications, Inc., D.C.Mass.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 222, affirmed C.A.1st, 2001, 23 Fed.Appx. 17. Varney v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Mass.2000, 118 F.Supp.2d 63. Cruz Aviles v. Bella Vista Hosp., Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 200. Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark County Solid Waste Management Dist., D.C.Ohio 1999, 110 F.Supp.2d 627. Llewellyn-Waters v. University of Puerto Rico, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 159. Holder v. Ivanjack, A.D.S., D.C.Ill.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 965. Feighery v. York Hosp., D.C.Me.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 142. Ocean Logistics Management, Inc. v. NPR, Incorporated, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 77 (court not to accept bald assertions or unsupportable conclusions). Hollar v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ohio 1998, 43 F.Supp.2d 794. Township of West Orange v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 408. DM Research, Inc. v. College of American Pathologists, D.C.R.I.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 226, affirmed C.A.1st, 1999, 170 F.3d 53 (bald assertions, subjective characterizations, and legal conclusions). P.L.A.Y., Incorporated v. NIKE, Incorporated, D.C.Mass.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 60 (bald assertions, periphrastic circumlocutions, unsubstantiated conclusions, or outright vituperation). The pleading requirement is not entirely a toothless tiger. A court need not accept bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like. U.S. v. $40,000.00 in U.S. Currency, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 999 F.Supp. 234. A plaintiff cannot rely on bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, and opprobrious epithets. Barron v. U.S., D.C.N.H.1998, 998 F.Supp. 117.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Individual allegations that are so baldly conclusory that they fail to give notice of the basic events and circumstances of which the plaintiff complains are meaningless as a practical matter and, as a matter of law, insufficient to state a claim. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 340. When the allegations are so baldly conclusory that they fail to give notice of the basic events and circumstances of which the plaintiff complains, they are meaningless as a practical matter and legally insufficient to state a claim. Parisi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 298, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 38. A court need not accept a plaintiff's bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like. Lebron v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hosp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 995 F.Supp. 241. Individual allegations that are so baldly conclusory that they fail to give notice of the basic events and circumstances of which the plaintiff complains are meaningless as a practical matter and, as a matter of law, insufficient to state a claim. Stordeur v. Computer Associates Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 94. McNight v. Dormitory Authority of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 70. National Ass'n of College Bookstores, Inc. v. Cambridge Univ. Press, D.C.N.Y.1997, 990 F.Supp. 245 (bald assertions). Pearson v. Miller, D.C.Pa.1997, 988 F.Supp. 848 (bald assertions). Naguib v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 1082. Doe by Hickey v. Jefferson County, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 66. Harary v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 95. Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Florida, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1455. Saunders v. Hunter, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1236. The court cannot assume that the plaintiff can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the laws in ways that have not been alleged. Whayne v. Kansas, D.C.Kan.1997, 980 F.Supp. 387. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff may not merely ‘label’ his or her claims.” Dr. Fred Hatfield's Sportstrength Training Equip. Co. v. Balik, D.C.Fla.1997, 174 F.R.D. 496, 497. Kmart Corp. v. Rivera-Alejandro Architects & Engineers, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 174 F.R.D. 242. DeLaurentis v. Job Shop Technical Servs., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 912 F.Supp. 57 (“baldly conclusory statements”). Houston v. Mile High Adventist Academy, D.C.Colo.1994, 872 F.Supp. 829 (complaint dismissed because general allegations were not supported by essential facts). Moscowitz v. Brown, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1185, 1190 (“Baldly conclusory statements that fail to give notice of the basic events of which the plaintiff complains need not be credited by the court.”) (Preska, J.). Wag-Aero, Inc. v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1479, 1483, affirmed C.A.7th, 1994, 35 F.3d 569 (“A plaintiff may not avoid dismissal, however, simply by attaching bare legal conclusions to narrated facts which fail to outline the basis of its claims.”) (Curran, J.). In civil rights cases, more than conclusory allegations are needed to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. L.S.T. Incorporated v. Crow, D.C.Fla.1993, 834 F.Supp. 1355, reversed on other grounds C.A.11th, 1995, 49 F.3d 679. Tacker v. Wilson, D.C.Tenn.1993, 830 F.Supp. 422 (conclusory, confusing, and repetitive complaint survives Rule 12(b)(6) motion because complaint alleges antitrust conspiracy the facts of which allegedly have been withheld deliberately from him). Cardwell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.S.C.1993, 821 F.Supp. 406. “A bold assertion that Plaintiffs would have been treated differently had they been white is hardly a sufficient basis for alleging that they had been denied equal protection.” Barrett v. City Of Allentown, D.C.Pa.1993, 152 F.R.D. 50, 54 (Huyett, J.). Askanase v. Fatjo, D.C.Tex.1993, 148 F.R.D. 570, 573 (bare allegations are insufficient; the pleading must indicate “the operative facts upon which the pleader bases his claim”). Heideman v. Wirsing, D.C.Wis.1992, 840 F.Supp. 1285, affirmed C.A.7th, 1993, 7 F.3d 659 (dismissing claim because it made only bare allegations of conspiracy). McCrum v. Elkhart County Dep't of Public Welfare, D.C.Ind.1992, 806 F.Supp. 203 (“bare legal conclusions attached to narrated facts will not suffice”). Johnson v. KSIR Principal Administrator & Staff, D.C.Kan.1992, 804 F.Supp. 173 (inmate's broad assertion of racial discrimination failed to specify what acts or omissions give rise to the claim). Church of Scientology Int'l v. Eli Lilly & Co., D.C.N.Y.1991, 778 F.Supp. 661, 665, citing Wright & Miller. Fickling v. Commonwealth of Australia, D.C.N.Y.1991, 775 F.Supp. 66. In re U.S. Shoe Corp. Litigation, D.C.Ohio 1989, 718 F.Supp. 643, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Rosales v. AT & T Information Sys., Inc., D.C.Colo.1988, 702 F.Supp. 1489 (without facts supporting claim that fiduciary duty existed; mere allegation could not withstand Rule 12(b)(6) motion). “[M]ore detail often is required than the bold statement by plaintiff that he has a valid claim of some type against defendant.” Davis v. City of Portsmouth, Virginia, D.C.Va.1983, 579 F.Supp. 1205, 1210, citing Wright & Miller (Kellam, J.). Boynton v. Casey, D.C.Me.1982, 543 F.Supp. 995, 1002, citing Wright & Miller. Thurston v. Setab Computer Institute, D.C.N.Y.1969, 48 F.R.D. 134. A general allegation of conspiracy without a statement of the facts constituting that conspiracy is only an allegation of a legal conclusion and is insufficient to constitute a claim for relief. Stewart v. Hevelone, D.C.Neb.1968, 283 F.Supp. 842. In holding that the complaint failed to state a civil rights claim under Section 1985(3), Judge Will stated that “although pleadings are given a liberal construction in the federal courts, the Rules contemplate some factual statement in support of the claim. General allegations of this kind unsupported by any factual statements have usually been rejected as insufficient.” Huey v. Barloga, D.C.Ill.1967, 277 F.Supp. 864, 871. L.S. Good & Co. v. H. Daroff & Sons, Inc., D.C.W.Va.1967, 263 F.Supp. 635. Sinchak v. Parente, D.C.Pa.1966, 262 F.Supp. 79.

See also In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a plaintiff must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations. Global Marine Shipping (No. 10) Ltd. v. Finning Int'l Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 31246548. Sticklen v. Kittle, 1981, 287 S.E.2d 148, 158 n. 12, 168 W.Va. 147, quoting Wright & Miller. Willging, The Use of Rule 12(b)(6) in Two Federal District Courts (Federal Judicial Center, 1989). 30 Reasonably drawn conclusions

First Circuit Maldonado v. Dominguez, C.A.1st, 1998, 137 F.3d 1. Salois v. Dime Savs. Bank of New York, C.A.1st, 1997, 128 F.3d 20. Wagner v. Devine, C.A.1st, 1997, 122 F.3d 53, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 880, 522 U.S. 1090, 139 L.Ed.2d 869. Roma Constr. Co. v. aRusso, C.A.1st, 1996, 96 F.3d 566, on remand D.C.R.I.1998, 1998 WL 156708. Pihl v. Massachusetts Dep't of Educ., C.A.1st, 1993, 9 F.3d 184. Moran v. GTech Corp., D.C.R.I.1997, 989 F.Supp. 84. Roche v. Donahue, D.C.Mass.1997, 985 F.Supp. 14. Boston Scientific Corp. v. Schneider (Europe) AG, D.C.Mass.1997, 983 F.Supp. 245. Miller v. Arpin & Sons, Inc., D.C.R.I.1997, 949 F.Supp. 961. Diana Paolucci Corp. v. Carbonell & Astor, D.C.Puerto Rico 1996, 949 F.Supp. 65. MacFarlane v. Smith, D.C.N.H.1996, 947 F.Supp. 572, affirmed C.A.1st, 1997, 129 F.3d 1252. Bushey v. Derboven, D.C.Me.1996, 946 F.Supp. 96. Simon v. American Power Conversion, Corp., D.C.R.I.1996, 945 F.Supp. 416. Nedder v. Rivier College, D.C.N.H.1996, 944 F.Supp. 111. Masso v. United Parcel Serv. of America, Inc., D.C.Mass.1995, 884 F.Supp. 610. Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., D.C.Mass.1995, 880 F.Supp. 63. Goebel v. Schmid Bros., Inc., D.C.Mass.1994, 871 F.Supp. 68.

Second Circuit Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., C.A.2d, 1997, 134 F.3d 41. Hamilton Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi, Inc. v. Hamilton College, C.A.2d, 1997, 128 F.3d 59, on remand D.C.N.Y.2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 406. McEvoy v. Spencer, C.A.2d, 1997, 124 F.3d 92, on remand D.C.N.Y.1999, 49 F.Supp.2d 224. Murray v. City of Milford, Connecticut, C.A.2d, 1967, 380 F.2d 468. Maltz v. Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 286. Phillips v. Merchants Ins. Group, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 99. Barth v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1998, 178 F.R.D. 371. Rogers v. New York City Bd. of Elections, D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 409.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Press v. Chemical Inv. Servs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 375. Anonymous v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1997, 987 F.Supp. 131. Schoenhaut v. American Sensors, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 785. Yucyco, Ltd. v. Republic of Slovenia, D.C.N.Y.1997, 984 F.Supp. 209. Hogan v. DC Comics, D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 82. Michael Coppel Promotions Pty. Ltd. v. Bolton, D.C.N.Y.1997, 982 F.Supp. 950. Sacco v. Pataki, D.C.N.Y.1997, 982 F.Supp. 231, affirmed C.A.2d, 2002, 278 F.3d 93. Rohrer v. FSI Futures, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 270. Babi-Ali v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1997, 979 F.Supp. 268. Narvarte v. Chase Manhattan Bank, D.C.N.Y.1997, 969 F.Supp. 10. FDIC v. Pelletreau & Pelletreau, D.C.N.Y.1997, 965 F.Supp. 381. Diehl v. Village of Antwerp, D.C.N.Y.1997, 964 F.Supp. 646, affirmed C.A.2d, 1997, 131 F.3d 130. Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 242. Hili v. Sciarotta, D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 177 affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 210. Gleave v. Graham, D.C.N.Y.1997, 954 F.Supp. 599, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 918. Tufts v. Corporation of Lloyd's, D.C.N.Y.1996, 981 F.Supp. 808, affirmed C.A.2d, 1997, 128 F.3d 793. Aramony v. United Way of America, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1080. Spurlock v. NYNEX, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1022. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Ligator, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 200. Noble v. Great Brands of Europe, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 183. ABC Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 635. Daniels v. City of Binghamton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 590. Fry v. McCall, D.C.N.Y.1996, 945 F.Supp. 655. Wallace v. Conroy, D.C.N.Y.1996, 945 F.Supp. 628. Zigman v. Giacobbe, D.C.N.Y.1996, 944 F.Supp. 147. RMED International, Inc. v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 878 F.Supp. 16. Craft v. McNulty, D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 121. In re Philip Morris Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1995, 872 F.Supp. 97, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 1996, 75 F.3d 801. Falik v. Parker Duryee Rosoff & Haft, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 228. MTV Networks v. Curry, D.C.N.Y.1994, 867 F.Supp. 202. Barsam v. Pure Tech Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1440. Oakes v. Cooke, D.C.N.Y.1994, 858 F.Supp. 330. Hall v. Ruggeri, D.C.N.Y.1994, 841 F.Supp. 484. Segarra v. Messina, D.C.N.Y.1994, 153 F.R.D. 22. Vorvis v. Southern New England Telephone Co., D.C.Conn.1993, 821 F.Supp. 851. Shane v. Connecticut, D.C.Conn.1993, 821 F.Supp. 829. Milam v. Herrlin, D.C.N.Y.1993, 819 F.Supp. 295. Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Tobacco Valley Sanitation Serv. Co., D.C.Conn.1993, 818 F.Supp. 504. Koal Indus. Corp. v. Asland, S.A., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1143. Stilloe v. Almy Bros., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1991, 759 F.Supp. 95, 104, citing and quoting Wright & Miller. Coan v. Bell Atl. Sys. Leasing Int'l, Inc., D.C.Conn.1990, 813 F.Supp. 929. U.S. v. Van Raalte Co., D.C.N.Y.1971, 328 F.Supp. 827.

Third Circuit Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., C.A.3d, 1997, 132 F.3d 902. Weiner v. Quaker Oats Co., C.A.3d, 1997, 129 F.3d 310. Independent Enterprises, Inc. v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority, C.A.3d, 1997, 103 F.3d 1165. City of Philadelphia v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., C.A.3d, 1993, 994 F.2d 112. Hughes v. Halbach & Braun Indus., Ltd., D.C.Pa.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 491. Carter v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 386.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of East Pennsboro Tp., Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 366. Jean Anderson Hierarchy of Agents v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 688. Shaffer v. South State Machinery, Inc., D.C.Pa.1998, 995 F.Supp. 584. Young v. Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Republican Caucus, D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 282. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Tridair Helicopters, Inc., D.C.Del.1997, 982 F.Supp. 318. TWC Cable Partners v. Cableworks, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 966 F.Supp. 305. Rankin v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1997, 963 F.Supp. 463. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Rennard St. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1046. Sarver v. Capital Recovery Associates, Inc., D.C.Pa.1996, 951 F.Supp. 550. Barkauskie v. Indian River School Dist., D.C.Del.1996, 951 F.Supp. 519. Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge, D.C.Pa.1996, 948 F.Supp. 1258. Dinicola v. DiPaolo, D.C.Pa.1996, 945 F.Supp. 848. Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia v. Boyertown Area Times, D.C.Pa.1996, 945 F.Supp. 826. Slater v. Marshall, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 256. Seneca Ins. Co. v. Commercial Transportation, Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 239. Shoemaker v. City of Lock Haven, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 230. Ferry v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 764. Strange v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 867 F.Supp. 1209. Brown v. Peoples Sec. Ins., D.C.Pa.1994, 158 F.R.D. 350. Renz v. Schreiber, D.C.N.J.1993, 832 F.Supp. 766. Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, D.C.Pa.1993, 818 F.Supp. 104, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.3d, 1994, 38 F.3d 1380. Bolden v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1993, 814 F.Supp. 444. Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc., D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1132. Carey v. Consolidated Rail Corp., D.C.Pa.1992, 810 F.Supp. 164. Rowe v. Marder, D.C.Pa.1990, 750 F.Supp. 718, 722, citing Wright & Miller.

Fourth Circuit Wenzler v. Warden of G.R.C.C., D.C.Va.1996, 949 F.Supp. 399. L.S. Good & Co. v. H. Daroff & Sons, Inc., D.C.W.Va.1967, 263 F.Supp. 635.

Fifth Circuit Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., C.A.5th, 2003, 339 F.3d 359, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 1173, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 1206 Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 177 F.R.D. 387. Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247. Lowery v. Carrier Corp., D.C.Tex.1997, 953 F.Supp. 151. IHP Industrial, Inc. v. PermAlert, ESP., D.C.Miss.1996, 947 F.Supp. 257.

Sixth Circuit Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., C.A.6th, 1998, 135 F.3d 389 (court does not accept as true unwarranted factual inferences). Bordas v. Washtenaw County, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 979. Goins v. Ajax Metal Processing, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1057.

Seventh Circuit Autry v. Northwest Premium Servs., Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1037. Mallett v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, C.A.7th, 1997, 130 F.3d 1245, appeal after remand C.A.7th, 2000, 248 F.3d 1158. General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., C.A.7th, 1997, 128 F.3d 1074. Doe v. Sheriff of DuPage County, C.A.7th, 1997, 128 F.3d 586.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Washington v. Summerville, C.A.7th, 1997, 127 F.3d 552, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 1515, 523 U.S. 1073, 140 L.Ed.2d 668. Ledford v. Sullivan, C.A.7th, 1997, 105 F.3d 354. Palda v. General Dynamics Corp. C.A.7th, 1995, 47 F.3d 872. Bowman v. City of Franklin, C.A.7th, 1992, 980 F.2d 1104, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 2417, 508 U.S. 940, 124 L.Ed.2d 639. Political Action Conference of Illinois v. Daley, C.A.7th, 1992, 976 F.2d 335. Coats v. Kraft Foods, Inc., D.C.Ind.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 862. Vasquez v. Gertler & Gertler, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1997, 987 F.Supp. 652. Naguib v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 1082. Wooten v. Acme Steel Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 524. Copeland v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1182. Hastings v. Fidelity Mortgage Decisions Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 600. Sterling v. Kazmierczak, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1186. Stengel v. Callahan, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1154. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Peters, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 787. Martinez v. Gonzalez, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 768, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 148 F.3d 856. Cemail v. Viking Dodge, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1296. Ozkaya v. Telecheck Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 578. Valle v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 560. Evans v. Allen, D.C.Ill.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1102. Williams v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 980 F.Supp. 938. Long v. Chicago Transit Authority, D.C.Ill.1997, 979 F.Supp. 1214. Raytheon Co. v. McGraw-Edison Co., D.C.Wis.1997, 979 F.Supp. 858. Towers v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1997, 979 F.Supp. 708, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 173 F.3d 619, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 178, 528 U.S. 874, 145 L.Ed.2d 150. Juno Online Servs. v. Juno Lighting, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 979 F.Supp. 684. FDIC v. Gravee, D.C.Ill.1997, 966 F.Supp. 622. Banco Del Estado v. Navistar Int'l Transportation Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1275. Conrad v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1997, 954 F.Supp. 180. Wiskup v. Liberty Buick Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 953 F.Supp. 958. Berens v. Ludwig, D.C.Ill.1997, 953 F.Supp. 249, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 160 F.3d 1144. Pelfresne v. Village of Rosemont, D.C.Ill.1997, 952 F.Supp. 589, rehearing denied D.C.Ill.1997, 174 F.R.D. 72. Fedor v. Illinois Dep't of Employment Sec., D.C.Ill.1996, 955 F.Supp. 891. Rehm v. Eagle Fin. Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1246. Codest Engineering v. Hyatt Int'l Corp., D.C.Ill.1996, 954 F.Supp. 1224. U.S. v. Funds in the Amount of $9,800, D.C.Ill.1996, 952 F.Supp. 1254. Stepan Co. v. Winter Panel Corp., D.C.Ill.1996, 948 F.Supp. 802. Johnstone v. First Bank Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1996, 947 F.Supp. 1220. R & V Pine Tree, Inc. v. Village of Forest Park, D.C.Ill.1996, 947 F.Supp. 342. Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach., Ltd., D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1358. Pyka v. Village of Orland Park, D.C.Ill.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1196, 1232 (“[A]ll inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff ….”) (Castillo, J.). Van Harken v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1182. U.S. v. Brickman, D.C.Ill.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1164. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Gofen & Glossberg, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 713. Kriendler v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 1140. Cashman v. Coopers & Lybrand, D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 425. DiBenedetto v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 873 F.Supp. 106 (allegations need not be stretched beyond their sensible and reasonable implications). Hodges by Hodges v. Public Bldg. Comm'n of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1493.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Clorox Co. v. Chromium Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 158 F.R.D. 120 (court need not stretch allegations beyond their sensible and reasonable implications). National Serv. Ass'n, Inc. v. Capitol Bankers Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 227. Eberhardt v. O'Malley, D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1090, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1994, 17 F.3d 1023. American Needle & Novelty, Inc. v. Drew Pearson Marketing, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1072. Havey v. County of DuPage, D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 359. Petersen v. University of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, D.C.Wis.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1276. Johnson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Ill.1992, 809 F.Supp. 602, 604 n. 1, affirmed C.A.7th, 1993, 9 F.3d 112.

Eighth Circuit Murphy v. Lancaster, C.A.8th, 1992, 960 F.2d 746. In re Grand Casinos, Inc., Secs. Litigation, D.C.Minn.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1273. McMaster v. Minnesota, D.C.Minn.1993, 819 F.Supp. 1429, affirmed C.A.8th, 1994, 30 F.3d 976. Kizer v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, D.C.Mo.1993, 816 F.Supp. 548.

Ninth Circuit Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California, C.A.9th, 1998, 159 F.3d 1178. Pareto v. FDIC, C.A.9th, 1998, 139 F.3d 696. Tyler v. Cisneros, C.A.9th, 1998, 136 F.3d 603, appeal after remand C.A.9th, 2000, 236 F.3d 1124. Schreiber v. Kintana, Inc., D.C.Cal.2005, 2005 WL 1683621. Chavez v. INS, D.C.Cal.1998, 17 F.Supp.2d 1141. Gutierrez v. Givens, D.C.Cal.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1033. Barry v. Ratelle, D.C.Cal.1997, 985 F.Supp. 1235. Meek v. County of Riverside, D.C.Cal.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1410, affirmed in part, dismissed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 183 F.3d 962, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 499, 528 U.S. 1005, 145 L.Ed.2d 386. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union Welfare Fund v. Gentner, D.C.Nev.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1354, affirmed C.A.9th, 1995, 50 F.3d 719. Van Dyke v. Regents of Univ. of California, D.C.Cal.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1341.

Tenth Circuit Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Dymon, Inc., D.C.Kan.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1394. Morrison v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C., D.C.Colo.1997, 983 F.Supp. 937. Stat-Tech Liquidating Trust v. Fenster, D.C.Colo.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1325. Geneva Steel Co. v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp., D.C.Utah 1997, 980 F.Supp. 1209. Whayne v. Kansas, D.C.Kan.1997, 980 F.Supp. 387. Classic Communications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., D.C.Kan.1997, 956 F.Supp. 910. Maya v. General Motors Corp., D.C.N.M.1996, 953 F.Supp. 1245. Sportsmen's Wildlife Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of the Interior, D.C.Colo.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1510. Turner & Boisseau, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 944 F.Supp. 842. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1995, 874 F.Supp. 332. Iadanza v. Mather, D.C.Utah 1993, 820 F.Supp. 1371.

Eleventh Circuit Williams v. Alabama State Univ., C.A.11th, 1997, 102 F.3d 1179, on remand D.C.Ala.1997, 979 F.Supp. 1406. ThunderWave, Inc. v. Carnival Corp., D.C.Fla.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1562.

D.C. Circuit Okusami v. Psychiatric Institute of Washington, Inc., C.A.1992, 959 F.2d 1062, 295 U.S.App.D.C. 58. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 522. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 515. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 507.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 21. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 16. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 10. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 2.

But see When a plaintiff in a civil rights action supplies facts to support his claim, there is no duty on the court to conjure up unpleaded facts that might turn a frivolous claim of unconstitutional official action into a substantial one. O'Brien v. DiGrazia, C.A.1st, 1976, 544 F.2d 543, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 2173, 431 U.S. 914, 53 L.Ed.2d 223. 31 Allegations contradicted Hegab v. Long, 716 F.3d 790, 799 (4th Cir. 2013), citing Wright & Miller, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 785 (2013). Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 609 (7th Cir. 2013) ("When an exhibit incontrovertibly contradicts the allegations in the complaint, the exhibit ordinarily controls, even when considering a motion to dismiss. * * * When an exhibit contradicts the allegations in the complaint, ruling against the non-moving party on a motion to dismiss is consistent with our obligation to review all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."). New Albany Tractor, Inc. v. Louisville Tractor, Inc., 650 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir. 2011) (conclusory legal allegations should not be credited without specific supporting facts). Seidl v. American Century Companies, Inc., 427 Fed. Appx. 35 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 846, 181 L.Ed.2d 553 (2011) (pleadings that are conclusions are not entitled to presumption of truth). Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., C.A.5th, 2003, 339 F.3d 359, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 1173, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 1206. Browning v. Clinton, C.A.2002, 292 F.3d 235, 352 U.S.App.D.C. 4, citing Wright & Miller. LeBlang Motors, Ltd. v. Subaru of America, Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 148 F.3d 680. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 143 F.3d 1293 (conclusory allegations contradicted by documents referred to in complaint). The court need not accept plaintiff's allegation as to the intent of the parties to a contract when the meaning of the contract is unambiguous. Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Amoco Tax Leasing IV Corp., C.A.7th, 1994, 34 F.3d 1310, 1318 n. 4. First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., C.A.2d, 1994, 27 F.3d 763, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 728, 513 U.S. 1079, 130 L.Ed.2d 632. Salahuddin v. Jones, C.A.2d, 1993, 992 F.2d 447, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 278, 510 U.S. 902, 126 L.Ed.2d 229 (“wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations” are insufficient). The district court could withdraw sua sponte an earlier order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and grant said motion, without allowing the plaintiff ten days notice and opportunity to respond since there was no indication that the district court considered matters outside the pleadings and the plaintiffs had notice and an opportunity to respond when the defendants initially filed the motion. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, C.A.5th, 1993, 987 F.2d 278. In re Lane, C.A.1st, 1991, 937 F.2d 694, 698, quoting Wright & Miller. Rios v. Dillman, C.A.5th, 1974, 499 F.2d 329, 330, citing Wright & Miller. The court must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and any inferences reasonably deductible therefrom, but it need not accept mere legal conclusions or factual claims at variance with the express terms of an instrument attached to the complaint as an exhibit. Olpin v. Ideal Nat. Ins. Co., C.A.10th, 1969, 419 F.2d 1250, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 1522, 397 U.S. 1074, 25 L.Ed.2d 809. Cambron v. Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1139 (D. Haw. 2013) ("The Court need not accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or allegations contradicting the exhibits attached to the complaint."), citing Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). Reginella Const. Co., Ltd. v. Travelers Cas and Sur. Co. of America, 2013 WL 4778840, *3 (W.D. Pa. 2013) ("If the Court were required to accept contradictory inferences and conclusory allegations as well-pleaded facts, then Rule 12(b)(6) review would be nothing more than the Court alchemizing legally insufficient statements into a plausible cause of action. Such a standard of review is akin to no review at all, and most importantly, is not the law."). Williams v. Rickard, 2010 WL 2640102, *3 (D. Haw. 2010) ("Additionally, the court need not accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or allegations contradicting the exhibits attached to the complaint.").

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Richard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., D.C.La.2007, 2007 WL 855357, citing Wright & Miller. Doron Precision Sys., Inc. v. FAAC, Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.2006, 423 F.Supp.2d 173. When the plaintiff's conclusory allegations were contradicted by exhibits attached to the complaint, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate. Kennedy v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., D.C.La.2004, 2004 WL 414808. The court may disregard allegations in the complaint if they are contradicted by facts established by reference to any documents attached as exhibits, or upon which it necessarily relies; the court also need not accept as true allegations that contradict facts judicially noticed by the court. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., D.C.Cal.2002, 194 F.Supp.2d 1040, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds and remanded C.A.9th, 2003, 349 F.3d 1191. International Bhd. of Teamsters Local 734 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 34 F.Supp.2d 656, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 196 F.3d 818, appeal after remand C.A.7th, 2000, 208 F.3d 579 (court not bound by facts in complaint contradicting plaintiff's claim). Campos v. INS, D.C.Fla.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 1337. Dames & Moore v. Baxter & Woodman, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 21 F.Supp.2d 817 (if certain allegations are inconsistent with terms of written document that is attached to or otherwise considered part of complaint, those inconsistent allegations are not accepted as true and terms of written document, fairly construed, prevail). The court need not ignore facts set out in the complaint that undermine the plaintiff's claims. Coats v. Kraft Foods, Inc., D.C.Ind.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 862. Waters v. Brown, D.C.Ind.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 654, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 175 F.3d 1022, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 193, 528 U.S. 881, 145 L.Ed.2d 162. Zimmerman v. Hoard, D.C.Ind.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 633. If the allegations in a complaint are contradicted by documents made a part thereof, the document controls and the court need not accept as true the allegations of the complaint. Honess 52 Corp. v. Town of Fishkill, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 294. Balcerzak v. City of Milwaukee, D.C.Wis.1997, 980 F.Supp. 983, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 163 F.3d 993. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Gofen & Glossberg, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 713 (court need not accept allegations as true if they conflict with the written terms of contract). In re Century 21—RE/MAX Real Estate Advertising Claims Litigation, D.C.Cal.1994, 882 F.Supp. 915. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, D.C.Cal.1994, 871 F.Supp. 381. Tafoya v. Bobroff, D.C.N.M.1994, 865 F.Supp. 742, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.10th, 1996, 74 F.3d 1250. Ellen S. v. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners, D.C.Fla.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1489, citing Wright & Miller. Plasko v. City of Pottsville, D.C.Pa.1994, 852 F.Supp. 1258. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1388 (court need not credit allegations contradicted by facts subject to judicial notice or exhibits attached to the complaint). If allegations in the complaint are contradicted by documents that are part of the complaint, or are supplied by the defendant with its Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the documents control. Barnum v. Millbrook Care Ltd. Partnership, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1227. American Angus Ass'n v. Sysco Corp., D.C.N.C.1993, 865 F.Supp. 1174, quoting Wright & Miller. Gersten v. Rundle, D.C.Fla.1993, 833 F.Supp. 906, citing Wright & Miller. Baugh v. CBS, Incorporated, D.C.Cal.1993, 828 F.Supp. 745. Kelley ex rel. Michigan v. Kysor Indus. Corp., D.C.Mich.1993, 826 F.Supp. 1089. Caribe BMW, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, D.C.Puerto Rico 1993, 821 F.Supp. 802, vacated on other grounds C.A.1st, 1994, 19 F.3d 745. Doe v. Johnson, D.C.Mich.1993, 817 F.Supp. 1382. Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1037 (when allegations in complaint are contradicted by documents that have been made part of that complaint, documents control). Tobey v. NLRB, D.C.D.C.1992, 807 F.Supp. 798, 799 n. 2, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.1994, 40 F.3d 469, 309 U.S.App.D.C. 213. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1503, affirmed C.A.9th, 1993, 10 F.3d 667. Holland v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1992, 794 F.Supp. 420, 422, quoting Wright & Miller. Franklin Asaph L.P. v. FDIC, D.C.D.C.1992, 794 F.Supp. 402, 404, quoting Wright & Miller. Dubbs v. CIA, D.C.Cal.1990, 769 F.Supp. 1113.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bridges v. Senger, D.C.Mich.1990, 730 F.Supp. 1401. Implement Serv., Inc. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., D.C.Ind.1989, 726 F.Supp. 1171, citing Wright & Miller. Condor America, Inc. v. American Power Dev., Inc., D.C.Ohio 1989, 128 F.R.D. 229, citing Wright & Miller. Harrison v. Enventure Capital Group, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1987, 666 F.Supp. 473, 479, quoting Wright & Miller. Hornung v. Village of Park Forest, D.C.Ill.1986, 634 F.Supp. 540, 543, citing Wright & Miller. Federal Savs. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Williams, D.C.Md.1984, 599 F.Supp. 1184, 1199, citing Wright & Miller. Nasralah v. Barcelo, D.C.Puerto Rico 1979, 465 F.Supp. 1273, 1276, quoting Wright & Miller. Webber v. White, D.C.Tex.1976, 422 F.Supp. 416, 429, citing Wright & Miller. Klepper Krop, Inc. v. Hanford, D.C.Neb.1976, 411 F.Supp. 276. Jacksonville Newspaper Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union No. 57 v. Florida Publishing Co., D.C.Fla.1972, 340 F.Supp. 993, affirmed on other grounds C.A.5th, 1972, 468 F.2d 824, certiorari denied 93 S.Ct. 1531, 411 U.S. 906, 36 L.Ed.2d 196. Spanihel v. Turrentine, D.C.Tex.1972, 339 F.Supp. 1074. Sagers v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., D.C.Ga.1972, 58 F.R.D. 54. International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180. Druker v. Sullivan, D.C.Mass.1971, 334 F.Supp. 861, 864, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed on other grounds C.A.1st, 1972, 458 F.2d 1272. On a motion to dismiss, facts well pleaded must be taken as true, but unsupported conclusions of the pleader may be disregarded, especially when they are negated by the substance of the facts pleaded. Van Daele v. Vinci, D.C.Ill.1968, 294 F.Supp. 71.

See also Thompson v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, C.A.7th, 2002, 300 F.3d 750. In re Metricom Secs. Litigation, D.C.Cal.2004, 2004 WL 966291 (court may disregard factual allegations contradicted by exhibits attached to complaint). Hunt-Golliday v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Greater Chicago, D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 407012, citing Wright & Miller (court refused to accept allegations contradicted by matters in public record). Stephens v. Herring, D.C.Va.1993, 827 F.Supp. 359. Padro v. Department of the Navy, D.C.Puerto Rico 1991, 759 F.Supp. 958. Herbage v. Meese, D.C.D.C.1990, 747 F.Supp. 60, affirmed C.A.1991, 946 F.2d 1564, 292 U.S.App.D.C. 84 (conclusory allegations of unconstitutional motive are insufficient). Marsland v. Pang, 1985, 701 P.2d 175, 186, 5 Haw.App. 463, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 744 P.2d 781, 67 Haw. 686. Knight v. Neodersha, Kansas, Police Dep't, 1980, 620 P.2d 837, 843, 5 Kan.App.2d 472, citing Wright & Miller. Charbonnier v. Amico, 1975, 324 N.E.2d 895, 900 n. 14, 367 Mass. 146, citing Wright & Miller. Crowther v. Ross Chem. & Mfg. Co., 1972, 202 N.W.2d 577, 580, 42 Mich.App. 426, citing Wright & Miller. Buttrell v. McBride Land & Livestock, 1976, 553 P.2d 407, 408, 170 Mont. 296, quoting Wright & Miller. Wheeler v. Moe, 1973, 515 P.2d 679, 683, 163 Mont. 154, quoting Wright & Miller. Payne v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., App.1984, 313 S.E.2d 912, 913, 67 N.C.App. 692, quoting Wright & Miller.

Compare It is not proper for the court to assume that the plaintiff “can prove facts which [he or she] has not alleged, or that the defendants have violated the … laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Anderson v. Continental Cas. Co., D.C.Cal.2003, 258 F.Supp.2d 1127, quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 1983, 103 S.Ct. 897, 459 U.S. 519, 74 L.Ed.2d 723. 32 Conclusory allegation Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013) ("It is now well established that mere conclusory and speculative allegations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss."). Heller v. Roberts, C.A.2d, 1967, 386 F.2d 832. Phillips v. World Pub. Co., 2011 WL 4899973, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2011) ("conclusory legal allegation"). Manestar v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 686252, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ("[A] court need not accept as true unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations."). 33 Illustrative case

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Stewart v. Hevelone, D.C.Neb.1968, 283 F.Supp. 842. 34 Viewed with disfavor

First Circuit Branch v. FDIC, D.C.Mass.1993, 825 F.Supp. 384 (“courts should generally be reluctant to grant a motion to dismiss when the claim in question asserts a novel theory of recovery”) (Young, J.).

Second Circuit Baker v. Cuomo, C.A.2d, 1995, 58 F.3d 814. Arfons v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., C.A.2d, 1958, 261 F.2d 434. Grimes v. Fremont General Corp., 933 F. Supp. 2d 584, 595 (S.D. N.Y. 2013). Shetiwy v. Midland Credit Management, 2013 WL 5328075, *1 (S.D. N.Y. 2013) (dismissal of pro-se complaints disfavored). Solvent Chem. Co., ICC Indus., Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., D.C.N.Y.2002, 242 F.Supp.2d 196, quoting Wright & Miller. When a motion to dismiss is made prior to any discovery or the filing of an answer, the court is loath to dismiss the complaint. Proctor v. Vadlamudi, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 156. Casaburro v. Giuliani, D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 176 (civil rights violations). Spurlock v. NYNEX, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1022 (proper only in extraordinary cases). Walsh v. McGee, D.C.N.Y.1996, 918 F.Supp. 107, 112, quoting Wright & Miller. Bapat v. Connecticut Dep't of Health Servs., D.C.Conn.1992, 815 F.Supp. 525, citing Wright & Miller. Barrett v. U.S. Banknote Corp., D.C.N.Y.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1094. Acoustica Associates, Inc. v. Powertron Ultrasonics Corp., D.C.N.Y.1961, 28 F.R.D. 16. Bellmore Sales Corp. v. Winfield Drug Stores, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1960, 187 F.Supp. 161. David v. Sinclair Ref. Co., D.C.N.Y.1960, 25 F.R.D. 190.

Third Circuit Syncsort Inc. v. Innovative Routines Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.J.2005, 2005 WL 1076043 (Rule 12(b)(6) motions should be granted sparingly in antitrust cases), citing Wright & Miller. Kreimer v. Philadelphia Inquirer, Inc., D.C.Pa.2004, 2004 WL 1196258. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Arcadian Corp., D.C.N.J.1997, 991 F.Supp. 390, affirmed C.A.3d, 1999, 189 F.3d 305. Swartz v. Eberly, D.C.Pa.1962, 212 F.Supp. 32.

Fourth Circuit Judge Shedd noted that the leading commentators have recognized that a federal court may not use a stricter pleading standard on a motion to dismiss a disfavored action. Hatfill v. New York Times Co., C.A.4th, 2005, 416 F.3d 320, quoting Wright & Miller. Ferrell v. Grange Ins., D.C.W.Va.2005, 354 F.Supp.2d 675, citing Wright & Miller. Rhee Bros., Inc. v. Han Ah Reum Corp., D.C.Md.2001, 178 F.Supp.2d 525, quoting Wright & Miller. Volpone v. Caldera, D.C.Va.1999, 190 F.R.D. 177. Frontline Test Equip., Inc. v. Greenleaf Software, Inc., D.C.Va.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 583. U.S. v. High Point Chem. Corp., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 770. Alston v. Virginia High School League, Inc., D.C.Va.1997, 176 F.R.D. 220. Bass v. City of Wilson, D.C.N.C.1993, 835 F.Supp. 255, quoting Wright & Miller. The plaintiff's burden in resisting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is a relatively light one. Williams v. Wheeling Steel Corp., D.C.W.Va.1967, 266 F.Supp. 651.

Fifth Circuit Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2013), citing Turner v. Pleasant, 663 F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 2011). Kocurek v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc., 459 Fed. Appx. 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2012). Crowder v. American Eagle Airlines, Inc., C.A.5th, 2004, 118 Fed.Appx. 833 (not to be cited per Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Thompson v. Goetzmann, C.A.6th, 2003, 336 F.3d 455. Shipp v. McMahon, C.A.5th, 2000, 234 F.3d 907.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 496. Kennedy v. Tangipahoa Parish Library Bd. of Control, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 359. Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 161. Pena v. U.S., C.A.5th, 1998, 157 F.3d 984 (dismissals of pro se complaints for failure to state claim are disfavored and court should grant pro se party every reasonable opportunity to amend). Bazrowx v. Scott, C.A.5th, 1998, 136 F.3d 1053, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 156, 525 U.S. 865, 142 L.Ed.2d 128. Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys., C.A.5th, 1997, 117 F.3d 242, on remand D.C.Tex.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 895. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., C.A.5th, 1982, 677 F.2d 1045, 1050, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 103 S.Ct. 729, 459 U.S. 1105, 74 L.Ed.2d 953. Sosa v. Coleman, C.A.5th, 1981, 646 F.2d 991, 993, citing Wright & Miller. Madison v. Purdy, C.A.5th, 1969, 410 F.2d 99. “Dismissal of a claim on the basis of barebone pleadings is a precarious disposition with a high mortality rate.” International Erectors, Inc. v. Wilhoit Steel Erectors & Rental Serv., C.A.5th, 1968, 400 F.2d 465, 471 (Goldberg, J.). Shull v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 1963, 313 F.2d 445. “This is another case proving that final disposition of a civil action on the basis of bare bones pleadings is a tortuous thing. How a standard so simply expressed, so often repeated, is apparently so often overlooked without ever so much as a deferential mention of it is hard to understand.” Arthur H. Richland Co. v. Harper, C.A.5th, 1962, 302 F.2d 324, 325 (Brown, J.). Gallentine v. Housing Authority of City of Port Arthur, Tex., 919 F. Supp. 2d 787, 794 (E.D. Tex. 2013), citing Gregson v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 2003). Coleman v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2013 WL 4761111, *7 (N.D. Tex. 2013) ("Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are disfavored and rarely granted."), citing Sosa v. Coleman, 646 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1981). Atwater Partners of Texas LLC v. AT & T, Inc., 2011 WL 1004880 (E.D. Tex. 2011). Goldberg v. Cushman & Wakefield Nat. Corp., 2010 WL 3835143, *2 (N.D. Tex. 2010), quoting Wright & Miller. Galada v. Gatson-Riley, 2010 WL 3120069, *3 (S.D. Miss. 2010). Desperado Motor Racing & Motorcycles, Inc. v. Robinson, 2010 WL 2757523, *1 (S.D. Tex. 2010) ("Traditionally, courts hold that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted."). "As a result, '[a] motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.’” City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 653 F. Supp. 2d 669, 671 (N.D. Tex. 2009). Regus Management Group, LLC, v. Intern. Business Machine Corp., 2008 WL 2434245 (N.D. Tex. 2008). Wallace v. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC, D.C.La.2007, 2007 WL 1747004. Supersol v. Texas Racquet & Spa, Inc., D.C.Tex.2007, 2007 WL 1295828. Kennard v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., D.C.Tex.2006, 420 F.Supp.2d 601, citing Wright & Miller. Bittick v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., D.C.Tex.2006, 419 F.Supp.2d 917. Seastrunk v. Darwell Integrated Technology, Inc., D.C.Tex.2006, 2006 WL 1932342, citing Wright & Miller. Garza v. Rio Honda, Texas, D.C.Tex.2005, 2005 WL 1745453. Mariner Healthcare, Inc. v. Hunt, D.C.Miss.2005, 2005 WL 1711614. Williams Land Co., LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., D.C.La.2005, 2005 WL 940564. Keane v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., D.C.Tex.2004, 297 F.Supp.2d 921. Gadzooks, Inc. v. Evolutions Footwear, Inc., D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 389100, citing Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., C.A.5th, 1982, 677 F.2d 1045, citing Wright & Miller. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698. Hutchison v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., D.C.Tex.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 629. Dale v. Ala Acquisitions, Inc., D.C.Miss.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 694. U.S. ex rel. Coppock v. Northrop Grumman Corp., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1796979, quoting Wright & Miller. Taylor v. Maple Ave. Economic Dev. Corp., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1758189, quoting Wright & Miller. Fields v. Stalder, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611597. Louisiana-Mississippi Carpenters Regional Council & Carpenters Local 1846 v. Shepard Exposition Servs., Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611587. Pivonka v. Collins, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1477455, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Groceman v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1398559, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 2004, 354 F.3d 411. Trevino v. Boomtown Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1363891. Ingram v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1163613. See also Lacey v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058890, Lee v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058893. Boundy v. Dolenz, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1160075, quoting Wright & Miller. Watson v. Prudential Ins. Co., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1159703. Matthews v. Social Sec. of Louisiana, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022267. Searcy v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022158. Wicks v. Coffrey, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1000975 (liberally construed). Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196, quoting Wright & Miller. Perrilloux v. BP Oil Co./Amoco, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 746349. Sleather v. Boy Scouts of America, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 663563, quoting Wright & Miller. Kane Enterprises v. MacGregor (U.S.A.), Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 523342, affirmed C.A.5th, 2003, 322 F.3d 371. Haack v. Max Internet Communications, Inc., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 511514, quoting Wright & Miller. Koerner v. Garden Dist. Ass'n, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 500815. Small v. Strain, D.C.La.2001, 2001 WL 1631341 (unpublished). Sheehan v. Ryan, D.C.La.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 792. Henrise v. Horvath, D.C.Tex.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 768. Campbell v. Baldwin, D.C.Tex.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 754. Office Outfitters, Inc. v. A.B. Dick Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 772. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Niro, Inc., D.C.Tex.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 712. Griffin v. GK Intelligent Sys., Inc., D.C.Tex.1999, 87 F.Supp.2d 684. Nebout v. City of Hitchcock, D.C.Tex.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 702. Piraino v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tex.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 889. Smith v. Blue, D.C.Tex.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 686. Andrade v. Chojnacki, D.C.Tex.1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 431, quoting Wright & Miller. Ehlmann v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, D.C.Tex.1998, 20 F.Supp.2d 1008, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 2000, 198 F.3d 552. Maricle v. Biggerstaff, D.C.Tex.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 705. The Fifth Circuit has held that dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is a precarious disposition with a high mortality rate. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Consolidated Fibers, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 822, citing Wright & Miller. Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 423, summary judgment granted in part, denied in part on other grounds D.C.Miss.2001, 2001 WL 1543890. Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 177 F.R.D. 387, quoting Wright & Miller. Texas v. American Tobacco Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 14 F.Supp.2d 956, quoting Wright & Miller. Cross Timbers Concerned Citizens v. Saginaw, D.C.Tex.1997, 991 F.Supp. 563. Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247, quoting Wright & Miller. Reyes v. Sazan, D.C.La.1997, 981 F.Supp. 973, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1999, 168 F.3d 158. Lowery v. Carrier Corp., D.C.Tex.1997, 953 F.Supp. 151. Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S.A. Glas, Inc., D.C.Tex.1996, 940 F.Supp. 1026, 1031, quoting Wright & Miller. U.S. ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., D.C.Tex.1996, 938 F.Supp. 399, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1997, 125 F.3d 899. U.S. v. Bantau, D.C.Tex.1995, 907 F.Supp. 988, 990, citing Wright & Miller. Cunningham v. Dun & Bradstreet Plan Servs., Inc., D.C.Miss.1995, 889 F.Supp. 932. Hawkins v. Upjohn Co., D.C.Tex.1994, 890 F.Supp. 609. Bowers v. Baylor Univ., D.C.Tex.1994, 862 F.Supp. 142, quoting Wright & Miller. TCA Building Co. v. Northwestern Resources Co., D.C.Tex.1994, 861 F.Supp. 1366. Durham, Inc. v. Vanguard Bank & Trust Co., D.C.La.1994, 858 F.Supp. 617. Bob Hamric Chevrolet, Inc. v. U.S. IRS, D.C.Tex.1994, 849 F.Supp. 500.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

FDIC v. Harrington, D.C.Tex.1994, 844 F.Supp. 300. Sheppard v. Texas Dep't of Transportation, D.C.Tex.1994, 158 F.R.D. 592. Capital Parks, Inc. v. Southeastern Advertising & Sales Sys., Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 864 F.Supp. 14, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 1994, 30 F.3d 627. Chevalier v. Animal Rehabilitation Center, Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1224. Wilkerson v. U.S., D.C.Tex.1993, 839 F.Supp. 440. Hirras v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., D.C.Tex.1992, 826 F.Supp. 1062, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 1994, 10 F.3d 1142, vacated on other grounds 1994, 114 S.Ct. 2732, 512 U.S. 1231, 129 L.Ed.2d 855. Bartley v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.Tex.1992, 824 F.Supp. 624. Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Computer Associates Int'l, Inc., D.C.Tex.1992, 802 F.Supp. 1463, 1465, citing Wright & Miller.

Sixth Circuit A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is disfavored and rarely granted. Nuchols v. Berrong, C.A.6th, 2005, 141 Fed.Appx. 451 (not to be cited per Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Culberson v. Doan, D.C.Ohio 1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 701. Christian Memorial Cultural Center, Inc. v. Michigan Funeral Directors Ass'n, D.C.Mich.1998, 998 F.Supp. 772. Bordas v. Washtenaw County, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 979. Goins v. Ajax Metal Processing, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1057. Orick v. Banziger, D.C.Ohio 1996, 945 F.Supp. 1084, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 178 F.3d 1295. Niece v. Fitzner, D.C.Mich.1996, 922 F.Supp. 1208. Welch v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc., D.C.Tenn.1978, 507 F.Supp. 1064.

Seventh Circuit Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2012) ("[C]ourts should usually refrain from granting Rule 12(b)(6) motions on affirmative defenses."). Sidney S. Arst Co. v. Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund, C.A.7th, 1994, 25 F.3d 417. Rothner v. City of Chicago, C.A.7th, 1991, 929 F.2d 297, 302, citing Wright & Miller. Arenson v. Whitehall Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1202. Kriendler v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 1140. Cashman v. Coopers & Lybrand, D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 425. LaPorte County Republican Cent. Committee v. Board of Comm'rs of County of LaPorte, D.C.Ind.1994, 851 F.Supp. 340, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1994, 43 F.3d 1126 (there is “strong presumption” against grants of Rule 12(b)(6) motions). Wright v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., D.C.Ill.1992, 796 F.Supp. 1120. Greenberg v. Boettcher & Co., D.C.Ill.1991, 755 F.Supp. 776. Pointer v. American Oil Co., D.C.Ind.1968, 295 F.Supp. 573.

Eighth Circuit Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., C.A.8th, 1940, 108 F.2d 302. Canterbury v. Federal–Mogul Ignition Co., D.C.Iowa 2006, 418 F.Supp.2d 1112. Dos Santos, S.A. v. Beebe, D.C.Ark.2006, 418 F.Supp.2d 1064. McMaster v. Minnesota, D.C.Minn.1993, 819 F.Supp. 1429, affirmed C.A.8th, 1994, 30 F.3d 976. Richards v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co., D.C.Minn.1992, 804 F.Supp. 1101.

Ninth Circuit Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, C.A.9th, 1986, 833 F.2d 1270, 1274, quoting Wright & Miller (opinion withdrawn). U.S. v. City of Redwood City, California, C.A.9th, 1981, 640 F.2d 963, 966, citing Wright & Miller. Wapato Heritage, LLC v. Evans, 2008 WL 2403653 (E.D. Wash. 2008). Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corp., D.C.Cal.2006, 423 F.Supp.2d 1053. RDF Media Ltd. v. Fox Broadcasting Co., D.C.Cal.2005, 372 F.Supp.2d 556. Schreiber v. Kintana, Inc., D.C.Cal.2005, 2005 WL 1683621. Doe v. Mann, D.C.Cal.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 1229.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is disfavored, and may be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Gallardo v. DiCarlo, D.C.Cal.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 1160. Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol, D.C.Cal.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 1131. Barapind v. Reno, D.C.Cal.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132. U.S. v. Crisp, D.C.Cal.1999, 190 F.R.D. 546. Wenger v. Lumisys, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1231. City of Merced v. Fields, D.C.Cal.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1326 (granted only in extraordinary cases). Farrakhan v. Locke, D.C.Wash.1997, 987 F.Supp. 1304. Lilley v. Charren, D.C.Cal.1996, 936 F.Supp. 708. Barker v. U.S., D.C.Cal.1995, 903 F.Supp. 31. Independent Cellular Telephone, Inc. v. Daniels & Associates, D.C.Cal.1994, 863 F.Supp. 1109. Ramos v. California Committee of Bar Examiners of State Bar of California, D.C.Cal.1994, 857 F.Supp. 702. RTC v. Dean, D.C.Ariz.1994, 854 F.Supp. 626. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1388, quoting Wright & Miller. Haltman v. Aura Sys., Inc., D.C.Cal.1993, 844 F.Supp. 544. Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1993, 823 F.Supp. 715, quoting Wright & Miller. Kaufman & Broad-South Bay v. Unisys Corp., D.C.Cal.1993, 822 F.Supp. 1468. Rose v. City of Los Angeles, D.C.Cal.1993, 814 F.Supp. 878. Cabo Distributing Co. v. Brady, D.C.Cal.1992, 821 F.Supp. 601. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. LeDuc, D.C.Cal.1992, 814 F.Supp. 832. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1503, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.9th, 1993, 10 F.3d 667. Lindsey v. Admiral Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1992, 804 F.Supp. 47. Tigard Elec., Inc. v. National Elec. Contractors Ass'n, D.C.Ore.1992, 790 F.Supp. 1498, 1502, citing Wright & Miller. Intake Water Co. v. Yellowstone River Compact Comm'n, D.C.Mont.1983, 590 F.Supp. 293, appeal dismissed 1984, 105 S.Ct. 316, 469 U.S. 925, 83 L.Ed.2d 254.

Tenth Circuit Lauer v. Thelin, 433 Fed. Appx. 686 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Robbins v. Wilkie, C.A.10th, 2002, 300 F.3d 1208. Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, C.A.10th, 1998, 154 F.3d 1124. Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dep't of Mental Health, C.A.10th, 1994, 41 F.3d 584. Brever v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., C.A.10th, 1994, 40 F.3d 1119. Blevins v. Reid, 2008 WL 2428941 (D. Colo. 2008). "Granting a motion to dismiss is a harsh remedy which must be exercised with caution to protect the liberal rules of pleading and the interests of justice. Thus, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure erect a powerful presumption against rejecting pleadings for failure to state a claim." Effkay Enterprises v. J.H. Cleaners, Inc., 2008 WL 2357698, *2 (D. Colo. 2008) (internal citations omitted) (Babcock, J.), citing Cayman Exploration Corp. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 873 F.2d 1357, 1359 (10th Cir. 1989). Belen Consolidated Schools v. Otten, D.C.N.M.2003, 259 F.Supp.2d 1203 (motion to dismiss is “harsh remedy which must be cautiously studied, not only to effectuate the spirit of the liberal rules of pleading but also to protect the interests of justice”), quoting Cayman Exploration Corp. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., C.A.10th, 1989, 873 F.2d 1357. Shorty v. Capital One Bank, D.C.N.M.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 1330, citing Wright & Miller. Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy, D.C.Colo.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 1090. Cameron v. Navarre Farmers Union Coop. Ass'n, D.C.Kan.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1178. Marrie v. Nickels, D.C.Kan.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1252. Scott v. Topeka Performing Arts Center, D.C.Kan.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1325. Sellens v. Telephone Credit Union, D.C.Kan.1999, 189 F.R.D. 461. Lopez v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1239, citing Wright & Miller. In the securities context, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are difficult to obtain because the cause of action deals primarily with fact-specific inquiries such as materiality. Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., D.C.Colo.1998, 178 F.R.D. 545.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Benavidez v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1997, 998 F.Supp. 1225, citing Wright & Miller, reversed on other grounds C.A.10th, 1999, 177 F.3d 927. Jefferson County School Dist. No. R1 v. Moody's Investor's Servs., Inc., D.C.Colo.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1341, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 175 F.3d 848. Freeman v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., D.C.Kan.1997, 176 F.R.D. 581. Patrick v. City of Overland Park, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1996, 937 F.Supp. 1491. Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., D.C.Kan.1994, 848 F.Supp. 938. NL Industries, Inc. v. Gulf & Western Indus., D.C.Kan.1986, 650 F.Supp. 1115, 1122, citing Wright & Miller. Crow v. U.S., D.C.Kan.1986, 634 F.Supp. 1085, 1091, citing Wright & Miller. Motions to dismiss generally are viewed with disfavor and rarely granted; they may be granted only in the clearest of cases and must be denied when additional facts obviously are required before an ultimate judgment may be formed. Wrenn v. Kansas, D.C.Kan.1983, 561 F.Supp. 1216.

Eleventh Circuit Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are particularly disfavored in fact-intensive antitrust cases. Covad Communications Co. v. BellSouth Corp., C.A.11th, 2002, 299 F.3d 1272, certiorari granted, judgment vacated on other grounds 2004, 124 S.Ct. 1143, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 1040. U.S. v. $22,010.00 in U.S. Funds, 2010 WL 1050410, *2 (M.D. Ga. 2010) ("Because this standard imposes such a heavy burden on the defendant, Rule 12(b)(6) motions are rarely granted."). Powell v. Barrett, D.C.Ga.2005, 376 F.Supp.2d 1340. FTC v. Citigroup Inc., D.C.Ga.2001, 2001 WL 1763439, citing Wright & Miller (unpublished). U.S. ex rel. Sanders v. East Alabama Healthcare Authority, D.C.Ala.1996, 953 F.Supp. 1404 (high burden on movant). Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1538. Klaskala v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Servs., D.C.Fla.1995, 889 F.Supp. 480. Trustees of the Hotel Indus. Pension Fund v. Carol Management Corp., D.C.Fla.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1548. Bender v. CenTrust Mortgage Corp., D.C.Fla.1992, 833 F.Supp. 1525, appeal dismissed on other grounds C.A.11th, 1995, 51 F.3d 1027.

D.C. Circuit Service Employees Int'l Union Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.D.C.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d70, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.2001, 249 F.3d 1068, 346 U.S.App.D.C. 74.

Federal Circuit Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Sys., Inc., C.A.Fed., 2000, 203 F.3d 790.

See also Dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) for the purpose of sanctioning a litigant are disfavored. Additionally, "a Rule 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted without an analysis of the merits of the underlying complaint notwithstanding local rules regarding the granting of unopposed motions." Brown v. DiGuglielmo, 418 Fed. Appx. 99, 102 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). “ ‘Sua sponte dismissals are strong medicine, and should be dispensed sparingly. … If it is crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile, then a sua sponte dismissal may stand.’ ” Sua sponte dismissals are erroneous unless the parties have been afforded notice and an opportunity to amend the complaint or otherwise respond. Chute v. Walker, C.A.1st, 2002, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (Lynch, J.), quoting Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. U.S., C.A.1st, 2001, 257 F.3d 31, 33–37. Knight v. American Guard & Alert, Inc., S.Ct. Alaska 1986, 714 P.2d 788, 791, quoting Wright & Miller. Fogarty v. State, 1985, 705 P.2d 72, 77, 5 Haw.App. 616, citing Wright & Miller. Giuliani v. Chuck, 1980, 620 P.2d 733, 737, 1 Haw.App. 379, citing Wright & Miller. McLean v. Kirby Co., a Div. of Scott Fetzer Co., N.D.1992, 490 N.W.2d 229, 233, quoting Wright & Miller. Dobbs v. Guenther, Tenn.App.1992, 846 S.W.2d 270, citing Wright & Miller. Association of Haystack Property Owners, Inc. v. Sprague, 1985, 494 A.2d 122, 125, 145 Vt. 443, citing Wright & Miller.

Compare

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Courts hesitate to dismiss a claim in the initial stages of litigation since a party may require discovery. RTC v. Driscoll, C.A.1st, 1993, 985 F.2d 44, 48 (dismissing action since, after two years of litigation, complaint lacks “a single, coherent, specific description” of wrongdoing by the defendant). The motion only should be granted in limited circumstances. In re FAC Realty Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.C.1997, 990 F.Supp. 416.

But see A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim can serve a useful purpose by disposing of the legal issues with a minimum of time and expense to the interested parties. Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co., C.A.8th, 1968, 402 F.2d 968, certiorari denied 89 S.Ct. 2096, 395 U.S. 961, 23 L.Ed.2d 748. This principle is contrary to the very purpose of Rule 12(b)(6), conserving public and private resources. “[I]f the standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is met, ‘a claim must be dismissed, without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one.’ ” Gray v. Petoseed Co., D.C.S.C.1996, 985 F.Supp. 625, 635 n. 15, affirmed C.A.4th, 1997, 129 F.3d 1259, quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 1989, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1832, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 104 L.Ed.2d 338. Melo-Sonics Corp. v. Cropp, C.A.3d, 1965, 342 F.2d 856. 35 Rule 8 discussion See vol. 5, § 1221.

But see "Additionally, dismissals for failure to state a claim are disfavored in antitrust actions." William O. Gilley Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 561 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2009), opinion withdrawn and superseded on other grounds, 588 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2009). 36 Later discussion See the text at notes 92 and 93. 37 Generalized statement of facts Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 152 L.Ed.2d 1. Reeves v. Wilbanks, 2013 WL 5479126 (11th Cir. 2013). Robinson v. Township of Redford, C.A.6th, 2002, 48 Fed.Appx. 925 (unpublished). Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc., C.A.1st, 2000, 199 F.3d 68, quoting Wright & Miller, appeal after remand C.A.1st, 2002, 48 Fed.Appx. 4. Mid America Title Co. v. Kirk, C.A.7th, 1993, 991 F.2d 417, on remand D.C.Ill.1994, 867 F.Supp. 673, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 59 F.3d 719, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 520, 516 U.S. 990, 133 L.Ed.2d 428 (defendants adequately put on notice by complaint). Ring v. First Interstate Mortgage, Inc., C.A.8th, 1993, 984 F.2d 924 (need not allege all facts establishing discrimination; only “short and plain statement” is required). Garita Hotel Ltd. v. Ponce Fed. Bank, F.S.B., C.A.1st, 1992, 958 F.2d 15, 17, quoting Wright & Miller, on remand D.C.Puerto Rico 1996, 954 F.Supp. 438. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman, C.A.9th, 1985, 764 F.2d 1309, 1318, quoting Wright & Miller. Campbell v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., D.C.D.C.2002, 222 F.Supp.2d 8. Jetform Corp. v. Unisys Corp., D.C.Va.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 788, citing Wright & Miller (claim for copyright infringement). Barron v. U.S., D.C.N.H.1998, 998 F.Supp. 117, quoting Wright & Miller. Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 177 F.R.D. 387, quoting Wright & Miller. Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247, quoting Wright & Miller. Dr. Fred Hatfield's Sportstrength Training Equip. Co. v. Balik, D.C.Fla.1997, 174 F.R.D. 496. Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S.A. Glas, Inc., D.C.Tex.1996, 940 F.Supp. 1026, 1031, quoting Wright & Miller. Budnick v. Baybanks, Inc., D.C.Mass.1996, 921 F.Supp. 30, 32, quoting Wright & Miller. Matta v. May, D.C.Tex.1995, 888 F.Supp. 808. Gallego v. Wilson, D.C.Mass.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1169, quoting Wright & Miller. Pope v. Inland Property Management, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1114. New York v. Solvent Chem. Co., D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 1015 (CERCLA case). D.S. America (East), Inc. v. Chromagrafx Imaging Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 873 F.Supp. 786.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

In re Recombinant DNA Technology Patent & Contract Litigation, D.C.Ind.1994, 874 F.Supp. 904, quoting Sidney S. Arst Co. v. Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund, C.A.7th, 1994, 25 F.3d 417. Gilbert v. Essex Group, Inc., D.C.N.H.1993, 930 F.Supp. 683, 686, quoting Wright & Miller. In a suit alleging a civil rights violation on the ground that members of various classes were excluded from the county's jury pool, plaintiff's failure to explain how the groups were excluded did not warrant dismissal since the complaint sufficiently gave notice under Rule 8(a)(2). Ryan v. DuPage County Jury Comm'n, D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 898. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., D.C.S.C.1993, 826 F.Supp. 1549. Storer Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of Montgomery, Alabama, D.C.Ala.1993, 826 F.Supp. 1338, vacated on other grounds D.C.Ala.1993, 866 F.Supp. 1376. Alexander v. Fujitsu Bus. Communication Sys., Inc., D.C.N.H.1993, 818 F.Supp. 462, quoting Wright & Miller. Levesque v. Miles Inc., D.C.N.H.1993, 816 F.Supp. 61, quoting Wright & Miller. Braden Shielding Sys., a Unit of Jason Inc. v. Shielding Dynamics of Texas, D.C.Ill.1992, 812 F.Supp. 819. Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc. v. CJR Processing, Inc., D.C.Ill.1992, 808 F.Supp. 652. Bur-Cold Express, Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., D.C.Tex.1992, 808 F.Supp. 553. Easling v. Glen-Gery Corp., D.C.N.J.1992, 804 F.Supp. 585. Advanced Power Sys., Inc. v. Hi-Tech Sys., Inc., D.C.Pa.1992, 801 F.Supp. 1450, 1454, quoting Wright & Miller. See vol. 5, §§ 1215 to 1226.

See also Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. AT & T Communications of Delaware, LLC, D.C.Del.2004, 326 F.Supp.2d 574, quoting Kost v. Kozakiewicz, C.A.3d, 1993, 1 F.3d 176, 183, quoting Wright & Miller. Willging, The Use of Rule 12(b)(6) in Two Federal District Courts (Federal Judicial Center, 1989). 38 Liberal standard Covad Communications Co. v. BellSouth Corp., C.A.11th, 2002, 299 F.3d 1272, certiorari granted, judgment vacated on other grounds 2004, 124 S.Ct. 1143, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 1040. Cruz v. Melecio, C.A.1st, 2000, 204 F.3d 14. Veazey v. Communications & Cable of Chicago, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 194 F.3d 850. Harrell v. Cook, C.A.7th, 1999, 169 F.3d 428 (pleadings construed liberally on Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). Ellis v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., C.A.11th, 1998, 160 F.3d 703. The threshold to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is low, but real. Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc., C.A.1st, 1996, 103 F.3d 186. Sidney S. Arst Co. v. Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund, C.A.7th, 1994, 25 F.3d 417. Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than those applied to complaints drafted by attorneys. Swofford v. Mandrell, C.A.7th, 1992, 969 F.2d 547, 549. Dewey v. University of New Hampshire, C.A.1st, 1982, 694 F.2d 1, 3, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 103 S.Ct. 2121, 461 U.S. 944, 77 L.Ed.2d 1301. Smart v. Ellis Trucking Co., C.A.6th, 1978, 580 F.2d 215, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 1497, 440 U.S. 958, 59 L.Ed.2d 770. Hepperle v. Johnston, C.A.5th, 1976, 544 F.2d 201. Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., C.A.9th, 1976, 529 F.2d 987. Minkoff v. Steven Jrs., Inc., C.A.2d, 1958, 260 F.2d 588. F.D.I.C. v. AmFin Financial Corp., 490 B.R. 548, 550 (N.D. Ohio 2013). Admiral Ins. Co. v. Heath Holdings USA, Inc., D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 576055. Golthy v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.2003, 287 F.Supp.2d 1259 (threshold is exceedingly low to survive Rule 12(b)(6)). Danielle v. Adriazola, D.C.Fla.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 1368 (threshold is exceedingly low to survive Rule 12(b)(6)). Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, D.C.Minn.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 1032, quoting Wright & Miller. Aldridge v. U.S., D.C.Tenn.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 802. Eberhard Inv. Associates, Inc. v. Santino, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22126846. Full Faith Church of Love West, Inc. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., Inc., D.C.Kan.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 1285. Romero v. City of Clanton, D.C.Ala.2002, 220 F.Supp.2d 1313 (“exceedingly low” threshold for surviving motion). American Medical Ass'n v. United Healthcare Corp., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 31413668. Bellis v. Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 193149 (unpublished).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Baseball at Trotwood, LLC v. Dayton Professional Baseball Club, LLC, D.C.Ohio 1999, 113 F.Supp.2d 1164. People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 275. Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 741. Kellman v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., D.C.Conn.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 35. Amoco Production Co. v. Aspen Group, D.C.Colo.1999, 189 F.R.D. 614. The notice pleading standard set forth in Rule 8 establishes a powerful presumption against rejecting pleadings for failure to state a claim. Films of Distinction, Inc. v. Allegro Film Productions, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1068. The notice pleading standard set forth in Rule 8 establishes a powerful presumption against rejecting pleadings for failure to state a claim. Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1035. Corporate Health Ins., Inc. v. Texas Dep't of Ins., D.C.Tex.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 597, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 2000, 215 F.3d 526. The threshold of sufficiency that a complaint must meet to survive a motion to dismiss is exceedingly low. Stapleton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1344. Motions to dismiss should be granted only in very limited circumstances. Jetform Corp. v. Unisys Corp., D.C.Va.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 788. The threshold of sufficiency that a complaint must meet to survive a motion to dismiss is exceedingly low. Harris v. District Bd. of Trustees of Polk Community College, D.C.Fla.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1319. The movant sustained a very high burden in Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Andrus, D.C.Ala.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1291. Frith v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Tex.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 734 (dismissals are rare). The threshold of sufficiency that a complaint must meet to survive a motion to dismiss is exceedingly low. Henniger v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1334. Nautica Int'l, Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P., D.C.Fla.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 1333. DeLeon v. Beneficial Constr. Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 859. Farabee v. Rider, D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1398 (exceedingly low threshold). The threshold of sufficiency that a complaint must meet to survive a motion to dismiss is exceedingly low. DiGiro v. Pall Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1471. Harary v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 95. Cemail v. Viking Dodge, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1296. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dade County Esoil Management Co., D.C.Fla.1997, 982 F.Supp. 873. Florida College of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 982 F.Supp. 862. Stat-Tech Liquidating Trust v. Fenster, D.C.Colo.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1325. Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Florida, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1455. Saunders v. Hunter, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1236. Geneva Steel Co. v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp., D.C.Utah 1997, 980 F.Supp. 1209. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 522. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 515. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 507. Whayne v. Kansas, D.C.Kan.1997, 980 F.Supp. 387. Leiberkneckt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., D.C.Iowa 1997, 980 F.Supp. 300. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 21. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 16. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 10. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 2. Lugo v. INS, D.C.Va.1997, 950 F.Supp. 743 (liberally construe). Pabst Brewing Co. v. Corrao, D.C.Wis.1997, 176 F.R.D. 552. U.S. ex rel. Aranda v. Community Psychiatric Centers of Oklahoma, Inc., D.C.Okl.1996, 945 F.Supp. 1485. Moore v. Alabama State Univ., D.C.Ala.1996, 945 F.Supp. 235. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will not be granted merely because the complaint does not state every element necessary for recovery with precision. Mauzy v. Mexico School Dist. No. 59, D.C.Mo.1995, 878 F.Supp. 153. Dugan v. Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1994, 876 F.Supp. 713 (liberal standard applies to RICO claims).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Malone v. Chambers County Bd. of Comm'rs, D.C.Ala.1994, 875 F.Supp. 773 (threshold complaint must meet to survive motion to dismiss is “exceedingly low”). Koch v. Mirza, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 1031. Corporate Training Unlimited v. National Broadcasting Co., D.C.N.Y.1994, 868 F.Supp. 501. Boyce v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 842 F.Supp. 822, 824 (complaint need only give fair notice of nature of plaintiff's claim and need not “contain a lengthy recitation of the facts”). Johnston v. Foster-Wheeler Constructors, Inc., D.C.Ala.1994, 158 F.R.D. 496 (threshold that complaint must meet to survive motion to dismiss is “exceedingly low”). Clorox Co. v. Chromium Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 158 F.R.D. 120. RTC v. O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer, D.C.Ind.1993, 840 F.Supp. 1270 (plaintiff's admittedly conclusory allegation of causation must be accepted under “liberal” pleading regime of federal rules). Garus v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., D.C.Ind.1993, 839 F.Supp. 563 (although plaintiff's allegations admittedly were vague, they were sufficient under Rule 8(a), which seeks only to ensure general notice and reserves discovery of the evidentiary basis of the claim to liberal discovery procedures). Gustafson v. Bridger Coal Co., D.C.Wyo.1993, 834 F.Supp. 352. City of Fort Lauderdale v. Ross, Saarinen, Bolton & Wilder, Inc., D.C.Fla.1992, 815 F.Supp. 444. Reed Paper Co. v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., D.C.Me.1992, 807 F.Supp. 840 (dismissing complaint since plaintiff failed to allege any facts to support claim of price-fixing, thus defendant was not on notice that price-fixing claim was being raised). Harris v. O'Grady, D.C.Ill.1992, 803 F.Supp. 1361. Georgia ex rel. Bowers v. Dairymen, Inc., D.C.Ga.1991, 813 F.Supp. 1580. In re Digital Equip. Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mass.1984, 601 F.Supp. 311, 313, citing Wright & Miller. Lachica v. Jaffe, D.C.N.Y.1983, 578 F.Supp. 83, 84, citing Wright & Miller. Jordan v. Global Natural Resources, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1983, 564 F.Supp. 59. Sullivan v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1977, 428 F.Supp. 79. Cromwell v. Ward, D.C.N.Y.1977, 425 F.Supp. 97. Kistler Instrumente A.G. v. PCB Piezotronics, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1976, 419 F.Supp. 120. Leeward Petroleum, Ltd. v. Mene Grande Oil Co., D.C.Del.1976, 415 F.Supp. 158. Alloy Cast Steel Co. v. United Steel Workers of America, D.C.Ohio 1976, 70 F.R.D. 687, supplemented on other grounds D.C.Ohio 1977, 429 F.Supp. 445. Byron v. University of Florida, D.C.Fla.1975, 403 F.Supp. 49, 54, citing Wright & Miller. Battle v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., D.C.Minn.1975, 399 F.Supp. 900. Vermilion Foam Prods. Co. v. General Elec. Co., D.C.Mich.1974, 386 F.Supp. 255. Druker v. Sullivan, D.C.Mass.1971, 334 F.Supp. 861, 864, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed on other grounds C.A.1st, 1972, 458 F.2d 1272. DeVore Brokerage Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., D.C.Tenn.1969, 308 F.Supp. 279. When a complaint puts the defendant on fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests, the complaint should not be dismissed. Tennessee ex rel. Davis v. Hartman, D.C.Tenn.1969, 306 F.Supp. 610. A complaint is adequate if the circumstances, occurrences, and events in support of the claim are stated with sufficient particularity to give the defendant notice of the basis of the suit. American Dairy Queen Corp. v. Augustyn, D.C.Ill.1967, 278 F.Supp. 717. U.S. v. Provident Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1966, 259 F.Supp. 373, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 778, 385 U.S. 1034, 17 L.Ed.2d 682. American Technical Mach. Corp. v. Masterpiece Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.1964, 235 F.Supp. 917. Stanley v. Harper Buffing Mach. Co., D.C.Conn.1961, 28 F.R.D. 579. See also vol. 5, § 1216.

See also Thomas v. Beth Israel Hosp. Inc., D.C.N.Y.1989, 710 F.Supp. 935 (standard applied even less rigorously when plaintiff is proceeding pro se).

But compare Malena v. Richard, D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 690893 (despite liberal reading, complaint does not give facts necessary to establish claim upon which relief can be granted).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

39 On the merits “The liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 998, 534 U.S. 506, 512, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (Thomas, J.). Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013). West Run Student Housing Associates, LLC v. Huntington Nat. Bank, 712 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2013). Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of Houston, C.A.5th, 1986, 791 F.2d 1182, 1189, citing Wright & Miller. Kauffman v. Moss, C.A.3d, 1970, 420 F.2d 1270, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 93, 400 U.S. 846, 27 L.Ed.2d 84. Oil Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Delta Ref. Co., C.A.6th, 1960, 277 F.2d 694. Arfons v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., C.A.2d, 1958, 261 F.2d 434. Nagler v. Admiral Corp., C.A.2d, 1957, 248 F.2d 319. Herskowitz v. Apple Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 1131, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2013). McMahon v. General Dynamics Corp., 933 F. Supp. 2d 682, 695-696 (D.N.J. 2013) ("The Third Circuit has adopted a liberal policy in favor of permitting pleading amendments to ensure that 'a particular claim will be decided on the merits rather than on technicalities.'"), quoting Dole v. Arco Chemical Co., 921 F.2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990). Smith v. Grady, 27 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 1295, 117 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 737, 2013 WL 249677, *11 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (Sixth Circuit has preference for deciding cases on merits), citing Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244, 252 (6th Cir. 2003). Partovi v. Matuszewski, 647 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009). James v. Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, 2009 WL 2567910 (S.D. Ill. 2009). Render v. IRS, D.C.Mich.2004, 309 F.Supp.2d 938. Rodriguez v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.2004, 2004 WL 503406. Texas v. American Tobacco Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 14 F.Supp.2d 956, quoting Wright & Miller. Yeitrakis v. Schering-Plough Corp., D.C.N.M.1992, 804 F.Supp. 238. Manchester v. Rzewnicki, D.C.Del.1991, 777 F.Supp. 319, 324, affirmed without published opinion C.A.3d, 1992, 958 F.2d 364, citing Wright & Miller. Cohen v. McAllister, D.C.Pa.1988, 688 F.Supp. 1040. Barkman v. Wabash, Inc., D.C.Ill.1987, 674 F.Supp. 623. Airline Car Rental, Inc. v. Shreveport Airport Authority, D.C.La.1986, 667 F.Supp. 293. Blessing v. U.S., D.C.Pa.1978, 447 F.Supp. 1160. International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180. Since the federal courts are reluctant to dismiss cases without a hearing on the merits, a motion to dismiss will not be granted merely because a claim for relief has been defectively stated. Bredehoeft v. Cornell, D.C.Ore.1966, 260 F.Supp. 557. Bellmore Sales Corp. v. Winfield Drug Stores, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1960, 187 F.Supp. 161.

See also Dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim is an even more stringent and summary disposition than summary judgment. Austin v. House of Vision, Inc., C.A.7th, 1967, 385 F.2d 171, appeal after remand C.A.7th, 1968, 404 F.2d 401.

Compare The court should not dismiss a claim against an individual in his official capacity solely because it may be redundant with the separate claim against the government entity of which the official was an agent; if the defendants do not contend that the plaintiff failed to state a claim but merely point to the redundancy, the motion should not be dismissed since redundant claims may all be valid and there is little to be gained by dismissing the claim on formalistic grounds since the officials often must still defend the charges in their official capacity. Capresecco v. Jenkintown Borough, D.C.Pa.2003, 261 F.Supp.2d 319.

But compare Cecere v. County of Westchester, D.C.N.Y.1993, 814 F.Supp. 378 (if all information plaintiff has and submits supports the inference that plaintiff has cause of action, limited discovery may be necessary in order to determine whether complaint should be dismissed). 40 Waste of judicial time Cook v. Nichol, Inc. v. Plimsoll Club, C.A.5th, 1971, 451 F.2d 505. Shull v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 1963, 313 F.2d 445.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

See also In Gambino v. United Fruit Co., D.C.N.Y.1969, 48 F.R.D. 28, 29, Judge Croake denied the third-party defendant's motion to dismiss stating that “once the notice function of pleading has been accomplished, motions going only to the form of pleading are more likely to cost clients money and courts time than to serve anyone's interests.” 41 Rennie case C.A.9th, 1957, 242 F.2d 208. 42 Quotation Id. at 213 (Barnes, J.).

See also “[The] simplified notice pleading standard relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims. … Other provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are inextricably linked to Rule 8(a)'s simplified notice pleading standard. … Given the Federal Rules' simplified standard for pleading, ‘[a] court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.’ If a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding. Moreover, claims lacking merit may be dealt with through summary judgment under Rule 56. The liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 510–512, 997–998, 534 U.S. 506, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (Thomas, J.), quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 1984, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2233, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 81 L.Ed.2d 59. 43 Conley case 1957, 78 S.Ct. 99, 355 U.S. 41, 2 L.Ed.2d 80. The Conley case is discussed in greater detail in vol. 5, §§ 1216, 1286. 44 Quotation Id. at 102, 355 U.S. at 45–46 (Black, J.). 45 Conley principle

Supreme Court Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 152 L.Ed.2d 1. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 1993, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 507 U.S. 163, 122 L.Ed.2d 517. Neitzke v. Williams, 1989, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 490 U.S. 319, 104 L.Ed.2d 338. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 1984, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 467 U.S. 69, 81 L.Ed.2d 59. When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any evidence either by affidavit or admission, the issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail or is likely to prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 1974, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 416 U.S. 232, 40 L.Ed.2d 90. Haines v. Kerner, 1972, 92 S.Ct. 594, 404 U.S. 519, 30 L.Ed.2d 652. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 1969, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 1849, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 23 L.Ed.2d 404.

First Circuit In re Diamond, C.A.1st, 2003, 346 F.3d 224. Cogan v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 2002, 310 F.3d 238. Chute v. Walker, C.A.1st, 2002, 281 F.3d 314. “Dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is only appropriate if the complaint, so viewed, presents no set of facts justifying recovery.” Cooperman v. Individual, Inc., C.A.1st, 1999, 171 F.3d 43, 46 (Torruella, C.J.). Judge v. City of Lowell, C.A.1st, 1998, 160 F.3d 67. Kiely v. Raytheon, Co., C.A.1st, 1997, 105 F.3d 734. Wyatt v. City of Boston, C.A.1st, 1994, 35 F.3d 13. Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., C.A.1st, 1994, 26 F.3d 254. Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., C.A.1st, 1988, 851 F.2d 513.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Ballou v. General Elec. Corp., C.A.1st, 1968, 393 F.2d 398.

Maine Ingram v. Rencor Controls, Inc., D.C.Me.2002, 217 F.Supp.2d 141. Greenier v. Pace, Local No. 1188, D.C.Me.2002, 201 F.Supp.2d 172. GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp. v. Gleichman, D.C.Me.1999, 84 F.Supp.2d 127. Fillion v. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, D.C.Me.1999, 54 F.Supp.2d 50. Feighery v. York Hosp., D.C.Me.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 142. Wyman v. Prime Discount Secs., D.C.Me.1993, 819 F.Supp. 79. Carey v. Maine School Administrative Dist. No. 17, D.C.Me.1990, 754 F.Supp. 906.

Massachusetts Johnson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.C.Mass.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 194. Gelfer v. Pegasystems, Inc., D.C.Mass.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 10. System Management, Inc. v. Loiselle, D.C.Mass.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 401. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Boston Scientific Corp., D.C.Mass.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 189. Missert v. Trustees of Boston Univ., D.C.Mass.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 68, affirmed C.A.1st, 2000, 248 F.3d 1127. Shabazz v. Cole, D.C.Mass.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 177. Williams v. Astra USA, Inc., D.C.Mass.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 29. Heinrich ex rel. Heinrich v. Sweet, D.C.Mass.1999, 62 F.Supp.2d 282. Lirette v. Shiva Corp., D.C.Mass.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 268. Edwin v. Blenwood Associates, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 70. Danca v. Emerson Hosp., D.C.Mass.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 27, affirmed C.A.1st, 1999, 185 F.3d 1. Citicorp No. America, Inc. v. Ogden Martin Sys. of Haverhill, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 72. French v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 128. Paredes v. Princess Cruises, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 87. P.L.A.Y., Incorporated v. NIKE, Incorporated, D.C.Mass.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 60. Deisenroth v. Numonics Corp., D.C.Mass.1998, 997 F.Supp. 153. Honeywell Consumer Prods., Inc. v. Windmere Corp., D.C.Mass.1998, 993 F.Supp. 22. Goodrich v. CML Fiberoptics, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 990 F.Supp. 48. Boston Scientific Corp. v. Schneider (Europe) AG, D.C.Mass.1997, 983 F.Supp. 245. Acciavatti v. Professional Servs. Group, Inc., D.C.Mass.1997, 982 F.Supp. 69. Furtick v. Medford Housing Authority, D.C.Mass.1997, 963 F.Supp. 64. Estate of Golas v. Paul Revere Ins. Group, D.C.Mass.1997, 175 F.R.D. 421. Baker v. Coxe, D.C.Mass.1996, 940 F.Supp. 409. Choroszy v. Wentworth Institute of Technology, D.C.Mass.1996, 915 F.Supp. 446. Whelan v. Intergraph Corp., D.C.Mass.1995, 889 F.Supp. 15. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. IMR Capital Corp., D.C.Mass.1995, 888 F.Supp. 221. Lemelson v. Wang Labs., Inc., D.C.Mass.1994, 874 F.Supp. 430. Skinder-Strauss Associates v. Massachusetts Continuing Legal Educ., Inc., D.C.Mass.1994, 870 F.Supp. 8. Abany v. Fridovich, D.C.Mass.1994, 862 F.Supp. 615. Petricca v. Simpson, D.C.Mass.1994, 862 F.Supp. 13. Laker v. Freid, D.C.Mass.1994, 854 F.Supp. 923. McGrath v. MacDonald, D.C.Mass.1994, 853 F.Supp. 1. Steiner v. Unitrode Corp., D.C.Mass.1993, 834 F.Supp. 40. Branch v. FDIC, D.C.Mass.1993, 825 F.Supp. 384. Colby v. Hologic, Inc., D.C.Mass.1993, 817 F.Supp. 204. Andujar v. City of Boston, D.C.Mass.1991, 760 F.Supp. 238. Collins v. Rukin, D.C.Mass.1972, 342 F.Supp. 1282.

New Hampshire

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bank of New Hampshire v. U.S., D.C.N.H.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 214. Nedder v. Rivier College, D.C.N.H.1996, 944 F.Supp. 111. Eric L. by & through Schierberl v. Bird, D.C.N.H.1994, 848 F.Supp. 303. Avery v. Powell, D.C.N.H.1992, 806 F.Supp. 7.

Puerto Rico Leopoldo Fontanillas, Inc. v. Luis Ayala Colon Sucesores, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 579. Rivera de Leon v. Maxon Engineering Servs., Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 550. Torres Ocasio v. Melendez, D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 505. Kell v. American Capital Strategies, Ltd., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 156. Viera-Marcano v. Ramirez-Sanchez, D.C.Puerto Rico 2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 397. FAC, Incorporated v. Cooperative de Seguros de Vida, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 244. Guzman Flores v. College of Optometrists, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 212. Goya de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Munoz, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 61. Rivera Borrero v. Rivera Correa, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 122 (pro se complaint). Generadora De Electricidad Del Caribe, Inc. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 8. Rodriguez-Robledo v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 175. Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Warehouse, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 256. Guadarrama v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 127. Maldonado-Cordero v. AT & T, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 177. Santiago v. Garcia, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 84. Llewellyn-Waters v. University of Puerto Rico, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 159. Rodriguez-Oquendo v. Toledo-Davila, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 127. U.S. v. $40,000.00 in U.S. Currency, D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 999 F.Supp. 234. Lebron v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hosp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1998, 995 F.Supp. 241. U.S. v. Pesquera, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 995 F.Supp. 235. Kmart Corp. v. Rivera-Alejandro Architects & Engineers, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 174 F.R.D. 242. Marrero Artache v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, D.C.Puerto Rico 1996, 924 F.Supp. 346. Figueroa v. Fernandez, D.C.Puerto Rico 1996, 921 F.Supp. 889. Bonilla v. Trebol Motors Corp., D.C.Puerto Rico 1995, 913 F.Supp. 655. Diana Paolucci Corp. v. Carbonell & Astor, D.C.Puerto Rico 1996, 949 F.Supp. 65. Schroeder v. De Bertolo, D.C.Puerto Rico 1995, 879 F.Supp. 173. Barcelo v. Agosto, D.C.Puerto Rico 1995, 876 F.Supp. 1332, affirmed C.A.1st, 1996, 75 F.3d 23. Flamand v. American Int'l Group, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 1994, 876 F.Supp. 356. Corporacion Insular de Seguros v. Reyes Munoz, D.C.Puerto Rico 1993, 826 F.Supp. 599. Padilla Rodriguez v. Llorens Quinones, D.C.Puerto Rico 1993, 813 F.Supp. 924. Arroyo Otero v. Hernandez Purcell, D.C.Puerto Rico 1992, 804 F.Supp. 418. Ferrer v. Carricarte, D.C.Puerto Rico 1990, 751 F.Supp. 1032. International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180.

Rhode Island Carty v. Wall, D.C.R.I.2003, 2003 WL 21011224. Lawson v. Liburdi, D.C.R.I.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 31. Rhode Island Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.R.I.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 174, quoting Wright & Miller. Guilbeault v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.R.I.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 263. Theta Prods., Inc. v. Zippo Mfg. Co., D.C.R.I.1999, 81 F.Supp.2d 346. Crawford v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., D.C.R.I.1998, 14 F.Supp.2d 202, citing Wright & Miller. DM Research, Inc. v. College of American Pathologists, D.C.R.I.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 226, affirmed C.A.1st, 1999, 170 F.3d 53. Eastridge v. Rhode Island College, D.C.R.I.1998, 996 F.Supp. 161, citing Wright & Miller. Moran v. GTech Corp., D.C.R.I.1997, 989 F.Supp. 84, citing Wright & Miller. Hargreaves v. Reis, D.C.R.I.1997, 977 F.Supp. 123.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Miller v. Arpin & Sons, Inc., D.C.R.I.1997, 949 F.Supp. 961. Simon v. American Power Conversion Corp., D.C.R.I.1996, 945 F.Supp. 416. Roma Constr. Co. v. aRusso, D.C.R.I.1995, 906 F.Supp. 78, reversed on other grounds C.A.1st, 1996, 96 F.3d 566. Tang v. Rhode Island, Dep't of Elderly Affairs, D.C.R.I.1995, 904 F.Supp. 55. Lieberman-Sack v. Harvard Community Health Plan of New England, Inc., D.C.R.I.1995, 882 F.Supp. 249. Cok v. Forte, D.C.R.I.1995, 877 F.Supp. 797, affirmed C.A.1st, 1995, 69 F.3d 531. Cook v. Rhode Island, Dep't of Mental Health, Retardation & Hosps., D.C.R.I.1992, 834 F.Supp. 57 (opinion withdrawn). O'Neil v. Q.L.C.R.I., Incorporated, D.C.R.I.1990, 750 F.Supp. 551. H.K. Porter Co. v. Nicholson File Co., D.C.R.I.1972, 353 F.Supp. 153, affirmed on other grounds C.A.1st, 1973, 482 F.2d 421. Ricciotti v. Warwick School Committee, D.C.R.I.1970, 319 F.Supp. 1006. Coletta v. U.S., D.C.R.I.1969, 300 F.Supp. 19. Riverhouse Publishing Co. v. Porter, D.C.R.I.1968, 287 F.Supp. 1.

Second Circuit Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, C.A.2d, 2004, 357 F.3d 205. Gmurzynska v. Hutton, C.A.2d, 2004, 355 F.3d 206. Zerilli-Edelglass v. New York City Transit, C.A.2d, 2003, 333 F.3d 74. Sealed v. Sealed, C.A.2d, 2003, 332 F.3d 51 (court noted that rule applies with particular force when plaintiffs seek to vindicate their civil rights). AmBase Corp. v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, C.A.2d, 2003, 326 F.3d 63, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 571, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 430. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, C.A.2d, 2003, 322 F.3d 147. Davis v. Goord, C.A.2d, 2003, 320 F.3d 346. Phelps v. Kapnolas, C.A.2d, 2002, 308 F.3d 180. “Upon a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissal is not warranted unless ‘no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.’ ” Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko v. Bell Atl. Corp., C.A.2d, 2002, 294 F.3d 307 (Sack, J., concurring and dissenting), quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 1984, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 81 L.Ed.2d 59, reversed on other grounds 2004, 124 S.Ct. 872, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 823. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., C.A.2d, 2002, 282 F.3d 147. Lerman v. Board of Elections in City of New York, C.A.2d, 2000, 232 F.3d 135, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 2520, 533 U.S. 915, 150 l.Ed.2d 692. Kittay v. Kornstein, C.A.2d, 2000, 230 F.3d 531. Sims v. Artuz, C.A.2d, 2000, 230 F.3d 14, on remand D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 1746263. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, C.A.2d, 2000, 222 F.3d 63. Feder v. Frost, C.A.2d, 2000, 220 F.3d 29. Charles W. v. Maul, C.A.2d, 2000, 214 F.3d 350. Tarshis v. Reise Organization, C.A.2d, 2000, 211 F.3d 30. Friedl v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 2000, 210 F.3d 79. Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda (New York) Ltd., C.A.2d, 2000, 209 F.3d 130. EEOC v. Staten Island Savs. Bank, C.A.2d, 2000, 207 F.3d 144. MacDonald v. Safir, C.A.2d, 2000, 206 F.3d 183. Cruz v. Gomez, C.A.2d, 2000. 202 F.3d 593. Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., C.A.2d, 2000, 202 F.3d 560. Flaherty v. Lang, C.A.2d, 1999, 199 F.3d 607. King v. Simpson, C.A.2d, 1999, 189 F.3d 284. Harris v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1999, 186 F.3d 243. Hayden v. County of Nassau, C.A.2d, 1999, 180 F.3d 42. Morris v. Local 819, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, C.A.2d, 1999, 169 F.3d 782. Vital v. Interfaith Medical Center, C.A.2d, 1999, 168 F.3d 615, on remand D.C.N.Y.2001, 2001 WL 901140. Koppel v. 4987 Corporation, C.A.2d, 1999, 167 F.3d 125. Lee v. Bankers Trust Co., C.A.2d, 1999, 166 F.3d 540.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Press v. Chemical Inv. Servs. Corp., C.A.2d, 1999, 166 F.3d 529. Stuto v. Fleishman, C.A.2d, 1999, 164 F.3d 820. SEC v. U.S. Environmental, Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 155 F.3d 107. Automated Salvage Transp., Inc. v. Wheelabrator Environmental Sys., Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 155 F.3d 59. Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 67, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 868, 525 U.S. 1103, 142 L.Ed.2d 770. McClellan v. Cablevision of Connecticut, Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 149 F.3d 161. Austin v. Ford Models, Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 149 F.3d 148. George Haug Co. v. Rolls Royce Motor Cars Inc., C.A.2d, 1998, 148 F.3d 136. Grandon v. Merrill Lynch & Co., C.A.2d, 1998, 147 F.3d 184, on remand D.C.N.Y. 1999, 1999 WL 993653. Chance v. Armstrong, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 698, appeal after remand C.A.2d, 1998, 159 F.3d 1345. Irish Lesbian & Gay Organization v. Giuliani, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 638. Scotto v. Almenas, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 105. Thomas v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 31. Castellano v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1998, 142 F.3d 58, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 276, 525 U.S. 922, 142 L.Ed.2d 228. Cooper v. Parsky, C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 433, on remand D.C.N.Y.2000, 2000 WL 1277593. Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., C.A.2d, 1997, 134 F.3d 41. Jaghory v. New York State Dep't of Educ., C.A.2d, 1997, 131 F.3d 326. Electronics Communications Corp. v. Toshiba America Consumer Prods., Inc., C.A.2d, 1997, 129 F.3d 240. Boddie v. Schnieder, C.A.2d, 1997, 105 F.3d 857. Still v. DeBuono, C.A.2d, 1996, 101 F.3d 888. Harsco Corp. v. Segui, C.A.2d, 1996, 91 F.3d 337. Bernheim v. Litt, C.A.2d, 1996, 79 F.3d 318. Baker v. Cuomo, C.A.2d, 1995, 58 F.3d 814. Bolt Elec., Inc. v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1995, 53 F.3d 465, on remand D.C.N.Y.1998, 1998 WL 851603. Staron v. McDonald's Corp., C.A.2d, 1995, 51 F.3d 353. Simmons v. Abruzzo, C.A.2d, 1995, 49 F.3d 83, on remand D.C.N.Y.1996, 1996 WL 79321. Hill v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1995, 45 F.3d 653. Glendora v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., C.A.2d, 1995, 45 F.3d 36. Yusuf v. Vassar College, C.A.2d, 1994, 35 F.3d 709. Paulemon v. Tobin, C.A.2d, 1994, 30 F.3d 307. Cohen v. Koenig, C.A.2d, 1994, 25 F.3d 1168. Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., C.A.2d, 1994, 25 F.3d 1124. Hernandez v. Coughlin, C.A.2d, 1994, 18 F.3d 133, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 117, 513 U.S. 836, 130 L.Ed.2d 63. Sykes v. James, C.A.2d, 1993, 13 F.3d 515, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 2749, 512 U.S. 1240, 129 L.Ed.2d 867. Ferran v. Town of Nassau, C.A.2d, 1993, 11 F.3d 21, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 572, 513 U.S. 1014, 130 L.Ed.2d 489, rehearing denied 115 S.Ct. 925, 513 U.S. 1121, 130 L.Ed.2d 804. Rent Stabilization Ass'n of the City of New York v. Dinkins, C.A.2d, 1993, 5 F.3d 591. Hertz Corp. v. City of New York, C.A.2d, 1993, 1 F.3d 121, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 1054, 510 U.S. 1111, 127 L.Ed.2d 375 and 114 S.Ct. 1055, 510 U.S. 1111, 127 L.Ed.2d 375, on remand D.C.N.Y.2002, 212 F.Supp.2d 275. In re Ames Dep't Stores Inc. Stock Litigation, C.A.2d, 1993, 991 F.2d 953. Easton v. Sundram, C.A.2d, 1991, 947 F.2d 1011, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 1943, 504 U.S. 911, 118 L.Ed.2d 548. Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, C.A.2d, 1991, 941 F.2d 119. Oritz v. Cornetta, C.A.2d, 1989, 867 F.2d 146. Rauch v. RCA Corporation, C.A.2d, 1988, 861 F.2d 29. Goldman v. Belden, C.A.2d, 1985, 754 F.2d 1059. Clay v. Martin, C.A.2d, 1975, 509 F.2d 109. Bishop v. Stoneman, C.A.2d, 1974, 508 F.2d 1224. Williams v. Vincent, C.A.2d, 1974, 508 F.2d 541. Build of Buffalo, Inc. v. Sedita, C.A.2d, 1971, 441 F.2d 284. Arfons v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., C.A.2d, 1958, 261 F.2d 434.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Connecticut Lotto v. Hamden Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.2005, 400 F.Supp.2d 451. Yeomans v. Wallace, D.C.Conn.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 70. Copeland v. Home & Community Health Servs., D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 144. Longmoor v. Nilsen, D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 132. DeRay v. Larson, D.C.Conn.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 706. MM Global Servs., Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., D.C.Conn.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 689. Ericson v. City of Meriden, D.C.Conn.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 276, affirmed C.A.2d, 2002, 55 Fed.Appx. 11. Joslin v. Grossman, D.C.Conn.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 150. Hughes v. City of Hartford, D.C.Conn.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 114. Fonseca v. RBC Heim Bearings Corp., D.C.Conn.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 137. Burgos v. Department of Children & Families, D.C.Conn.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 313. Colon v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Conn.1999, 95 F.Supp.2d 85. Latella v. National Passenger R.R. Corp., D.C.Conn.1999, 94 F.Supp.2d 186. Local 1035, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Pepsi-Cola Allied Bottlers, Inc., D.C.Conn.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 301. Abdullah ex rel. Abdullah v. Travelers Property Cas. Corp., D.C.Conn.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 289. Gaynor v. Martin, D.C.Conn.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 272. Equality, Inc. v. I-Link Communications, D.C.Conn.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 227. Cole v. Aetna Life & Cas., D.C.Conn.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 106. Leventhal v. Tow, D.C.Conn.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 104. BRM Industries, Inc. v. Mazak Corp., D.C.Conn.1999, 42 F.Supp.2d 176. Ziemba v. Slater, D.C.Conn.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 81. Musso v. Seiders, D.C.Conn.1999, 194 F.R.D. 43. Feiner v. SS & C Technologies, D.C.Conn.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 204. Sanchez v. City of Hartford, D.C.Conn.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 162. Huff v. West Haven Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 117. Catalano v. Bedford Associates, Inc., D.C.Conn.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 133. McDonald v. Timex Corp., D.C.Conn.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 120. Alba v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.1998, 999 F.Supp. 687. Cornerstone Realty, Inc. v. Dresser Rand Co., D.C.Conn.1998, 993 F.Supp. 107. Beggs v. Rossi, D.C.Conn.1997, 994 F.Supp. 114, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 145 F.3d 511. Worthington v. City of New Haven, D.C.Conn.1997, 994 F.Supp. 111. Sodexho USA, Inc. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 217, AFLCIO, D.C.Conn.1997, 989 F.Supp. 169. Raybestos Prods. Co. v. Coni-Seal, Inc., D.C.Conn.1997, 989 F.Supp. 166. Titan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc., D.C.Conn.1997, 981 F.Supp. 65. Coretti v. Lefkowitz, D.C.Conn.1997, 965 F.Supp. 3. Bernbach v. Timex Corp., D.C.Conn.1996, 989 F.Supp. 403. Williams v. Hoffman/New Yorker, Inc., D.C.Conn.1996, 923 F.Supp. 350. Venclauskas v. State of Connecticut, Dep't of Public Safety Div. of State Police, D.C.Conn.1995, 921 F.Supp. 78. Velez v. City of New London, D.C.Conn.1995, 903 F.Supp. 286. Sitka v. U.S., D.C.Conn.1995, 903 F.Supp. 282. Bennett v. Beiersdorf, Inc., D.C.Conn.1995, 889 F.Supp. 46. Hall v. United Technologies, Corp., D.C.Conn.1995, 872 F.Supp. 1094. Siebert v. Nives, D.C.Conn.1994, 871 F.Supp. 110. A. Aiudi & Sons v. Town of Plainville, D.C.Conn.1994, 862 F.Supp. 737. In re Colonial Ltd. Partnership Litigation, D.C.Conn.1994, 854 F.Supp. 64, 79. Kent v. AVCO Corporation, D.C.Conn.1994, 849 F.Supp. 833. Sun City Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Citizens Utils. Co., D.C.Conn.1994, 847 F.Supp. 281, affirmed C.A.2d, 1995, 45 F.3d 58, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 1693, 514 U.S. 1064, 131 L.Ed.2d 557. Elgard Corp. v. Brennan Constr. Co., D.C.Conn.1994, 157 F.R.D. 1.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Johnson v. Meachum, D.C.Conn.1993, 839 F.Supp. 953. Degrooth v. General Dynamics Corp., D.C.Conn.1993, 837 F.Supp. 485. Harris v. Wells, D.C.Conn.1993, 832 F.Supp. 31. Sacks v. Savings Bank of Rockville, D.C.Conn.1993, 824 F.Supp. 317. Investors Capital Corp. v. Connecticut Nat.l Bank, D.C.Conn.1993, 824 F.Supp. 309. Vorvis v. Southern New England Telephone Co., D.C.Conn.1993, 821 F.Supp. 851. Shane v. Connecticut, D.C.Conn.1993, 821 F.Supp. 829. Chem-Tek, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Conn.1993, 816 F.Supp. 123. B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, D.C.Conn.1993, 815 F.Supp. 539. Bapat v. Connecticut Dep't of Health Servs., D.C.Conn.1992, 815 F.Supp. 525. Kent v. AVCO Corporation, D.C.Conn.1992, 815 F.Supp. 67. DeSalle v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., D.C.Conn.1992, 804 F.Supp. 436. Steiner v. Shawmut Nat. Corp., D.C.Conn.1991, 766 F.Supp. 1236. Coan v. Bell Atl. Sys. Leasing Int'l, Inc., D.C.Conn.1990, 813 F.Supp. 929. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Mastroni, D.C.Conn.1990, 754 F.Supp. 269. Thompson Tool Co. v. Rosenbaum, D.C.Conn.1977, 443 F.Supp. 559. Owens v. Housing Authority of the City of Stamford, D.C.Conn.1975, 394 F.Supp. 1267.

New York Onanuga v. Pfizer, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 601689. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. United Limousine Serv., Inc., D.C.N.Y.2004, 303 F.Supp.2d 432. Johnson v. Bryco Arms, D.C.N.Y.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 383. Pena v. Guzman, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 253331. Digigan, Inc. v. Invalidate, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 203010. In re WorldCom, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2003, 294 F.Supp.2d 392, quoting Jaghory v. New York State Dep't of Educ., C.A.2d, 1997, 131 F.3d 326. Global View Ltd. Venture Capital v. Great Cent. Basin Exploration, LLC, D.C.N.Y.2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 473. Jones v. Nassau County Sheriff Dep't, D.C.N.Y.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 322. Oechsner v. Connell Ltd. Partnership, D.C.N.Y.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 926. Margiotta v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 857. Brown v. Quiniou, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22509400. In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22489764. 1210 Colvin Ave., Inc. v. Tops Markets, LLC, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22383566. Kreinik v. Showbran Photo, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22339268. Globecon Group, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22144316. Eberhard Inv. Associates, Inc. v. Santino, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22126846. Brown v. Quiniou, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 1888743. Bernstein v. The MONY Group, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2002, 228 F.Supp.2d 415. Sanzo v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., D.C.N.Y.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 266. Baskerville v. Blot, D.C.N.Y.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 723. Calcutti v. SBU, Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 691. Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. v. American Rock Salt Co., D.C.N.Y.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 520. Torrico v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.2002, 213 F.Supp.2d 390. Lipin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.N.Y.2002, 202 F.Supp.2d 126. T.S. Haulers, Inc. v. Town of Riverhead, D.C.N.Y.2002, 190 F.Supp.2d 455. American Medical Ass'n v. United Healthcare Corp., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 31413668. World Omni Financial Corp. v. Ace Capital Re, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 31016669. Bolanos v. Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1465907 (magistrate judge). Joseph v. America Works, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 1033833. Benjamin v. NYC Department of Health, D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 485731. Bellis v. Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd., D.C.N.Y.2002, 2002 WL 193149 (unpublished).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Citadel Management, Inc. v. Telesis Trust, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 123 F.Supp.2d 133. Gonzalez v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs. Fishkill Correctional Facility, D.C.N.Y.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 335. Graham v. Perez, D.C.N.Y.2000, 121 F.Supp.2d 317. Bodner v. Banque Paribas, D.C.N.Y.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 117. Lugo v. Senkowski, D.C.N.Y.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 111. Markes v. Aluminum Co. of America, D.C.N.Y.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 108. Kittay v. Giuliani, D.C.N.Y.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 342, affirmed C.A.2d, 2001, 252 F.3d 645. Bendel v. Westchester County Health Care Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 324. National Western Life Ins. Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 292, vacated and remanded on other grounds C.A.2d, 2004, 89 Fed.Appx. 287. Hallett v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs., D.C.N.Y.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 190. Polar Int'l Brokerage Corp. v. Reeve, D.C.N.Y.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 225. Hogan v. Metromail, D.C.N.Y.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 459. Economic Opportunity Comm'n of Nassau County, Inc. v. County of Nassau, D.C.N.Y.2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 433. 777388 Ontario Ltd. v. Lencore Acoustics Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 56. Drug Emporium, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Western New York, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 104 F.Supp.2d 184. In re Twinlab Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 193. Newman v. Holder, D.C.N.Y.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 103. Zdziebloski v. Town of East Greenbush, New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 70. Antonios A. Alevizopoulos & Associates, Inc. v. Comcase Int'l Holdings, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 100 F.Supp.2d 178. R.B. ex rel. L.B. v. Board of Educ. of the City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 411. John Gil Constr., Inc. v. Riverso, D.C.N.Y.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 345, affirmed C.A.2d, 2001, 7 Fed.Appx. 134. Kalnit v. Eichler, D.C.N.Y.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 327, affirmed C.A.2d, 2001, 264 F.3d 131. Waltree Ltd. v. Ing Furman Selz LLC, D.C.N.Y.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 464. Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 454. Gebhardt v. Allspect, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 331. Perks v. Town of Huntington, D.C.N.Y.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 222. Bologna v. Kerr-McGee Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 197. Belly Basics, Inc. v. Mothers Work, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 144. Gabriel Capital, LP v. NatWest Fin., Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 491. Bruker v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 257. In re Ultrafem Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 678. Volunteers of America of Western New York v. Heinrich, D.C.N.Y.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 252. Muller v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 204. Commodari v. Long Island Univ., D.C.N.Y.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 353. Evac, LLC v. Pataki, D.C.N.Y.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 250. Turner v. Olympic Regional Dev. Authority, D.C.N.Y.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 241. Rapoport v. Asia Electronics Holding Co., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 179. Intimate Bookshop, Inc. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 133. Covello v. Depository Trust Co., Local 153, D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 59. Catapano v. Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 27. Conley v. United Parcel Serv., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 16. Thayer v. Dial Industrial Sales, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 263. SEC v. Princeton Economic Int'l Ltd., D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 452. Vertical Broadcasting, Inc. v. Town of Southampton, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 379. Herbil Holding Co. v. Brook, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 369. Dibble v. Fenimore, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 315, reversed on other grounds C.A.2d, 2003, 339 F.3d 120. In re N2K, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 204, affirmed C.A.2d, 2000, 202 F.3d 81. Schaefer v. Erie County Dep't of Social Servs., D.C.N.Y.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 114. In re Nine West Shoes Antitrust Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 181.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Resource N.E. of Long Island, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, D.C.N.Y.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 52. Webb v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.2000, 197 F.R.D. 98. Rommel v. Laffey, D.C.N.Y.2000, 194 F.R.D. 441. Kalnit v. Eichler, D.C.N.Y.1999, 85 F.Supp.2d 232. Gregory v. Daly, D.C.N.Y.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 48, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 2001, 243 F.3d 687. Meachem v. Wing, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 431. Asdourian v. Konstantin, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 349. Arizona Premium Fin., Inc. v. Bielli, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 341. Weil v. Long Island Savs. Bank, FSB, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 313. Murphy v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 489. Dietrich v. Bauer, D.C.N.Y.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 312. Gambella v. Guardian Investor Servs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 297. SEC v. Caserta, D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 79. In re Computer Associates Class Action Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 68. Ressler v. Liz Claiborne, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 43. Arduini/Messina Partnership v. National Medical Financial Servs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 352. Milman v. Box Hill Sys. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 220. East Hampton Airport Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Town Bd. of the Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 139. Kirkpatrick v. Rays Group, D.C.N.Y.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 204. Community Health Care Ass'n of New York v. DeParle, D.C.N.Y.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 463. Vega v. State Univ. of New York Bd. of Trustees, D.C.N.Y.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 324. Fernandez v. City of Poughkeepsie, New York, D.C.N.Y.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 222. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Mills, D.C.N.Y.1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 161. Friedman v. Wheat First Secs. Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 338. Commer v. Keller, D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 266. Tufano v. One Toms Point Lane Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 119, affirmed C.A.2d, 2000, 229 F.3d 1136. Brown v. American Legion Cortland City Post 489, D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 96. Lennon v. Seaman, D.C.N.Y.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 428. Hill v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 254. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, D.C.N.Y.1999, 49 F.Supp.2d 644, affirmed C.A.2d, 2001, 245 F.3d 174. Economic Opportunity Comm'n of Nassau County, Inc. v. The County of Nassau, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 47 F.Supp.2d 353. Jenkins v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1999, 46 F.Supp.2d 271. Coddington v. Adelphi Univ., D.C.N.Y.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 211. Hicks v. IBM, D.C.N.Y.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 593. Black Radio Network, Inc. v. NYNEX Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 565. Kane v. Krebser, D.C.N.Y.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 542. Dollinger v. State Ins. Fund, D.C.N.Y.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 467. Magnus v. Fortune Brands, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 41 F.Supp.2d 217. Continental Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 109. Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram Yuzek, Gainen, Carroll & Bertolotti, D.C.N.Y.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 394. Warren v. Fischl, D.C.N.Y.1999, 33 F.Supp.2d 171. Krape v. PDK Labs Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 194 F.R.D. 82. Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 190 F.R.D. 134. Husowitz v. American Postal Workers Union, D.C.N.Y.1999, 190 F.R.D. 53. Thanning v. Nassau County Medical Examiners Office, D.C.N.Y.1999, 187 F.R.D. 69. Dockery v. Tucker, D.C.N.Y.1998, 73 F.Supp.2d 224. Meridien Int'l Bank Ltd. v. Government of the Republic of Liberia, D.C.N.Y.1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 439. Tonken v. Loving & Weintraub Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 22 F.Supp.2d 86. O'Hearn v. Bodyonics, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1998, 22 F.Supp.2d 7. Cytyc Corp. v. Neuromedical Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 296.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Donohue v. Teamsters Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training & Vacation & Sick Leave Trust Funds, D.C.N.Y.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 273. Prentice v. Apfel, D.C.N.Y.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 420 (Rule 12(c)). Cetenich v. Alden, D.C.N.Y.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 238. Marbi Corp. of New York v. Puhekker, D.C.N.Y.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 425. Tuff-N-Rumble Management, Inc. v. Sugarhill Music Publishing Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 357. Universal Marine Medical Supply, Inc. v. Lovecchio, D.C.N.Y.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 214. Cahill v. O'Donnell, D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 341. Lucas v. Planning Bd. of Town of LaGrange, D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 310. Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 277, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 1999, 191 F.3d 229. Jaouad v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 311. Omega Homes, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 187, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 171 F.3d 755. Toms v. Pizzo, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 178, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 38. Ives v. Guilford Mills, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 191. Ross v. Mitsui Fudosan, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 522. Desiderio v. National Ass'n of Secs. Dealers, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 516, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 191 F.3d 198. A. Terzi Productions, Inc. v. Theatrical Protective Union, D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 485. Harrington v. Hudson Sheraton Corp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 475. Kelly v. MD Buyline, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 420. Graaf v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 318. Honess 52 Corp. v. Town of Fishkill, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 294. Strougo on behalf of Brazilian Equity Fund, Inc. v. Bassini, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 268, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 2002, 282 F.3d 162. Rodriguez v. McGinnis, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 244. Harless v. Research Institute of America, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 235. Harris v. American Protective Servs. of New York, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 191. De Jesus-Keolamphu v. Village of Pelham Manor, D.C.N.Y.1998, 999 F.Supp. 556, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 166 F.3d 1199. Mroz v. City of Tonawanda, D.C.N.Y.1998, 999 F.Supp. 436 (analyzing proposed amendment to complaint). DiPaolo Mach. Works, Ltd. v. Prestige Equip. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 998 F.Supp. 229. Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 998 F.Supp. 204, vacated on other grounds C.A.2d, 1999, 198 F.3d 28. Novak v. Kasaks, D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 425, vacated on other grounds C.A.2d, 2000, 216 F.3d 300, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 567, 531 U.S. 1012, 121 S.Ct. 576. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 340. Bond v. Sterling, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 306. Stanley v. Cooper, D.C.N.Y.1998, 996 F.Supp. 316. Llanes v. EMSA Limited Partnership, D.C.N.Y.1998, 996 F.Supp. 314. ESI, Incorporated v. Coastal Power Production Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 419. Parisi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 298, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 38. Stordeur v. Computer Associates Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 94. Davis v. Goode, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 82. McNight v. Dormitory Authority of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 70. Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 425, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 165 F.3d 183. Tucker v. Kenney, D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 412. Status Int'l S.A. v. M & D Maritime Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 182. Continental Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 133. Barcher v. New York Univ. School of Law, D.C.N.Y.1998, 993 F.Supp. 177, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 37. Clifford v. Hughson, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 661. Local 875 I.B.T. Pension Fund v. Pollack, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 545. Maltz v. Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 286.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Proctor v. Vadlamudi, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 156. Cerasani v. Sony Corp., D.C.N.Y.1998, 991 F.Supp. 343. Harrison v. NBD Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 179. Phillips v. Merchants Ins. Group, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 99. Nazarian v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, D.C.N.Y.1998, 989 F.Supp. 504. Wilson v. Westmoreland Farm, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 989 F.Supp. 451. Adair v. Bristol Technology Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 179 F.R.D. 126. Barth v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1998, 178 F.R.D. 371. Bovi v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 992 F.Supp. 540. National Ass'n of College Bookstores, Inc. v. Cambridge Univ. Press, D.C.N.Y.1997, 990 F.Supp. 245. US Airways Group, Inc. v. British Airways PLC, D.C.N.Y.1997, 989 F.Supp. 482. Kampfer v. Scullin, D.C.N.Y.1997, 989 F.Supp. 194. Rogers v. New York City Bd. of Elections, D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 409. Press v. Chemical Inv. Servs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 375. Daniel v. American Bd. of Emergency Medicine, D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 112. Anonymous v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1997, 987 F.Supp. 131. Schoenhaut v. American Sensors, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 785. Casaburro v. Giuliani, D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 176. Madison Restoration Corp. v. Smithsonian Institute, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 434. Jones v. Albany County Civil Serv. Comm'n, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 280. Doe by Hickey v. Jefferson County, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 66. Monokrousos v. Computer Credit, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 984 F.Supp. 233. Yucyco, Ltd. v. Republic of Slovenia, D.C.N.Y.1997, 984 F.Supp. 209. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Dominican Communication Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 984 F.Supp. 185. X-Men Sec., Inc. v. Pataki, D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 101, reversed on other grounds C.A.2d, 1999, 196 F.3d 56. Harary v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 95. Michael Coppel Promotions Pty. Ltd. v. Bolton, D.C.N.Y.1997, 982 F.Supp. 950. Moses v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 982 F.Supp. 897. Sacco v. Pataki, D.C.N.Y.1997, 982 F.Supp. 231, affirmed C.A.2d, 2002, 278 F.3d 93. Laub v. Faessel, D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 870. China Trust Bank of New York v. Standard Chartered Bank, PLC, D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 282. Rohrer v. FSI Futures, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 270. Madanes v. Madanes, D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 241. Allstate Ins. Co. v. American Transit Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 977 F.Supp. 197. Willner v. Town of No. Hempstead, D.C.N.Y.1997, 977 F.Supp. 182. Franzon v. Massena Memorial Hosp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 977 F.Supp. 160. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 974 F.Supp. 190. Members for a Better Union v. Bevona, D.C.N.Y.1997, 972 F.Supp. 240, vacated on other grounds C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 58. FDIC v. Pelletreau & Pelletreau, D.C.N.Y.1997, 965 F.Supp. 381. Lugo v. Milford Management Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 956 F.Supp. 1120. First Interregional Advisors Corp. v. Wolff, D.C.N.Y.1997, 956 F.Supp. 480. Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 242. Hili v. Sciarotta, D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 177, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 210. Gleave v. Graham, D.C.N.Y.1997, 954 F.Supp. 599, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 918. Ramirez v. Brooklyn Aids Task Force, D.C.N.Y.1997, 175 F.R.D. 423, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 164 F.3d 619. La Salle Nat. Bank v. Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co., D.C.N.Y.1996, 951 F.Supp. 1071. Aramony v. United Way of America, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1080. Spurlock v. NYNEX, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1022. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Ligator, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 200. Noble v. Great Brands of Europe, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 183.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

SMS Marketing & Telecommunications, Inc. v. H.G. Telecom, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 134. Quinones v. Howard, D.C.N.Y.1996, 948 F.Supp. 251. SEC v. Feminella, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 722. ABC Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 635. Daniels v. City of Binghamton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 590. Fry v. McCall, D.C.N.Y.1996, 945 F.Supp. 655. Wallace v. Conroy, D.C.N.Y.1996, 945 F.Supp. 628. American Buying Ins. Servs., Inc. v. S. Kornreich & Sons, D.C.N.Y.1996, 944 F.Supp. 240. Zigman v. Giacobbe, D.C.N.Y.1996, 944 F.Supp. 147. Corcoran v. New York Power Authority, D.C.N.Y.1996, 935 F.Supp. 376. National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Heary Bros. Lightning Protection Co., D.C.N.Y.1995, 931 F.Supp. 169. Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, D.C.N.Y.1995, 908 F.Supp. 1226. Taylor v. Brentwood Union Free School Dist., D.C.N.Y.1995, 908 F.Supp. 1165. PI, Incorporated v. Quality Prods., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 907 F.Supp. 752. Gerzog v. London Fog Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 907 F.Supp. 590. Pier Connection, Inc. v. Lakhani, D.C.N.Y.1995, 907 F.Supp. 72. Cohen v. Litt, D.C.N.Y.1995, 906 F.Supp. 957. Protter v. Nathan's Famous Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 904 F.Supp. 101. Schmelzer v. Norfleet, D.C.N.Y.1995, 903 F.Supp. 632. Nowosad v. English, D.C.N.Y.1995, 903 F.Supp. 377. Audell Petroleum Corp. v. Suburban Paraco Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 903 F.Supp. 364. Prisco v. New York, D.C.N.Y.1995, 902 F.Supp. 400. Gelb v. Board of Elections in City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1995, 888 F.Supp. 509. Heredia v. U.S., D.C.N.Y.1995, 887 F.Supp. 77. Fludgate v. Management Technologies, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 885 F.Supp. 645. Kershaw v. Nautica S.A. Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1995, 885 F.Supp. 617. Berman v. Turecki, D.C.N.Y.1995, 885 F.Supp. 528. Rahman v. McElroy, D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 782. Chrzanowski v. Lichtman, D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 751. Lavian v. Haghnazari, D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 670. Elgin Sweeper Co. v. Melson Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 641. Hubbell Inc. v. Pass & Seymour, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 883 F.Supp. 955. McCoy v. Goldberg, D.C.N.Y.1995, 883 F.Supp. 927. Guice-Mills v. Brown, D.C.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1427. City of Amsterdam v. Goldreyer, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1273. U.S. v. Moniaros Contracting Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1267. Bent v. Mount Sinai Medical Center, D.C.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 353. Bellinger v. Deere & Co., D.C.N.Y.1995, 881 F.Supp. 813. Romand v. Zimmerman, D.C.N.Y.1995, 881 F.Supp. 806. RMED International, Inc. v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 878 F.Supp. 16. D'Orange v. Feely, D.C.N.Y.1995, 877 F.Supp. 152. Lomaglio Associates Inc. v. LBK Marketing Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 876 F.Supp. 41. Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of No. Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.—Pension Fund v. Canny, D.C.N.Y.1995, 876 F.Supp. 14. New York v. Solvent Chem. Co., D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 1015. Mathon v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 986. Craft v. McNulty, D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 121. Jones v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 874 F.Supp. 626. Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, D.C.N.Y.1995, 874 F.Supp. 576. D.S. America (East), Inc. v. Chromagrafx Imaging Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 873 F.Supp. 786 (applying principle to defendant's pleading that asserts counterclaims).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

In re Philip Morris Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1995, 872 F.Supp. 97, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 1996, 75 F.3d 801. Doolittle v. Ruffo, D.C.N.Y.1994, 882 F.Supp. 1247. Hamilton v. New York State Dep't of Mental Hygiene, D.C.N.Y.1994, 876 F.Supp. 470. Nelson v. Paramount Communications, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 872 F.Supp. 1242. Strong v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, D.C.N.Y.1994, 872 F.Supp. 1160. Philippeaux v. North Cent. Bronx Hosp., D.C.N.Y.1994, 871 F.Supp. 640. Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 1076. Koch v. Mirza, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 1031. Falik v. Parker Duryee Rosoff & Haft, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 228. Shub v. Hankin, D.C.N.Y.1994, 869 F.Supp. 213. MTV Networks v. Curry, D.C.N.Y.1994, 867 F.Supp. 202 (same standard applies to counterclaims). Reed Int'l Trading Corp. v. Donau Bank AG, D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 750. Moy v. Adelphi Institute, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 696. Tenorio v. Murphy, D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 92. Williams v. Friedman, D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 88. Barsam v. Pure Tech Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1440. Abbasi v. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., D.C.N.Y.1994, 863 F.Supp. 144. In re Puma & Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local Union No. 137, D.C.N.Y.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1077. Clapp v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, D.C.N.Y.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1050. Waldron v. Rotzler, D.C.N.Y.1994, 862 F.Supp. 763. New Alliance Party v. New York State Bd. of Elections, D.C.N.Y.1994, 861 F.Supp. 282. Sazerac Co. v. Falk, D.C.N.Y.1994, 861 F.Supp. 253. Scheiner v. Wallace, D.C.N.Y.1994, 860 F.Supp. 991. Podell v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 859 F.Supp. 701. McCormack Int'l Corp. v. Vohra, D.C.N.Y.1994, 858 F.Supp. 415. Schonholz v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, D.C.N.Y.1994, 858 F.Supp. 350. Lind v. Vanguard Offset Printers, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1060. Ruderman v. Police Dep't of City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 326. Campo v. 1st Nationwide Bank, D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 264. Julian v. New York City Transit Authority, D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 242. Marsden v. Federal B.O.P., D.C.N.Y.1994, 856 F.Supp. 832. Mezo v. Elmergawi, D.C.N.Y.1994, 855 F.Supp. 59. Messina v. Mazzeo, D.C.N.Y.1994, 854 F.Supp. 116. In re Cedar Hill Cemetery Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1994, 853 F.Supp. 706. Levy v. Lerner, D.C.N.Y.1994, 853 F.Supp. 636. Cohen v. Bane, D.C.N.Y.1994, 853 F.Supp. 620. Respass v. New York City Police Dep't, D.C.N.Y.1994, 852 F.Supp. 173. Barnum v. Millbrook Care Ltd. Partnership, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1227. Moscowitz v. Brown, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1185. Naso v. Park, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 264. Argenbright Sec. v. Ceskoslovenske Aeroline, D.C.N.Y.1994, 849 F.Supp. 276. Coliniatis v. Dimas, D.C.N.Y.1994, 848 F.Supp. 462. Kahn v. Inspector Gen. of U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., D.C.N.Y.1994, 848 F.Supp. 432. Eisenberg v. District Attorney of County of Kings, D.C.N.Y.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1029. Bezerra v. County of Nassau, D.C.N.Y.1994, 846 F.Supp. 214. Warnaco Inc. v. VF Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1994, 844 F.Supp. 940. Gluckman v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 844 F.Supp. 151. En Vogue v. UK Optical Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1994, 843 F.Supp. 838. Hall v. Ruggeri, D.C.N.Y.1994, 841 F.Supp. 484.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Alie v. NYNEX Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 239. Segarra v. Messina, D.C.N.Y.1994, 153 F.R.D. 22. Brower-Coad v. Fundamental Brokers, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 856 F.Supp. 147. Italian & French Wine Co. of Buffalo, Inc. v. Negociants U.S.A., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 842 F.Supp. 693. Lerner v. FNB Rochester Corp., D.C.N.Y.1993, 841 F.Supp. 97. Gruby v. Brady, D.C.N.Y.1993, 838 F.Supp. 820. Morin v. Trupin, D.C.N.Y.1993, 835 F.Supp. 126. Tinlee Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., D.C.N.Y.1993, 834 F.Supp. 605. Furman v. Sherwood, D.C.N.Y.1993, 833 F.Supp. 408. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. v. Cybo Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 833 F.Supp. 189. Morin v. Trupin, D.C.N.Y.1993, 832 F.Supp. 93. U.S. v. All Right, Title & Interest in Five Parcels of Real Property & Appurtances Thereto Known as 64 Lovers Lane, D.C.N.Y.1993, 830 F.Supp. 750. Amalgamated Bank of New York v. Marsh, D.C.N.Y.1993, 823 F.Supp. 209. Liddy v. Cisneros, D.C.N.Y.1993, 823 F.Supp. 164. Sheppard v. Beerman, D.C.N.Y.1993, 822 F.Supp. 931, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 1994, 18 F.3d 147. Henschke v. New York Hosp.-Cornell Medical Center, D.C.N.Y.1993, 821 F.Supp. 166. CMNY Capital, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, D.C.N.Y.1993, 821 F.Supp. 152. Warwick Administrative Group v. Avon Prods., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 820 F.Supp. 116. Milam v. Herrlin, D.C.N.Y.1993, 819 F.Supp. 295. Giuliano v. Everything Yogurt, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 819 F.Supp. 240. Feerick v. Sudolnik, D.C.N.Y.1993, 816 F.Supp. 879. Plaza Marine, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., D.C.N.Y.1993, 814 F.Supp. 334. Re-Alco Indus., Inc. v. National Center for Health Educ., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 812 F.Supp. 387. Gerber v. Computer Associates Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 812 F.Supp. 361. R.H. Damon & Co. v. Softkey Software Prods., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 811 F.Supp. 986. Bharucha v. Reuters Holdings PLC, D.C.N.Y.1993, 810 F.Supp. 37. Fulani v. Brady, D.C.N.Y.1993, 809 F.Supp. 1112, affirmed C.A.2d, 1994, 35 F.3d 49. Lawrence v. Cade & Saunders, P.C., D.C.N.Y.1993, 149 F.R.D. 14. Ackerman v. National Property Analysts, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1992, 887 F.Supp. 494. Sunshine Cellular v. Vanguard Cellular Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1992, 810 F.Supp. 486. Trautz v. Weisman, D.C.N.Y.1992, 809 F.Supp. 239. Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1037. Federal Ins. Co. v. May Dep't Stores Co., D.C.N.Y.1992, 808 F.Supp. 347. In re AnnTaylor Stores Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1992, 807 F.Supp. 990. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary, D.C.N.Y.1992, 807 F.Supp. 928. Church of Scientology Int'l v. Time Warner, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1157. Barrett v. U.S. Banknote Corp., D.C.N.Y.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1094. Hotel Syracuse, Inc. v. Young, D.C.N.Y.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1073. Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York City, Inc. v. Dinkins, D.C.N.Y.1992, 805 F.Supp. 159, affirmed C.A.2d, 1993, 5 F.3d 591. Chan v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1992, 803 F.Supp. 710, affirmed C.A.2d, 1993, 1 F.3d 96, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 472, 510 U.S. 978, 126 L.Ed.2d 423. Abbott Radiology Associates v. Sullivan, D.C.N.Y.1992, 801 F.Supp. 1012. Van Brunt v. Rauschenberg, D.C.N.Y.1992, 799 F.Supp. 1467. Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. v. Microgenesys, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1991, 775 F.Supp. 660. Peavey v. Polytechnic Institute of New York, D.C.N.Y.1991, 775 F.Supp. 75, affirmed without published opinion C.A.2d, 1992, 969 F.2d 1042, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 341, 506 U.S. 922, 121 L.Ed.2d 257. Schatt v. Curtis Management Group, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1991, 764 F.Supp. 902. Franklin Electronic Publishers, Inc. v. Unisonic Prods. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1991, 763 F.Supp. 1. Ismail v. Cohen, D.C.N.Y.1989, 706 F.Supp. 243, affirmed C.A.2d, 1990, 899 F.2d 183.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Grossman v. Citrus Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1989, 706 F.Supp. 221. In re PHLCORP Secs. Tender Offer Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1988, 700 F.Supp. 1265. David v. Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1988, 697 F.Supp. 752. Young v. Calhoun, D.C.N.Y.1987, 656 F.Supp. 970. Moll v. U.S. Life Title Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1987, 654 F.Supp. 1012. Whitaker v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1978, 461 F.Supp. 99. Byram River v. Village of Port Chester, New York, D.C.N.Y.1975, 394 F.Supp. 618. Carrasco v. Klein, D.C.N.Y.1974, 381 F.Supp. 782. U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, D.C.N.Y.1973, 367 F.Supp. 107. Voege v. Ackerman, D.C.N.Y.1973, 364 F.Supp. 72. Johnson v. Marton, D.C.N.Y.1972, 55 F.R.D. 282. Bush v. Masiello, D.C.N.Y.1972, 55 F.R.D. 72. Bowman v. Hartig, D.C.N.Y.1971, 334 F.Supp. 1323. Washington v. Wyman, D.C.N.Y.1971, 54 F.R.D. 266. Stambler v. Dillon, D.C.N.Y.1969, 302 F.Supp. 1250. Stockwell v. Reynolds & Co., D.C.N.Y.1965, 252 F.Supp. 215. U.S. v. Bimba, D.C.N.Y.1964, 233 F.Supp. 966.

Vermont Esden v. Bank of Boston, D.C.Vt.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 214. Kessler v. Loftus, D.C.Vt.1997, 994 F.Supp. 240. Gadbois v. Rock-Tenn Co., Mill Div., D.C.Vt.1997, 984 F.Supp. 811. Goodstein v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., D.C.Vt.1995, 889 F.Supp. 760. Nordica USA, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, D.C.Vt.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1082.

Third Circuit Worldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc., C.A.3d, 2003, 343 F.3d 651. In re Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.3d, 2002, 311 F.3d 198. Pryor v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, C.A.3d, 2002, 288 F.3d 548. Jame Fine Chems. Co. v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., C.A.3d, 2002, 44 Fed.Appx. 602 (unpublished). C.H. ex rel. Z.H. v. Oliva, C.A.3d, 2000, 226 F.3d 198. Children's Seashore House v. Waldman, C.A.3d, 1999, 197 F.3d 654, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2742, 530 U.S. 1275, 147 L.Ed.2d 1006. Heffernan v. Hunter, C.A.3d, 1999, 189 F.3d 405. Klein v. General Nutrition Co., C.A.3d, 1999, 186 F.3d 338. Steamfitters Local Union 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., C.A.3d, 1999, 171 F.3d 912. City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co., C.A.3d, 1998, 147 F.3d 256. Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., C.A.3d, 1998, 145 F.3d 601, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 850, 525 U.S. 1093, 142 L.Ed.2d 704. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc., C.A.3d, 1998, 140 F.3d 478. Smith v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, C.A.3d, 1998, 139 F.3d 180. Weiner v. Quaker Oats Co., C.A.3d, 1997, 129 F.3d 310. Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, C.A.6th, 1996, 99 F.3d 194, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct. 2409, 520 U.S. 1251, 138 L.Ed.2d 175. McDowell v. Delaware State Police, C.A.3d, 1996, 88 F.3d 188. Nami v. Fauver, C.A.3d, 1996, 82 F.3d 63. Gasoline Sales, Inc. v. Aero Oil Co., C.A.3d, 1994, 39 F.3d 70. City of Philadelphia v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., C.A.3d, 1993, 994 F.2d 112. Hayes v. Gross, C.A.3d, 1992, 982 F.2d 104. Colantuno v. Aetna Ins. Co., C.A.3d, 1992, 980 F.2d 908. Ditri v. Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc., C.A.3d, 1992, 954 F.2d 869. Pennsylvania v. PepsiCo, Inc., C.A.3d, 1988, 836 F.2d 173. Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., C.A.3d, 1977, 561 F.2d 434, certiorari denied 98 S.Ct. 1280, 434 U.S. 1086, 55 L.Ed.2d 791.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Scott v. Plante, C.A.3d, 1976, 532 F.2d 939. Polite v. Diehl, C.A.3d, 1974, 507 F.2d 119, 124 n. 12. Quinones v. U.S., C.A.3d, 1974, 492 F.2d 1269, 1273, citing Wright & Miller. Marshall v. Brierley, C.A.3d, 1972, 461 F.2d 929. RKO-Stanley Warner Theatres, Inc. v. Mellon Nat. Bank & Trust Co., C.A.3d, 1970, 436 F.2d 1297, 1300 n. 6.

Delaware Burgess v. Cahall, D.C.Del.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 319. Dow Chem. Co. v. Exxon Corp., D.C.Del.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 673. Parker v. Delaware, Dep't of Public Safety, D.C.Del.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 467. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Tridair Helicopters, Inc., D.C.Del.1997, 982 F.Supp. 318. Barkauskie v. Indian River School Dist., D.C.Del.1996, 951 F.Supp. 519. DeWitt v. Penn-Del Directory Corp., D.C.Del.1994, 872 F.Supp. 126. Toner v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Del.1993, 829 F.Supp. 695. Smith v. ZENECA Incorporated, D.C.Del.1993, 820 F.Supp. 831. Young v. West Coast Industrial Relations Ass'n, Inc., D.C.Del.1991, 763 F.Supp. 64, affirmed C.A.3d, 1992, 961 F.2d 1570. Brug v. Enstar Group, Inc., D.C.Del.1991, 755 F.Supp. 1247. Gentry v. Wilmington Trust Co., D.C.Del.1970, 321 F.Supp. 1379. Tanzer v. Huffines, D.C.Del.1970, 314 F.Supp. 189.

New Jersey Dasrath v. Continental Airlines, Inc., D.C.N.J.2002, 228 F.Supp.2d 531. Garlanger v. Verbeke, D.C.N.J.2002, 223 F.Supp.2d 596. Leshner v. McCollister's Transportation Sys., Inc., D.C.N.J.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 689. Zieper v. Reno, D.C.N.J.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 484. Lesser v. City of Cape May, D.C.N.J.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 303, affirmed C.A.3d, 2003, 78 Fed.Appx. 208. Boyle v. D'Onofrio, D.C.N.J.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 541. Livingston v. Shore Slurry Seal, Inc., D.C.N.J.2000, 98 F.Supp.2d 594. Dowdell v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, D.C.N.J.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 527. Charlie H. v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 476. Concern Sojuzvneshtrans v. Buyanovski, D.C.N.J.1999, 80 F.Supp.2d 273. Naporano Iron & Metal Co. v. American Crane Corp., D.C.N.J.1999, 79 F.Supp.2d 494. Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.N.J.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 521. Palladino ex rel. U.S. v. VNA of Southern New Jersey, D.C.N.J.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 455. Salovaara v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 593, affirmed C.A.3d, 2001, 246 F.3d 289. Rowe v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, D.C.N.J.1999, 191 F.R.D. 398. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 190 F.R.D. 331. Slater v. Skyhawk Transportation, Inc., D.C.N.J.1999, 187 F.R.D. 185. CSR Limited v. Federal Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1998, 40 F.Supp.2d 559. EP Medsystems, Inc. v. Echocath, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 726, reversed on other grounds C.A.3d, 2000, 235 F.3d 865. In re MobileMedia Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 901. Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 517. Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, D.C.N.J.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 460. Township of West Orange v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 408. Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 518. Bryant v. New Jersey Dep't of Transportation, D.C.N.J.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 426. Ramirez v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1998, 998 F.Supp. 425. Mruz v. Caring, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 991 F.Supp. 701. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Arcadian Corp., D.C.N.J.1997, 991 F.Supp. 390, affirmed C.A.3d, 1999, 189 F.3d 305. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. Leslie v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1997, 986 F.Supp. 900.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

RTC Mortgage Trust 1994 N1 v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1997, 981 F.Supp. 334. Morgan v. Markerdowne Corp., D.C.N.J.1997, 976 F.Supp. 301. Green v. William Mason & Co., D.C.N.J.1997, 976 F.Supp. 298. Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank v. San Clemente Financial Group Secs., Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 174 F.R.D. 572. Schanzer v. Rutgers Univ., D.C.N.J.1996, 934 F.Supp. 669. Gannon v. Continental Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1996, 920 F.Supp. 566. U.S. v. Jones, D.C.N.J.1995, 916 F.Supp. 383. Town of Secaucus v. U.S. Department of Transportation, D.C.N.J.1995, 889 F.Supp. 779. Stanziale v. County of Monmouth, D.C.N.J.1995, 884 F.Supp. 140. Arons v. Donovan, D.C.N.J.1995, 882 F.Supp. 379. Jordan v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections, D.C.N.J.1995, 881 F.Supp. 947. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Graphnet, Inc., D.C.N.J.1995, 881 F.Supp. 126. Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, D.C.N.J.1994, 876 F.Supp. 625, affirmed C.A.3d, 1995, 70 F.3d 291. Fishbein Family Partnership v. PPG Indus., Inc., D.C.N.J.1994, 871 F.Supp. 764. Johnson v. New Jersey, D.C.N.J.1994, 869 F.Supp. 289. Morris v. Azzi, D.C.N.J.1994, 866 F.Supp. 149. Bishop v. Okidata, Inc., D.C.N.J.1994, 864 F.Supp. 416. Biase v. Kaplan, D.C.N.J.1994, 852 F.Supp. 268. Crawford v. West Jersey Health Sys. (Voorhees Div.), D.C.N.J.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1232. O'Rourke v. Crosley, D.C.N.J.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1208. Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, D.C.N.J.1993, 845 F.Supp. 182. Renz v. Schreiber, D.C.N.J.1993, 832 F.Supp. 766. Mayor & Council of Borough of Rockaway v. Klockner & Klockner, D.C.N.J.1993, 811 F.Supp. 1039. Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., D.C.N.J.1992, 820 F.Supp. 834. Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., D.C.N.J.1992, 809 F.Supp. 1172. Lerch v. Citizens First Bancorp., Inc., D.C.N.J.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1142. Easling v. Glen-Gery Corp., D.C.N.J.1992, 804 F.Supp. 585. Fair Housing Council, of Bergen County, Inc. v. Eastern Bergen County Multiple Listing Serv., Inc., D.C.N.J.1976, 422 F.Supp. 1071. U.S. v. McIntire, D.C.N.J.1973, 365 F.Supp. 618. Housing Authority of the City of Asbury Park v. Richardson, D.C.N.J.1972, 346 F.Supp. 1027. Lippmann v. Hydro-Space Technology, Inc., D.C.N.J.1964, 235 F.Supp. 860.

Pennsylvania Dimeo v. Max, D.C.Pa.2006, 433 F.Supp.2d 523. Bair v. Shippensburg Univ., D.C.Pa.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 357. Tri Star Farms Ltd. v. Marconi, PLC, D.C.Pa.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 567. Fortier v. U.S. Steel Corp., D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 1797796. Campbell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 1020811. Sullivan v. Equifax, Inc., D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 799856. Perazzo v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.2001, 2001 WL 1468287 (unpublished). Krisa v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., D.C.Pa.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 316. Cortes v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 255. Krevsky v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 479. Kwan v. U.S., D.C.Pa.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 613, affirmed C.A.Fed., 2001, 272 F.3d 1360. Saxe v. State College Area School Dist., D.C.Pa.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 621, reversed on other grounds C.A.3d, 2001, 240 F.3d 200. Bellas v. CBS, Incorporated, D.C.Pa.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 493. Halstead v. Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 464. Woolf v. 1417 Spruce Associates, D.C.Pa.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 569. McGrath v. Johnson, D.C.Pa.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 499. Jordan v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 638. Walsh v. Strenz, D.C.Pa.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 548.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Walsingham v. Biocontrol Technology, Inc., D.C.Pa.1998, 66 F.Supp.2d 669. Township of So. Fayette v. Allegheny County Housing Authority, D.C.Pa.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 582. Malone v. Specialty Prods. & Insulation Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 15 F.Supp.2d 769. Popovice v. Milides, D.C.Pa.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 638. Hughes v. Halbach & Braun Indus., Ltd., D.C.Pa.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 491. Johnson v. City of Chester, D.C.Pa.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 482. Aronson v. Creditrust Corp., D.C.Pa.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 589. Duffy v. County of Bucks, D.C.Pa.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 569. Hill v. Borough of Swarthmore, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 395. Carter v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 386. Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of East Pennsboro Tp., Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 366. Dill v. Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 583. Jean Anderson Hierarchy of Agents v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 688. McLaughlin v. Rose Tree Media School Dist., D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 476. Kuhns v. CoreStates Financial Corp., D.C.Pa.1998, 998 F.Supp. 573. Shaffer v. South State Machinery, Inc., D.C.Pa.1998, 995 F.Supp. 584. Tyler v. O'Neill, D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 603. Young v. Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Republican Caucus, D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 282. Saylor v. Ridge, D.C.Pa.1998, 989 F.Supp. 680. Tolan v. U.S., D.C.Pa.1998, 176 F.R.D. 507. Avellino v. Herron, D.C.Pa.1997, 991 F.Supp. 722. Pearson v. Miller, D.C.Pa.1997, 988 F.Supp. 848. Andrea L. by Judith B. v. Children & Youth Servs. of Lawrence County, D.C.Pa.1997, 987 F.Supp. 418. Homan v. City of Reading, D.C.Pa.1997, 963 F.Supp. 485. Rankin v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1997, 963 F.Supp. 463. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Rennard St. Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Pa.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1046. L.C. Renninger Co. v. VIK Brothers Ins., Inc., D.C.Pa.1997, 180 F.R.D. 272. Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, D.C.Pa.1997, 176 F.R.D. 132. Sarver v. Capital Recovery Associates, Inc., D.C.Pa.1996, 951 F.Supp. 550. Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge, D.C.Pa.1996, 948 F.Supp. 1258. Dinicola v. DiPaolo, D.C.Pa.1996, 945 F.Supp. 848. Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia v. Boyertown Area Times, D.C.Pa.1996, 945 F.Supp. 826. Hetzel v. Swartz, D.C.Pa.1995, 909 F.Supp. 261. Ezenwa v. Gallen, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 978. Seneca Ins. Co. v. Commercial Transportation, Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 239. Burks v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1995, 904 F.Supp. 421. Pierce v. Montgomery County Opportunity Bd., Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 884 F.Supp. 965. Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen, Braverman & Kaskey, D.C.Pa.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1529. Young v. City of Allentown, D.C.Pa.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1490. Crighton v. Schuylkill County, D.C.Pa.1995, 882 F.Supp. 411. Frankel v. Warwick Hotel, D.C.Pa.1995, 881 F.Supp. 183. Verney v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, D.C.Pa.1995, 881 F.Supp. 145. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 764 v. Greenawalt, D.C.Pa.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1076. Doe v. Methacton School Dist., D.C.Pa.1995, 880 F.Supp. 380. School Dist. of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Bd., D.C.Pa.1995, 877 F.Supp. 245. Dugan v. Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1994, 876 F.Supp. 713. Jackson v. Nicoletti, D.C.Pa.1994, 875 F.Supp. 1107. Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 872 F.Supp. 203. Parasco v. Pacific Indem. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 870 F.Supp. 644.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Leach v. Quality Health Servs., Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 869 F.Supp. 315. Ferry v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 764. Frazier v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 757. Builders Square, Inc. v. Saraco, D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 748. Pittman v. Correctional Healthcare Solutions, Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 105. Mulgrew v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 98. Strange v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 867 F.Supp. 1209. Youse v. Carlucci, D.C.Pa.1994, 867 F.Supp. 317. Lindsay v. Kvortek, D.C.Pa.1994, 865 F.Supp. 264. Moser v. Bascelli, D.C.Pa.1994, 865 F.Supp. 249. Kessler v. Monsour, D.C.Pa.1994, 865 F.Supp. 234. Philadelphia Reserve Supply Co. v. Nowalk & Associates, Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1456. Piedmont Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, D.C.Pa.1994, 863 F.Supp. 212. Verde v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1329. Total Care Sys., Inc. v. Coons, D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 236. Bieros v. Nicola, D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 226. Johnson v. Resources for Human Dev., Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 218. Bieros v. Nicola, D.C.Pa.1994, 851 F.Supp. 683. Trinsey v. Mitchell, D.C.Pa.1994, 851 F.Supp. 167. Brennan v. National Telephone Directory Corp., D.C.Pa.1994, 850 F.Supp. 331. Raines v. Haverford College, D.C.Pa.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1009. Arber v. Equitable Beneficial Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1204. Hunt v. U.S. Air Force, D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1190. In re Chambers Dev. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 602, 616. Violanti v. Emery Worldwide A-CF Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1251. Simmons v. Community Serv. Providers, Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 847 F.Supp. 351. Jones v. Hinton, D.C.Pa.1994, 847 F.Supp. 41. Waye v. First Citizen's Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1994, 846 F.Supp. 310. Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Agway Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 845 F.Supp. 252. Atlantic Paper Box Co. v. Whitman's Chocolates, D.C.Pa.1994, 844 F.Supp. 1038. Loftus v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, D.C.Pa.1994, 843 F.Supp. 981. Johnson v. Resources For Human Dev., Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 843 F.Supp. 974. Boyce v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 842 F.Supp. 822. Smith v. City Of Chester, D.C.Pa.1994, 842 F.Supp. 147. Melendez v. Horizon Cellular Telephone Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 841 F.Supp. 687. Brown v. Peoples Sec. Ins., D.C.Pa.1994, 158 F.R.D. 350. In re Fidelity Bank Trust Fee Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 839 F.Supp. 318. Palace v. Deaver, D.C.Pa.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1016. Children's Hosp. of Pittsburgh v. 84 Lumber Co. Medical Benefits Plan, D.C.Pa.1993, 834 F.Supp. 866. Great West Life Assur. Co. v. Levithan, D.C.Pa.1993, 834 F.Supp. 858. Edwards v. U.S., D.C.Pa.1993, 833 F.Supp. 521. In re Westinghouse Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 832 F.Supp. 948, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.3d, 1996, 90 F.3d 696. Riddle v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., D.C.Pa.1993, 831 F.Supp. 442. Piazza v. Major League Baseball, D.C.Pa.1993, 831 F.Supp. 420. In re One Meridian Plaza Fire Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1460. Le Grand v. Lincoln, D.C.Pa.1993, 818 F.Supp. 112. Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, D.C.Pa.1993, 818 F.Supp. 104, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.3d, 1994, 38 F.3d 1380. Bolden v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1993, 814 F.Supp. 444.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Delaware Valley Toxics Coalition v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc., D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1132. Jones v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1125. Johnson-Lloyd v. Vocational Rehabilitation Office, Pennsylvania Dep't of Labor & Indus., D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1120. Seidman v. American Mobile Sys., Inc., D.C.Pa.1993, 813 F.Supp. 323. Barrett v. City Of Allentown, D.C.Pa.1993, 152 F.R.D. 50. Tersco, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., D.C.Pa.1992, 879 F.Supp. 445. Glaziers & Glassworkers Union Local 252 Annuity Fund v. Newbridge Secs., Inc., D.C.Pa.1992, 823 F.Supp. 1185. Cameron v. Graphic Management Associates, Inc., D.C.Pa.1992, 817 F.Supp. 19. Brossman Sales, Inc. v. Broderick, D.C.Pa.1992, 808 F.Supp. 1209. Flohr v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., D.C.Pa.1992, 800 F.Supp. 1252. U.S. Department of HUD ex rel. Givler v. Smith, D.C.Pa.1991, 775 F.Supp. 172. U.S. v. Kensington Hosp., D.C.Pa.1991, 760 F.Supp. 1120. U.S. v. American Elevator Co., D.C.Pa.1989, 1989 WL 11216. Schwartz v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1988, 701 F.Supp. 92. Kronmuller v. West End Fire Co. No. 3, D.C.Pa.1988, 123 F.R.D. 170. Wanta v. Powers, D.C.Pa.1979, 478 F.Supp. 990, 992 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller. Robbins Flooring, Inc. v. Federal Floors, Inc., D.C.Pa.1977, 445 F.Supp. 4. Fenton v. Stear, D.C.Pa.1976, 423 F.Supp. 767. Tarasi v. Pittsburgh Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1975, 401 F.Supp. 420. Getz v. Bruch, D.C.Pa.1975, 400 F.Supp. 1033. First Delaware Valley Citizens Television, Inc. v. CBS, Incorporated, D.C.Pa.1975, 398 F.Supp. 925. Thompson v. Montemuro, D.C.Pa.1974, 383 F.Supp. 1200. In re Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co. Secs. & Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Pa.1974, 378 F.Supp. 441. U.S. ex rel. Thomas v. Rundle, D.C.Pa.1974, 371 F.Supp. 252. Independent Investor Protective League v. Saunders, D.C.Pa.1974, 64 F.R.D. 564. Aamco Automatic Transmissions, Inc. v. Tayloe, D.C.Pa.1973, 368 F.Supp. 1283, 1287, citing Wright & Miller. In re Penn Cent. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1973, 367 F.Supp. 1158. Ammlung v. City of Chester, D.C.Pa.1973, 355 F.Supp. 1300. Hoots v. Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1971, 334 F.Supp. 820. Silverman v. Bear, Stearns & Co., D.C.Pa.1971, 331 F.Supp. 1334. Miller v. Parsons, D.C.Pa.1970, 313 F.Supp. 1150. U.S. ex rel. Smith v. Heil (PBP.), D.C.Pa.1970, 308 F.Supp. 1063. U.S. ex rel. Brzozowski v. Randall, D.C.Pa.1968, 281 F.Supp. 306. United Ins. Co. v. B.W. Rudy, Inc., D.C.Pa.1967, 42 F.R.D. 398. U.S. v. Provident Nat. Bank, D.C.Pa.1966, 259 F.Supp. 373, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 778, 385 U.S. 1034, 17 L.Ed.2d 682. Asphaltic Enterprises, Inc. v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., D.C.Pa.1966, 39 F.R.D. 574.

Virgin Islands Pourzal v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., D.C.Virgin Islands 2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 544. David v. AMR Services Corp., D.C.Virgin Islands 2000, 191 F.R.D. 89. Julien v. Committee of Bar Examiners for the Practice of Law, D.C.Virgin Islands 1996, 923 F.Supp. 707. In re Tutu Wells Contamination Litigation, D.C.Virgin Islands 1993, 846 F.Supp. 1243, 1257.

See also Environmental Ass'n of St. Thomas & St. John v. Department of Planning & Natural Resources, Terr. Virgin Islands 2002, 2002 WL 655506.

Fourth Circuit Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Young Express, Inc., C.A.4th, 2002, 43 Fed.Appx. 650 (unpublished). Mayes v. Rapoport, C.A.4th, 1999, 198 F.3d 457. Smith v. Sydnor, C.A.4th, 1999, 184 F.3d 356, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 934, 528 U.S. 1116, 145 L.Ed.2d 813.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, C.A.4th, 1999, 178 F.3d 231. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, C.A.4th, 1999, 177 F.3d 245. Anderson v. Foundation for Advancement, Educ. & Employment of American Indians, C.A.4th, 1998, 155 F.3d 500, appeal after remand C.A.4th, 1999, 187 F.3d 628. Flood v. New Hanover County, C.A.4th, 1997, 125 F.3d 249. Boring v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., C.A.4th, 1996, 98 F.3d 1474, on rehearing en banc on other grounds C.A.4th, 1998, 136 F.3d 364. Labram v. Havel, C.A.4th, 1995, 43 F.3d 918. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, C.A.4th, 1993, 7 F.3d 1130, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 1307, 510 U.S. 1197, 127 L.Ed.2d 658. Martin Marietta Corp. v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, C.A.4th, 1992, 991 F.2d 94. Republican Party of No. Carolina v. Martin, C.A.4th, 1992, 980 F.2d 943. Rogers v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., C.A.4th, 1989, 883 F.2d 324. Thompson v. Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, C.A.4th, 1963, 316 F.2d 191.

Maryland Schultz v. Braga, D.C.Md.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 637. Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp., D.C.Md.2003, 249 F.Supp.2d 703. Miller v. Pacific Shore Funding, D.C.Md.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 977, affirmed C.A.4th, 2004, 92 Fed.Appx. 933. Kress v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, D.C.Md.2002, 217 F.Supp.2d 682. Eniola v. Leasecomm Corp., D.C.Md.2002, 214 F.Supp.2d 520. Jordan v. Washington Mut. Bank, D.C.Md.2002, 211 F.Supp.2d 670. Gray v. Metts, D.C.Md.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 426. Swedish Civil Aviation Admin. v. Project Management Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 190 F.Supp.2d 785. Rhee Bros., Inc. v. Han Ah Reum Corp., D.C.Md.2001, 178 F.Supp.2d 525. Abadian v. Lee, D.C.Md.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 481. Recupito v. Prudential Secs., Inc., D.C.Md.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 449. Thelen v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Md.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 688. U.S. ex rel. Ackley v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., D.C.Md.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 395. Sharafeldin v. Maryland Dep't of Public Safety, D.C.Md.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 680. In re Criimi Mae, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Md.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 652. Agora, Inc. v. Axxess, Inc., D.C.Md.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 697, affirmed C.A.4th, 2001, 11 Fed.Appx. 99. Concerned Citizens of Carderock v. Hubbard, D.C.Md.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 668. Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., D.C.Md.2000, 193 F.R.D. 243. Lafayette Fed. Credit Union v. U.S., D.C.Md.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 645. HQM, Limited v. Hatfield, D.C.Md.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 500. Greenspring Racquet Club, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, D.C.Md.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 598, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.4th, 2000, 232 F.3d 887. Smith-Berch, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, D.C.Md.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 602. Mates v. North American Vaccine, Inc., D.C.Md.1999, 53 F.Supp.2d 814. Maryland Minority Contractor's Ass'n, Inc. v. Maryland Stadium Authority, D.C.Md.1998, 70 F.Supp.2d 580, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 198 F.3d 237. Harbor Court Associates v. Kiewit Constr. Co., D.C.Md.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 449. Toucheque v. Price Bros. Co., D.C.Md.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 341. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, D.C.Md.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 648. Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass'n v. Glendening, D.C.Md.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 772, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.4th, 1999, 174 F.3d 180. Bender v. Suburban Hosp., D.C.Md.1998, 998 F.Supp. 631, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 159 F.3d 186. Popovic v. U.S., D.C.Md.1998, 997 F.Supp. 672, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 175 F.3d 1015. Parker v. Prince George's County, Maryland Police Dep't, D.C.Md.1998, 995 F.Supp. 604. Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc., D.C.Md.1997, 989 F.Supp. 748, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 151 F.3d 180. National Fed'n of the Blind, Inc. v. Loompanics Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Md.1996, 936 F.Supp. 1232.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

All Risks, Ltd. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. of the U.S., D.C.Md.1996, 931 F.Supp. 409. Ginsburg v. Agora, Inc., D.C.Md.1995, 915 F.Supp. 733. Kohler v. Shenasky, D.C.Md.1995, 914 F.Supp. 1206. Carlson v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Servs., D.C.Md.1995, 879 F.Supp. 545. Ammer v. U.S., D.C.Md.1994, 881 F.Supp. 1007, affirmed C.A.4th, 1995, 56 F.3d 60. Lust v. Burke, D.C.Md.1994, 876 F.Supp. 1474. Foxglenn Investors Ltd. Partnership v. Housing Authority for Prince George's County, D.C.Md.1993, 844 F.Supp. 1078, affirmed C.A.4th, 1994, 35 F.3d 947. Blackwell v. Mayor & Comm'rs of Delmar, D.C.Md.1993, 841 F.Supp. 151. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc., D.C.Md.1992, 808 F.Supp. 446. Tischler v. Baltimore Bancorp, D.C.Md.1992, 801 F.Supp. 1493. Byrd v. Local Union No. 24, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, D.C.Md.1974, 375 F.Supp. 545. Starr v. Parks, D.C.Md.1972, 345 F.Supp. 795.

North Carolina Alston v. North Carolina A & T State Univ., D.C.N.C.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 774. Spencer v. Town of Chapel Hill, D.C.N.C.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 655. Gottesman v. J.H. Batten, Inc., D.C.N.C.2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 604. U.S. EEOC v. Bojangles Restaurants, Inc., D.C.N.C.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 320. Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Support Servs. of Carolina, Inc., D.C.N.C.2000, 123 F.Supp.2d 945. Hammel v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.N.C.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 478. Simmons v. Justice, D.C.N.C.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 524. U.S. ex rel. Lindsey v. Trend Community Mental Health Servs., D.C.N.C.1999, 88 F.Supp.2d 475. Buser v. Southern Food Serv., Inc., D.C.N.C.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 556. Murphy v. Danzig, D.C.N.C.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 519. Krim v. Coastal Physician Group, Inc., D.C.N.C.1998, 81 F.Supp.2d 621, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 201 F.3d 436. Eirschele by & through Eirschele v. Craven County Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.C.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 655. Wysong & Miles Co. v. Employers of Wausau, D.C.N.C.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 421. Willis v. MCI Telecommunications, D.C.N.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 673, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 161 F.3d 5. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shulimson Bros. Co., D.C.N.C.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 553. Zelaya v. J.M. Macias, Inc., D.C.N.C.1998, 999 F.Supp. 778. West v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., D.C.N.C.1998, 998 F.Supp. 642. Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.C.1998, 179 F.R.D. 177. Mullis v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank, D.C.N.C.1997, 994 F.Supp. 680. Clayton v. Stephens, D.C.N.C.1996, 6 F.Supp.2d 480, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 145 F.3d 1323. Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., D.C.N.C.1996, 951 F.Supp. 1224. TIG Insurance Co. v. Deaton, Inc., D.C.N.C.1996, 932 F.Supp. 132. Shanks v. Forsyth County Park Authority, Inc., D.C.N.C.1994, 869 F.Supp. 1231. Bass v. City of Wilson, D.C.N.C.1993, 835 F.Supp. 255. Pittman v. Anaconda Wire & Cable Co., D.C.N.C.1974, 408 F.Supp. 286.

South Carolina Sadighi v. Daghighfekr, D.C.S.C.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 279. Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.S.C.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 487. Colleton Regional Hosp. v. MRS Medical Review Sys., D.C.S.C.1994, 866 F.Supp. 896. Colleton Regional Hosp. v. MRS Medical Review Sys., D.C.S.C.1994, 866 F.Supp. 891. Long v. McGlon, D.C.S.C.1967, 263 F.Supp. 96. Felder v. Great Am. Ins. Co., D.C.S.C.1966, 260 F.Supp. 575.

Virginia Sentara Virginia Beach Gen. Hosp. v. LeBeau, D.C.Va.2002, 182 F.Supp.2d 518.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Taylor v. Barnett, D.C.Va.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 483. Virginia Soc. for Human Life v. Federal Election Comm'n, D.C.Va.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 668, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.4th, 2001, 263 F.3d 379. Bryant v. Clevelands, Inc., D.C.Va.2000, 193 F.R.D. 486. Goldstein v. Malcolm G. Fries & Associates, Inc., D.C.Va.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 620. Brandsasse v. City of Suffolk, Virginia, D.C.Va.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 608. Cobb v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia, D.C.Va.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 815. Londeree v. Crutchfield Corp., D.C.Va.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 718, affirmed C.A.4th, 2000, 210 F.3d 361. Fanney v. Trigon Ins. Co., D.C.Va.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 829. Jetform Corp. v. Unisys Corp., D.C.Va.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 788. Frontline Test Equip., Inc. v. Greenleaf Software, Inc., D.C.Va.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 583. Wise v. U.S., D.C.Va.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 535. U.S. v. High Point Chem. Corp., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 770. Doe v. Irvine Scientific Sales Co., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 737. DeBauche v. Virginia Commonwealth Univ., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 718, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 191 F.3d 499. Settle v. S.W. Rodgers, Co., D.C.Va.1998, 998 F.Supp. 657, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 182 F.3d 909. Leverton v. AlliedSignal, Inc., D.C.Va.1998, 991 F.Supp. 486. Moore v. Flagstar Bank, D.C.Va.1997, 6 F.Supp.2d 496. Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Rokke, D.C.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 982. Prudencio v. Runyon, D.C.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 343. Bartrug v. Rubin, D.C.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 332. Lewis v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., D.C.Va.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1158. Sculthorpe v. Virginia Retirement Sys., D.C.Va.1997, 952 F.Supp. 307. Alston v. Virginia High School League, Inc., D.C.Va.1997, 176 F.R.D. 220. Counts v. Newhart, D.C.Va.1996, 951 F.Supp. 579, affirmed C.A.4th, 1997, 116 F.3d 1473. Wenzler v. Warden of G.R.C.C., D.C.Va.1996, 949 F.Supp. 399. White v. CMA Construction Co., D.C.Va.1996, 947 F.Supp. 231. Browning v. Vecellio & Grogan, Inc., D.C.Va.1996, 945 F.Supp. 930. Norfolk Fed'n of Bus. Dists. v. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Va.1996, 932 F.Supp. 730, affirmed C.A.4th, 1996, 103 F.3d 119. Reynolds & Reynolds Co. v. Hardee, D.C.Va.1996, 932 F.Supp. 149, affirmed C.A.4th 1997, 133 F.3d 916. Westmoreland v. Brown, D.C.Va.1995, 883 F.Supp. 67. Lane v. David P. Jacobson & Co., Ltd., D.C.Va.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1091. Treadwell v. Murray, D.C.Va.1995, 878 F.Supp. 49. Muhly v. Espy, D.C.Va.1995, 877 F.Supp. 294. Burcher v. McCauley, D.C.Va.1994, 871 F.Supp. 864. Torcasio v. Murray, D.C.Va.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1482, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.4th, 1995, 57 F.3d 1340. Fratus v. U.S., D.C.Va.1994, 859 F.Supp. 991. Wamco, III, Ltd. v. First Piedmont Mortg. Corp., D.C.Va.1994, 856 F.Supp. 1076. Ocean Breeze Festival Park, Inc. v. Reich, D.C.Va.1994, 853 F.Supp. 906. Adams v. Star Enterprise, D.C.Va.1994, 851 F.Supp. 770, affirmed C.A.4th, 1995, 51 F.3d 417. Chisolm v. Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc., D.C.Va.1994, 851 F.Supp. 739. Higgins v. Medical College of Hampton Roads, D.C.Va.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1113. American Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Lominac, D.C.Va.1994, 158 F.R.D. 376. B.M.H. by C.B. v. School Bd. of City of Chesapeake, Virginia, D.C.Va.1993, 833 F.Supp. 560. U.S. v. Olympic Marine Servs., Inc., D.C.Va.1993, 827 F.Supp. 1232. Portsmouth Redevelopment & Housing Authority v. BMI Apartments Associates, D.C.Va.1993, 827 F.Supp. 354. Grossberg v. Deusebio, D.C.Va.1974, 380 F.Supp. 285. Lucas v. Kale, D.C.Va.1973, 364 F.Supp. 1345. Dunkley v. Thaxton, D.C.Va.1967, 274 F.Supp. 723.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

West Virginia Ferrell v. Grange Ins., D.C.W.Va.2005, 354 F.Supp.2d 675, citing Wright & Miller. Hurt v. U.S. (CIR), D.C.W.Va.1995, 889 F.Supp. 248. Cromer v. Lounsbury Chiropractic Offices, Inc., D.C.W.Va.1994, 866 F.Supp. 960. Cook v. Espy, D.C.W.Va.1994, 856 F.Supp. 1095.

Fifth Circuit Test Masters Educational Servs., Inc. v. Singh, C.A.5th, 2005, 428 F.3d 559. Woodard v. Andrus, C.A.5th, 2005, 419 F.3d 348. U.S. ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., C.A.5th, 2004, 355 F.3d 370. Groceman v. U.S. Department of Justice, C.A.5th, 2004, 354 F.3d 411. Whitehead v. Zurich American Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 2003, 348 F.3d 478. Thompson v. Goetzmann, C.A.5th, 2003, 337 F.3d 489. Hamilton v. United Healthcare of Louisiana, Inc., C.A.5th, 2002, 310 F.3d 385, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 2288, 539 U.S. 916, 156 L.Ed.2d 132. McKinney v. Irving Independent School Dist., C.A.5th, 2002, 309 F.3d 308. Shipp v. McMahon, C.A.5th, 2000, 234 F.3d 907. Wilting v. Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 2000, 227 F.3d 474. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 496. Kennedy v. Tangipahoa Parish Library Bd. of Control, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 359. Shipp v. McMahon, C.A.5th, 2000, 199 F.3d 256, opinion vacated and superseded on rehearing on other grounds C.A.5th, 2000, 234 F.3d 907. Hart v. Bayer Corp., C.A.5th, 2000, 199 F.3d 239. Prince v. Hicks, C.A.6th, 1999, 198 F.3d 607. Kipps v. Caillier, C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 765, rehearing en banc denied C.A.5th, 2000, 205 F.3d 203. Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 161. Brown v. Nationsbank Corp., C.A.5th, 1999, 188 F.3d 579, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2740, 530 U.S. 1274, 147 L.Ed.2d 1004. Jones v. Greninger, C.A.5th, 1999, 188 F.3d 322. Heimann v. National Elevator Indus. Pension Fund, C.A.5th, 1999, 187 F.3d 493. Bradley v. Puckett, C.A.5th, 1998, 157 F.3d 1022 (§ 1915). Doe on Behalf of Doe v. Dallas Independent School Dist., C.A.5th, 1998, 153 F.3d 211, appeal after remand C.A.5th, 2000, 220 F.3d 380. Power Entertainment, Inc. v. National Football League Properties, Inc., C.A.5th, 1998, 151 F.3d 247. Bonner v. Henderson, C.A.5th, 1998, 147 F.3d 457. Holmes v. Texas A & M Univ., C.A.5th, 1998, 145 F.3d 681. U.S. ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., C.A.5th, 1997, 125 F.3d 899, on remand D.C.Tex.1998, 20 F.Supp.2d 1017. Rochon v. City of Angola, C.A.5th, 1997, 122 F.3d 319, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 1518, 523 U.S. 1075, 140 L.Ed.2d 671. Dao v. Auchan Hypermarket, C.A.5th, 1996, 96 F.3d 787. Davis v. Bayless, C.A.5th, 1995, 70 F.3d 367, appeal after remand C.A.5th, 1998, 149 F.3d 1179. Piotrowski v. City of Houston, C.A.5th, 1995, 51 F.3d 512. Crowe v. Henry, C.A.5th, 1995, 43 F.3d 198, appeal after remand C.A.5th, 1997, 115 F.3d 294. Blackburn v. City of Marshall, C.A.5th, 1995, 42 F.3d 925. Matter of U.S. Abatement Corp., C.A.5th, 1994, 39 F.3d 556. ALX El Dorado, Inc. v. Southwest Savs. & Loan Ass'n/FSLIC, C.A.5th, 1994, 36 F.3d 409. Truman v. U.S., C.A.5th, 1994, 26 F.3d 592. Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, C.A.5th, 1994, 25 F.3d 1300 (opinion withdrawn). Miller v. Medical Center of Southwest Louisiana, C.A.5th, 1994, 22 F.3d 626. Rubinstein v. Collins, C.A.5th, 1994, 20 F.3d 160, on remand D.C.Tex.1995, 162 F.R.D. 534.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., C.A.5th, 1994, 14 F.3d 1061. In re Burzynski, C.A.5th, 1993, 989 F.2d 733. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, C.A.5th, 1993, 987 F.2d 278, 284–285. McCann v. Texas City Refining, Inc. C.A.5th, 1993, 984 F.2d 667. Giddings v. Chandler, C.A.5th, 1992, 979 F.2d 1104. Garrett v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. of America, C.A. 5th, 1991, 938 F.2d 591. Walter v. Torres, C.A.5th, 1990, 917 F.2d 1379. Tanglewood East Homeowners v. Charles-Thomas, Inc., C.A.5th, 1988, 849 F.2d 1568. Hepperle v. Johnston, C.A.5th, 1976, 544 F.2d 201. U.S. v. Wynn, C.A.5th, 1976, 528 F.2d 1048. Mumford v. Glover, C.A.5th, 1974, 503 F.2d 878. Roebuck v. Florida Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., Inc., C.A.5th, 1974, 502 F.2d 1105. Battle v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 1974, 493 F.2d 39, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 784, 419 U.S. 1110, 42 L.Ed.2d 807. Jennings v. Patterson, C.A.5th, 1972, 460 F.2d 1021. Campbell v. Beto, C.A.5th, 1972, 460 F.2d 765. Matthews v. U.S., C.A.5th, 1972, 456 F.2d 395. Stefanski v. Mainway Budget Plan, Inc., C.A.5th, 1972, 456 F.2d 211. Cook & Nichol, Inc. v. Plimsoll Club, C.A.5th, 1971, 451 F.2d 505. Investors Syndicate of America, Inc. v. City of Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, C.A.5th, 1970, 434 F.2d 871. Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. Wesley Constr. Co., C.A.5th, 1969, 414 F.2d 1280. Equity Capital Co. v. Sponder, C.A.5th, 1969, 414 F.2d 317. International Erectors, Inc. v. Wilhoit Steel Erectors & Rental Serv., C.A.5th, 1968, 400 F.2d 465. Mizell v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., C.A.5th, 1968, 392 F.2d 580. Barnes v. Merritt, C.A.5th, 1967, 376 F.2d 8.

Louisiana Fields v. Stalder, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611597. Ingram v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1163613. See also Lacey v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058890, Lee v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058893. Watson v. Prudential Ins. Co., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1159703. Matthews v. Social Sec. of Louisiana, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022267. Searcy v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022158. Wicks v. Coffrey, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1000975. Perrilloux v. BP Oil Co./Amoco, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 746349. Kane Enterprises v. MacGregor (U.S.A.), Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 523342, affirmed C.A.5th, 2003, 322 F.3d 371. Koerner v. Garden Dist. Ass'n, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 500815. Nabors Drilling U.S.A. LP v. Twister Exploration, LLC, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 287728. Small v. Strain, D.C.La.2001, 2001 WL 1631341 (unpublished). Sheehan v. Ryan, D.C.La.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 792. Tessier v. Moffatt, D.C.La.1998, 93 F.Supp.2d 729. In re Air Bag Prods. Liability Litigation, D.C.La.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 792. Willis-Knighton Medical v. City of Bossier City, Louisiana, D.C.La.1997, 2 F.Supp.2d 842. Reyes v. Sazan, D.C.La.1997, 981 F.Supp. 973, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1999, 168 F.3d 158. Evangeline Telephone Co. v. AT & T Communications of the So. Cent. States, Inc., D.C.La.1995, 916 F.Supp. 598. Laspopoulos v. FBI, D.C.La.1995, 884 F.Supp. 214. Castano v. American Tobacco Co., D.C.La.1994, 870 F.Supp. 1425, reversed on other grounds C.A.5th, 1996, 84 F.3d 734. Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. v. Alpine Ocean Seismic Surveys, D.C.La.1994, 862 F.Supp. 1578. Durham, Inc. v. Vanguard Bank & Trust Co., D.C.La.1994, 858 F.Supp. 617. Watermeier v. Continental Oil Co., D.C.La.1993, 818 F.Supp. 929. First Nat. Bank of Louisville v. Lustig, D.C.La.1992, 809 F.Supp. 444. Prudhomme v. Procter & Gamble Co., D.C.La.1992, 800 F.Supp. 390.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Johnston v. Spriggs, D.C.La.1978, 77 F.R.D. 492. Washington v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co., D.C.La.1971, 324 F.Supp. 849.

Mississippi Mariner Healthcare, Inc. v. Hunt, D.C.Miss.2005, 2005 WL 1711614. River Oaks Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Coahoma County, D.C.Miss.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 565. Dale v. Ala Acquisitions, Inc., D.C.Miss.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 694. Gardner v. Clark, D.C.Miss.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 468. Baldwin v. Laurel Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 894. Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 423, summary judgment granted in part, denied in part on other grounds D.C.Miss.2001, 2001 WL 1543890. Kinnison v. Mississippi Dep't of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks, D.C.Miss.1998, 990 F.Supp. 481. Killebrew v. City of Greenwood, Mississippi, D.C.Miss.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1010. Parker v. Byrd & Wiser, D.C.Miss.1996, 947 F.Supp. 245. Vance v. Boyd Mississippi, Inc., D.C.Miss.1996, 923 F.Supp. 905. Harper v. Forrest County, Mississippi, D.C.Miss.1994, 859 F.Supp. 251. Wesley v. Mississippi Transportation Comm'n, D.C.Miss.1994, 857 F.Supp. 523. California Union Ins. Co. v. City of Walnut Grove, Mississippi, D.C.Miss.1994, 857 F.Supp. 515. Prewitt v. Moore, D.C.Miss.1993, 840 F.Supp. 436. In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Miss.1993, 826 F.Supp. 1019. Harris v. Johnson, D.C.Miss.1972, 345 F.Supp. 516.

Texas MCW, Incorporated v. Badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C., D.C.Tex.2004, 2004 WL 833595, citing Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., C.A.5th, 1982, 677 F.2d 1045, 1050, citing Wright & Miller. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698. Hutchison v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., D.C.Tex.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 629. U.S. ex rel. Coppock v. Northrop Grumman Corp., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1796979. Taylor v. Maple Ave. Economic Dev. Corp., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1758189. Pivonka v. Collins, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1477455. Groceman v. U.S. Department of Justice, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1398559. Boundy v. Dolenz, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1160075. Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196. Sleather v. Boy Scouts of America, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 663563. Haack v. Max Internet Communications, Inc., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 511514. Meghani v. Shell Oil Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 747. Brock v. Baskin-Robbins USA Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 1078. Torres de Maquera v. Yacu Runa Naviera, S.A., D.C.Tex.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 770. U.S. ex rel. Wilkins v. North American Constr. Corp., D.C.Tex.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 500, amended and superseded on other grounds D.C.Tex.2001, 173 F.Supp.2d 601. Henrise v. Horvath, D.C.Tex.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 768. Campbell v. Baldwin, D.C.Tex.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 754. Marabella v. Autonation U.S.A. Corp., D.C.Tex.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 750. Meador v. Oryx Energy Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 658. Office Outfitters, Inc. v. A.B. Dick Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 772. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Niro, Inc., D.C.Tex.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 712. Griffin v. GK Intelligent Sys., Inc., D.C.Tex.1999, 87 F.Supp.2d 684. Puckett v. U.S., D.C.Tex.1999, 82 F.Supp.2d 660. St. Clair v. Johnny's Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., D.C.Tex.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 773. Chawla v. Shell Oil Co., D.C.Tex.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 626. Coghlan III v. Aquasport Marine Corp., D.C.Tex.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 769, affirmed C.A.5th, 2001, 240 F.3d 449.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Nebout v. City of Hitchcock, D.C.Tex.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 702. Piraino v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tex.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 889. Smith v. Blue, D.C.Tex.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 686. Andrade v. Chojnacki, D.C.Tex.1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 431. Santerre v. Agip Petroleum Co., D.C.Tex.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 558. The court refused to dismiss a complaint, although unsure whether it stated a prima facie claim, because it could not say that it appeared “beyond doubt” that pleader was not entitled to relief. Galloway v. Matagorda County, Texas, D.C.Tex.1999, 35 F.Supp.2d 952. Robertson v. Strassner, D.C.Tex.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 443. J & J Manufacturing, Inc. v. Logan, D.C.Tex.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 692. Corporate Health Ins., Inc. v. Texas Dep't of Ins., D.C.Tex.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 597, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 2000, 215 F.3d 526. Maricle v. Biggerstaff, D.C.Tex.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 705. Frith v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Tex.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 734. Spicer v. Collins, D.C.Tex.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 673. Hazelton v. City of Grand Prairie, Texas, D.C.Tex.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 570. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Consolidated Fibers, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 822. In re Paracelsus Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Tex.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 626. Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., D.C.Tex.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 618. Young v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., D.C.Tex.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 914. Quintanilla v. K-Bin, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 993 F.Supp. 560. Miller v. Stonehenge/Fasa-Texas, JDC, L.P., D.C.Tex.1998, 993 F.Supp. 461. Matthews v. High Island Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1998, 991 F.Supp. 840. Bessman v. Powell, D.C.Tex.1998, 991 F.Supp. 830. K.U. by & through Michael U. v. Alvin Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1998, 991 F.Supp. 599. Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 177 F.R.D. 387. Texas v. American Tobacco Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 14 F.Supp.2d 956. Cross Timbers Concerned Citizens v. Saginaw, D.C.Tex.1997, 991 F.Supp. 563. Timmons v. Special Ins. Servs., D.C.Tex.1997, 984 F.Supp. 997. Stewart v. Potts, D.C.Tex.1997, 983 F.Supp. 678. Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247. Roventini v. Pasadena Ind. School Dist., D.C.Tex.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1013, vacated on other grounds D.C.Tex.1998, 183 F.R.D. 500. Washington v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Tex.1996, 953 F.Supp. 762. Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S.A. Glas, Inc., D.C.Tex.1996, 940 F.Supp. 1026. U.S. ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., D.C.Tex.1996, 938 F.Supp. 399, order affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1997, 125 F.3d 899. Jenkins v. Board of Educ. of the Houston Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1996, 937 F.Supp. 608. Callis v. Sellars, D.C.Tex.1996, 931 F.Supp. 504. Jolly v. Klein, D.C.Tex.1996, 923 F.Supp. 931. Youngblood v. City of Galveston, Texas, D.C.Tex.1996, 920 F.Supp. 103. Bonton v. Archer Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., D.C.Tex.1995, 889 F.Supp. 995. Matta v. May, D.C.Tex.1995, 888 F.Supp. 808. Mason v. FDIC, D.C.Tex.1995, 888 F.Supp. 799. Murphy v. Wal-Mart Associates' Group Health Plan, D.C.Tex.1995, 882 F.Supp. 95. Thornton v. Micrografx, Inc., D.C.Tex.1995, 878 F.Supp. 931. Bowers v. Baylor Univ., D.C.Tex.1994, 862 F.Supp. 142. FDIC v. Harrington, D.C.Tex.1994, 844 F.Supp. 300. Sheppard v. Texas Dep't of Transportation, D.C.Tex.1994, 158 F.R.D. 592. Capital Parks, Inc. v. Southeastern Advertising & Sales Sys., Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 864 F.Supp. 14, affirmed C.A.5th, 1994, 30 F.3d 627. Mills v. Injury Benefits Plan Of Schepps-Foremost, Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 851 F.Supp. 804.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Ledesma v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 818 F.Supp. 983. Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., D.C.Tex.1993, 818 F.Supp. 971, affirmed C.A.5th, 1994, 14 F.3d 1061, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied C.A.5th, 1994, 20 F.3d 1172. Maxwell v. Henry, D.C.Tex.1993, 815 F.Supp. 213. Lewis v. Law-Yone, D.C.Tex.1993, 813 F.Supp. 1247. Maritrend, Inc. v. Galveston Wharves, D.C.Tex.1993, 152 F.R.D. 543. Askanase v. Fatjo, D.C.Tex.1993, 148 F.R.D. 570. Hirras v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., D.C.Tex.1992, 826 F.Supp. 1062, affirmed C.A.5th, 1994, 10 F.3d 1142, vacated on other grounds 114 S.Ct. 2732, 512 U.S. 1231, 129 L.Ed.2d 855, on remand C.A.5th, 1995, 44 F.3d 278. Bartley v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.Tex.1992, 824 F.Supp. 624. Lawal v. British Airways, PLC, D.C.Tex.1992, 812 F.Supp. 713. FDIC v. Nathan, D.C.Tex.1992, 804 F.Supp. 888. Ridgeley v. Merchants State Bank, D.C.Tex.1988, 699 F.Supp. 100. Crawford v. City of Houston, Texas, D.C.Tex.1974, 386 F.Supp. 187. Dreyer v. Jalet, D.C.Tex.1972, 349 F.Supp. 452, affirmed per curiam C.A.5th, 1973, 479 F.2d 1044. Spanihel v. Turrentine, D.C.Tex.1972, 339 F.Supp. 1074.

Sixth Circuit Hall v. Callahan, 727 F.3d 450, 453 (6th Cir. 2013). Steiner v. Henderson, C.A.6th, 2003, 354 F.3d 432, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 2049, __ U.S. __, __ L.Ed.2d __. Stemler v. Florence, C.A.6th, 2003, 350 F.3d 578. Montgomery v. Huntington Bank & Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc., C.A.6th, 2003, 346 F.3d 693. Garland v. TVA, C.A.6th, 2003, 336 F.3d 455. Rossborough Mfg. Co. v. Trimble, C.A.6th, 2002, 301 F.3d 482. Goad v. Mitchell, C.A.6th, 2002, 297 F.3d 497. Pfennig v. Household Credit Servs., Inc., C.A.6th, 2002, 295 F.3d 522, certiorari granted on other grounds 2003, 123 S.Ct. 2639, __ U.S. __, 156 L.Ed.2d 654. Robinson v. Township of Redford, C.A.6th, 2002, 48 Fed.Appx. 925 (unpublished). Thomas v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., C.A.6th, 2002, 29 Fed.Appx. 319. Gregory v. Shelby County, Tennessee, C.A.6th, 2000, 220 F.3d 433. Perry v. McGinnis, C.A.6th, 2000, 209 F.3d 597. Decker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., C.A.6th, 2000, 205 F.3d 906. Cooper v. Parrish, C.A.6th, 2000, 203 F.3d 937, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 185, 531 U.S. 877, 148 L.Ed.2d 128. Herron v. Harrison, C.A.6th, 2000, 203 F.3d 410. Pik-Coal Co. v. Big Rivers Elec. Corp., C.A.6th, 2000, 200 F.3d 884. Claybrook v. Birchwell, C.A.6th, 2000, 199 F.3d 350, appeal after remand C.A.6th, 2001, 274 F.3d 1098. Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., C.A.6th, 1999, 196 F.3d 617. Jackson v. City of Columbus, C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737. Lawrence v. Chancery Ct. of Tennessee, C.A.6th, 1999, 188 F.3d 687. In re Comshare, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.6th, 1999, 183 F.3d 542. DePiero v. City of Macedonia, C.A.6th, 1999, 180 F.3d 770, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 844, 528 U.S. 1105, 145 L.Ed.2d 713. Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, C.A.6th, 1999, 177 F.3d 507. Advocacy Organization for Patients & Providers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, C.A.6th, 1999, 176 F.3d 315, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 172, 528 U.S. 871, 145 L.Ed.2d 145. Southwest Williamson County Community Ass'n v. Slater, C.A.6th, 1999, 173 F.3d 1033. Tolbert v. Ohio Dep't of Transportation, C.A.6th, 1999, 172 F.3d 934 (dismissal inappropriate before this determination is made). Nelson v. Miller, C.A.6th, 1999, 170 F.3d 641. Williams v. WCI Steel Co., C.A.6th, 1999, 170 F.3d 598. Performance Contracting, Inc. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., C.A.6th, 1998, 163 F.3d 366. Turker v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Corrections, C.A.6th, 1998, 157 F.3d 453. Hammons v. Norfolk Southern Corp., C.A.6th, 1998, 156 F.3d 701.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bloch v. Ribar, C.A.6th, 1998, 156 F.3d 673. Coger v. Board of Regents of State of Tennessee, C.A.6th 1998, 154 F.3d 296, vacated on other grounds C.A.6th, 2000, 209 F.3d 485. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., C.A.6th, 1998, 151 F.3d 559. Truitt v. County of Wayne, C.A.6th, 1998, 148 F.3d 644. Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., C.A.6th, 1998, 135 F.3d 389. Ludwig v. Board of Trustees of Ferris State Univ., C.A.6th, 1997, 123 F.3d 404. Barnes v. Winchell, C.A.6th, 1997, 105 F.3d 1111. Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., C.A.6th, 1996, 76 F.3d 716. Miller v. Currie, C.A.6th, 1995, 50 F.3d 373. Gazette v. City of Pontiac, C.A.6th, 1994, 41 F.3d 1061. Cameron v. Seitz, C.A.6th, 1994, 38 F.3d 264. Vemco, Inc. v. Camardella, C.A.6th, 1994, 23 F.3d 129, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 579, 513 U.S. 1017, 130 L.Ed.2d 495. Mann v. Conlin, C.A.6th, 1994, 22 F.3d 100, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 193, 513 U.S. 870, 130 L.Ed.2d 126. Jones v. City of Carlisle, Kentucky, C.A.6th, 1993, 3 F.3d 945, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 1218, 510 U.S. 1177, 127 L.Ed.2d 564. In re DeLorean Motor Co., C.A.6th, 1993, 991 F.2d 1236. Mayer v. Mylod, C.A.6th, 1993, 988 F.2d 635. Newman v. Voinovich, C.A.6th, 1993, 986 F.2d 159, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 3041, 509 U.S. 924, 125 L.Ed.2d 727. Song v. City of Elyria, Ohio, C.A.6th, 1993, 985 F.2d 840. Carter by Carter v. Cornwell, C.A.6th, 1993, 983 F.2d 52. Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., C.A.6th, 1991, 932 F.2d 540. American Eagle Credit Corp. v. Gaskins, C.A.6th, 1990, 920 F.2d 352. Collins v. Nagle, C.A.6th, 1989, 892 F.2d 489. Hammond v. Baldwin, C.A.6th, 1989, 866 F.2d 172. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., C.A.6th, 1988, 859 F.2d 434. Davis H. Elliot Co. v. Caribbean Utils. Co., C.A.6th, 1975, 513 F.2d 1176. Hilliard v. Williams, C.A.6th, 1972, 465 F.2d 1212, certiorari denied 93 S.Ct. 461, 409 U.S. 1029, 34 L.Ed.2d 322.

Kentucky MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., D.C.Ky.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 766. Hamilton v. York, D.C.Ky.1997, 987 F.Supp. 953. Barmet Aluminum Corp. v. Doug Brantley & Sons, Inc., D.C.Ky.1995, 914 F.Supp. 159. Wilson v. Webb, D.C.Ky.1994, 869 F.Supp. 496. Clark v. Board of Educ. of Shelbyville, Kentucky, D.C.Ky.1972, 350 F.Supp. 149.

Michigan Bowens v. Aftermath Entertainment, D.C.Mich.2003, 254 F.Supp.2d 629. Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., D.C.Mich.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 1087. Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, D.C.Mich.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 711. Zolman v. IRS, D.C.Mich.1999, 87 F.Supp.2d 763. American Special Risk Ins. Co. ex rel. South Macomb Disposal Authority v. City of Centerline, D.C.Mich.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 944. Akella v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, D.C.Mich.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 716. Ramik v. Darling Int'l, Inc., D.C.Mich.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 680. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Strand, D.C.Mich.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 993. Organic Chems. Site PRP Group v. Total Petroleum, Inc., D.C.Mich.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 660. Christian Memorial Cultural Center, Inc. v. Michigan Funeral Directors Ass'n, D.C.Mich.1998, 998 F.Supp. 772. Lanni v. Engler, D.C.Mich.1998, 994 F.Supp. 849. Teamsters Local 372, Detroit Mailers Union Local 2040 v. Detroit Newspapers, D.C.Mich.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1052. MacKay v. Grumman Allied Indus., Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 993 F.Supp. 1068. Gao v. Jenifer, D.C.Mich.1997, 991 F.Supp. 887, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 1999, 185 F.3d 548. Amway Distributors Benefits Ass'n v. Federal Ins. Co., D.C.Mich.1997, 990 F.Supp. 936. Bordas v. Washtenaw County, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 979.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Fox v. Van Oosterum, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 597, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 176 F.3d 342. Goins v. Ajax Metal Processing, Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1057. General Motors Corp. v. Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua, D.C.Mich.1996, 948 F.Supp. 684. Guzinski v. Hasselbach, D.C.Mich.1996, 920 F.Supp. 762. Hilliard v. Shell Western E & P, Inc., D.C.Mich.1995, 885 F.Supp. 169. McCready v. Michigan State Bar, D.C.Mich.1995, 881 F.Supp. 300. Tlusty v. U.S., D.C.Mich.1994, 871 F.Supp. 299. U.S. ex rel. Moore v. University of Michigan, D.C.Mich.1994, 860 F.Supp. 400. Middleton v. McGinnis, D.C.Mich.1994, 860 F.Supp. 391. Hoydal v. Prime Opportunities, Inc., D.C.Mich.1994, 856 F.Supp. 327. Fishbach-Natkin, Inc. v. Shimizu America Corp., D.C.Mich.1994, 854 F.Supp. 1294. Canales v. Gabry, D.C.Mich.1994, 844 F.Supp. 1167. Strout v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, D.C.Mich.1994, 842 F.Supp. 948, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 40 F.3d 136. Doran v. McGinnis, D.C.Mich.1994, 158 F.R.D. 383. Sheldon Co. Profit Sharing Plan & Trust v. Smith, D.C.Mich.1993, 828 F.Supp. 1262. Kelley ex rel. Michigan v. Kysor Indus. Corp., D.C.Mich.1993, 826 F.Supp. 1089. Theuerkauf v. United Vaccines Div. of Harlan Sprague Dawley, D.C.Mich.1993, 821 F.Supp. 1238. Computer Leasco, Inc. v. Volvo White Truck Corp., D.C.Mich.1993, 820 F.Supp. 326. Greenan v. Romeo Village Police Dep't, D.C.Mich.1993, 819 F.Supp. 658. Doe v. Johnson, D.C.Mich.1993, 817 F.Supp. 1382. Ballan v. Upjohn Co., D.C.Mich.1992, 814 F.Supp. 1375. Coplin & Associates, Inc. v. U.S., D.C.Mich.1992, 814 F.Supp. 643. Bridges v. Senger, D.C.Mich.1990, 730 F.Supp. 1401. Mitchell v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mich.1988, 697 F.Supp. 948. Dow Chem. Co. v. Taylor, D.C.Mich.1972, 57 F.R.D. 105.

Ohio Lawrence v. Dixon Ticonderoga Co., D.C.Ohio 2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 806. Davis v. DCB Financial Corp., D.C.Ohio 2003, 259 F.Supp.2d 664. Savage v. Hatcher, D.C.Ohio 2002, 2002 WL 484986. Edwards v. Physician's Credit Bureau, D.C.Ohio 2001, 2001 WL 1678783 (unpublished). In re SmarTalk Teleservices, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ohio 2000, 124 F.Supp.2d 505. Barrett v. Wallace, D.C.Ohio 2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 949. Downie v. City of Middleburg Heights, D.C.Ohio 1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 794, affirmed C.A.6th, 2002, 301 F.3d 688. Kingman v. U.S., D.C.Ohio 1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 753. Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 815, affirmed on other grounds C.A.6th, 2003, 317 F.3d 646. Jackson v. City of Columbus, D.C.Ohio 1998, 67 F.Supp.2d 839, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737. Culberson v. Doan, D.C.Ohio 1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 701. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 35 F.Supp.2d 597. Harris v. City of Cleveland, D.C.Ohio 1999, 190 F.R.D. 215. Cox v. Dubois, D.C.Ohio 1998, 16 F.Supp.2d 861. Gupta v. Terra Nitrogen Corp., D.C.Ohio 1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 879. Rupnow v. TRC, Incorporated, D.C.Ohio 1998, 999 F.Supp. 1047. Spivey v. Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1998, 999 F.Supp. 987. Brewery Dist. Soc. v. Federal Highway Admin., D.C.Ohio 1998, 996 F.Supp. 750. Stein v. Kent State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, D.C.Ohio 1998, 994 F.Supp. 898, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 181 F.3d 103. City of Painesville, Ohio v. First Montauk Financial Corp., D.C.Ohio 1998, 178 F.R.D. 180. Yanacos v. Lake County, Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1996, 953 F.Supp. 187. Orick v. Banziger, D.C.Ohio 1996, 945 F.Supp. 1084, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 178 F.3d 1295. Dicks v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1996, 933 F.Supp. 694.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

R.J. Wildner Contracting Co. v. Ohio Turnpike Comm'n, D.C.Ohio 1996, 913 F.Supp. 1031. Klusty v. Taco Bell Corp., D.C.Ohio 1995, 909 F.Supp. 516. Schott v. Secretary of Treasury, D.C.Ohio 1995, 909 F.Supp. 506. U.S. v. Tuente Livestock, D.C.Ohio 1995, 888 F.Supp. 1416. Wilkins ex rel. U.S. v. Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1995, 885 F.Supp. 1055. I-Star Communications Corp. v. City of East Cleveland, D.C.Ohio 1995, 885 F.Supp. 1035. U.S. on Behalf of Woodruff v. Fairways Villas Condominium Ass'n, D.C.Ohio 1995, 879 F.Supp. 798, vacated on other grounds D.C.Ohio 1996, 920 F.Supp. 115. U.S. ex rel. Roy v. Anthony, D.C.Ohio 1994, 914 F.Supp. 1504. Shuttlesworth v. Housing Opportunities Made Equal, D.C.Ohio 1994, 873 F.Supp. 1069. Martinez v. Western Ohio Health Care Corp., D.C.Ohio 1994, 872 F.Supp. 469. Johnson v. University Surgical Group Associates of Cincinnati, D.C.Ohio 1994, 871 F.Supp. 979. Federspiel v. Ohio Republican Party State Cent. Committee, D.C.Ohio 1994, 867 F.Supp. 617, affirmed C.A.6th, 1996, 85 F.3d 628. Heights Community Congress v. Smythe, Cramer Co., D.C.Ohio 1994, 862 F.Supp. 204. Pappas v. Bethesda Hosp. Ass'n, D.C.Ohio 1994, 861 F.Supp. 616. Ohio ex rel. Fisher v. Louis Trauth Dairy, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1994, 856 F.Supp. 1229. RTC v. Zimmerman, D.C.Ohio 1994, 853 F.Supp. 1016. Crihfield v. Monsanto Co., D.C.Ohio 1994, 844 F.Supp. 371. Montgomery v. Carr, D.C.Ohio 1993, 848 F.Supp. 770. Martin v. Voinovich, D.C.Ohio 1993, 840 F.Supp. 1175. City of Heath, Ohio v. Ashland Oil, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1993, 834 F.Supp. 971. City of Reynoldsburg v. Browner, D.C.Ohio 1993, 834 F.Supp. 963. Operation Badlaw, Inc. v. Licking County Gen. Health Dist. Bd. of Health, D.C.Ohio 1992, 866 F.Supp. 1059. Stychno v. Ohio Edison Co., D.C.Ohio 1992, 806 F.Supp. 663. Emser v. Curtis Indus., Inc., D.C.Ohio 1991, 774 F.Supp. 1076. Minatsis v. Brown, D.C.Ohio 1989, 713 F.Supp. 1056. Tomlin v. U.S. Air Force Medical Center, D.C.Ohio 1974, 369 F.Supp. 353. Stamm v. Trigg, D.C.Ohio 1973, 368 F.Supp. 83.

Tennessee Aldridge v. U.S., D.C.Tenn.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 802. Sparks v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Tenn.2000, 98 F.Supp.2d 933. Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Tenn.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 832, appeal dismissed C.A.6th, 2001, 2 Fed.Appx. 470. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 807. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 943. Hedgepeth v. Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 33 F.Supp.2d 668. Tennessee Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of Putnam County, Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 808. Syncor Int'l Corp. v. Newbaker, D.C.Tenn.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 781. WHS Entertainment Ventures v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, D.C.Tenn.1998, 997 F.Supp. 946. Holley v. Deal, D.C.Tenn.1996, 948 F.Supp. 711. Grindstaff v. Green, D.C.Tenn.1996, 946 F.Supp. 540, affirmed C.A.6th, 1998, 133 F.3d 416. Frizzell v. Southwest Motor Freight, Inc., D.C.Tenn.1995, 906 F.Supp. 441. Valley Prods. Co. v. Landmark, D.C.Tenn.1994, 877 F.Supp. 1087. AMC Mortgage Co. v. RTC, D.C.Tenn.1994, 846 F.Supp. 1323. People First of Tennessee v. Arlington Developmental Center, D.C.Tenn.1992, 878 F.Supp. 97. Carroll v. National Car Rental Sys., Inc., D.C.Tenn.1973, 367 F.Supp. 474. Maxwell v. Roark, D.C.Tenn.1971, 337 F.Supp. 506.

Seventh Circuit Stachowski v. Town of Cicero, C.A.7th, 2005, 425 F.3d 1075. Voelker v. Porsche Cars No. America, Inc., C.A.7th, 2003, 353 F.3d 516.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Phelan v. City of Chicago, C.A.7th, 2003, 347 F.3d 679. Del Korth v. Supervalu, Inc., C.A.7th, 2002, 46 Fed.Appx. 846 (unpublished). Zimmerman v. Tribble, C.A.7th, 2000, 226 F.3d 568. Holman v. Indiana, C.A.7th, 2000, 211 F.3d 399 (claim may not be dismissed unless it is impossible to establish claim under any set of facts, but those facts must be consistent with allegations of complaint). Marshall-Mosby v. Corporate Receivables, Inc., C.A.7th, 2000, 205 F.3d 323. Looper Maintenance Serv. Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, C.A.7th, 1999, 197 F.3d 908. Hernandez v. Joliet Police Dep't, C.A.7th, 1999, 197 F.3d 256. Massey v. Helman, C.A.7th, 1999, 196 F.3d 727. Scott v. City of Chicago, C.A.7th, 1999, 195 F.3d 950. Smith v. Cash Store Management, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 195 F.3d 325. Veazey v. Communications & Cable of Chicago, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 194 F.3d 850. Pawlowski v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp, C.A.7th, 1999, 186 F.3d 997, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 937, 528 U.S. 1117, 145 L.Ed.2d 815. Maple Lanes, Inc. v. Messer, C.A.7th, 1999, 186 F.3d 823, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct., 939, 528 U.S. 1118, 145 L.Ed.2d 817. Payton v. Rush Presbyterian—St. Luke's Medical Center, C.A.7th, 1999, 184 F.3d 623. Crenshaw v. Baynerd, C.A.7th, 1999, 180 F.3d 866, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 374, 528 U.S. 952, 145 L.Ed.2d 292. Ogden Martin Sys. of Indianapolis v. Whiting, C.A.7th, 1999, 179 F.3d 523. Jackson v. E.J. Brach Corp., C.A.7th, 1999, 176 F.3d 971. Hentosh v. Herman M. Finch Univ. of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School, C.A.7th, 1999, 167 F.3d 1170. Midwestern Machinery, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., C.A.8th, 1999, 167 F.3d 439. Goren v. New Vision Int'l, Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 156 F.3d 721. Walker v. Wallace Auto Sales, Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 155 F.3d 927. Herdrich v. Pegram, C.A.7th, 1998, 154 F.3d 362. Kaplan v. Shure Bros., Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 153 F.3d 413. Moriarty v. Larry G. Lewis Funeral Directors Ltd., C.A.7th, 1998, 150 F.3d 773. Martinez v. Hooper, C.A.7th, 1998, 148 F.3d 856. Nance v. Vieregge, C.A.7th, 1998, 147 F.3d 589, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 426, 525 U.S. 973, 142 L.Ed.2d 347 (inmate's § 1983 complaint against prison's property clerk for losing inmate's property was not subject to dismissal on ground that inmate had not pleaded facts showing that clerk acted deliberately; it was sufficient that complaint alleged that clerk acted deliberately). Berman v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 482. Sneed v. Rybicki, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 478. Eison v. McCoy, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 468. Fries v. Helsper, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 452, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 337, 525 U.S. 930, 142 L.Ed.2d 278. Autry v. Northwest Premium Servs., Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1037. Fredrick v. Simmons Airlines, Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 144 F.3d 500. Cook v. Winfrey, C.A.7th, 1998, 141 F.3d 322. Doe v. University of Illinois, C.A.7th, 1998, 138 F.3d 653. Gastineau v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., C.A.7th, 1998, 137 F.3d 490. Duda v. Board of Educ. of Franklin Park Public School Dist. No. 84, C.A.7th, 1998, 133 F.3d 1054. Stevens v. Umsted, C.A.7th, 1997, 131 F.3d 697. Mallett v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, C.A.7th, 1997, 130 F.3d 1245. Jang v. A.M. Miller & Associates, C.A.7th, 1997, 122 F.3d 480. Ledford v. Sullivan, C.A.7th, 1997, 105 F.3d 354. Hamlin v. Vaudenberg, C.A.7th, 1996, 95 F.3d 580. Antonelli v. Sheahan, C.A.7th, 1996, 81 F.3d 1422. Luckett v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., C.A.7th, 1995, 53 F.3d 871. Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., C.A.7th, 1995, 52 F.3d 640. Chaney v. Suburban Bus. Div. of Regional Transportation Authority, C.A.7th, 1995, 52 F.3d 623. Palda v. General Dynamics Corp., C.A.7th, 1995, 47 F.3d 872.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Pickrel v. City of Springfield, Illinois, C.A.7th, 1995, 45 F.3d 1115. Sherwin Manor Nursing Center, Inc. v. McAuliffe, C.A.7th, 1994, 37 F.3d 1216, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 172, 516 U.S. 862, 133 L.Ed.2d 113. Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Amoco Tax Leasing IV Corp., C.A.7th, 1994, 34 F.3d 1310. Sidney S. Arst Co. v. Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund, C.A.7th, 1994, 25 F.3d 417. Hondo, Inc. v. Sterling, C.A.7th, 1994, 21 F.3d 775. Highsmith v. Chrysler Credit Corp., C.A.7th, 1994, 18 F.3d 434. Hi-Lite Prods. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., C.A.7th, 1993, 11 F.3d 1402. Mid America Title Co. v. Kirk, C.A.7th, 1993, 991 F.2d 417, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 346, 510 U.S. 932, 126 L.Ed.2d 310, on remand D.C.Ill.1994, 867 F.Supp. 673. Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., C.A.7th, 1993, 987 F.2d 429, on remand D.C.Ill.1994, 1994 WL 71430. Bowman v. City of Franklin, C.A.7th, 1992, 980 F.2d 1104, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 2417, 508 U.S. 940, 124 L.Ed.2d 639. A.O. Smith Corp. v. Lewis, Overbeck & Furman, C.A.7th, 1992, 979 F.2d 546. Ross v. Creighton Univ., C.A.7th, 1992, 957 F.2d 410. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, C.A.7th, 1989, 868 F.2d 943. DeMallory v. Cullen, C.A.7th, 1988, 855 F.2d 442. French v. Heyne, C.A.7th, 1976, 547 F.2d 994. United Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers of America v. Honeywell, Inc., C.A.7th, 1975, 522 F.2d 1221. Washington v. Board of Educ., School Dist. 89, County of Cook, Illinois, C.A.7th, 1974, 498 F.2d 11. Miller v. School Dist. No. 167, Cook County, Illinois, C.A.7th, 1974, 495 F.2d 658. John v. Hurt, C.A.7th, 1973, 489 F.2d 786. Hampton v. City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, C.A.7th, 1973, 484 F.2d 602, certiorari denied 94 S.Ct. 1413, 415 U.S. 917, 39 L.Ed.2d 471. Orphan v. Furnco Constr. Corp., C.A.7th, 1972, 466 F.2d 795. U.S. v. White County Bridge Comm'n, C.A.7th, 1960, 275 F.2d 529, certiorari denied 81 S.Ct. 50, 364 U.S. 818, 5 L.Ed.2d 48. Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., C.A.7th, 1958, 257 F.2d 417.

Illinois Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Vuk Builders, Inc., D.C.Ill.2005, 406 F.Supp.2d 899. Catledge v. Cook County Bd. President Stroger, D.C.Ill.2005, 2005 WL 3159242. Feigl v. Ecolab, Inc., D.C.Ill.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 846. Syscon, Inc. v. Vehicle Valuation Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.2003, 274 F.Supp.2d 975. Navarro v. FDIC, D.C.Ill.2003, 254 F.Supp.2d 1013. Grimes v. Navigant Consulting, Inc., D.C.Ill.2002, 185 F.Supp.2d 906. Smith v. Chicago Archdiocese, D.C.Ill.2002, 2002 WL 31049834. Boards of Trustees of Bricklayers Local 74 Fringe Benefit Funds v. Vorkapic, Inc., D.C.Ill.2002, 2002 WL 596357. Children's Surgical Foundation, Inc. v. National Data Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 121 F.Supp.2d 1221. Czapla v. Commerz Futures, LLC, D.C.Ill.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 715. Davis v. Browner, D.C.Ill.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 1223. Verser v. Elyea, D.C.Ill.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 1211. Baumgardner v. County of Cook, D.C.Ill.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 1041. Demick v. City of Joliet, D.C.Ill.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 1022. Hupp v. Experian Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 1008. Schmidt v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 104 F.Supp.2d 955. Dornhecker v. Ameritech Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 918. U.S. SEC v. Park, D.C.Ill.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 889. Hamilton v. Summers, D.C.Ill.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 908. Powell v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 942. Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., D.C.Ill.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 952. Daley v. Provena Hosps., D.C.Ill.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 881. Love v. Cook County, Illinois, D.C.Ill.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 911.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Christakos v. Intercounty Title Co., D.C.Ill.2000, 196 F.R.D. 496. Davis v. Cash for Payday, Inc., D.C.Ill.2000, 193 F.R.D. 518. Pritikin v. Liberation Publications, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 920. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees v. Substance, Inc., D.C.Ill.2000, 79 F.Supp.2d 919. Koenig v. Waste Management, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 908. Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 903. GreatAmerica Leasing Corp. v. Cozzi Iron & Metal, D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 875. Vallone v. CNA Financial Corp., D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 864. Wardell v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 851. Blaz v. Michael Reese Hosp. Foundation, D.C.Ill.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 803. Guzell v. Hiller, D.C.Ill.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 797, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 2000, 223 F.3d 518. Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' Nat. Pension Fund v. Illinois Range, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 864. Burton v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 974. Cleaves v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 963. Cathy's Tap, Inc. v. Village of Mapleton, D.C.Ill.1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 874. Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 741. Didzerekis v. Stewart, D.C.Ill.1999, 41 F.Supp.2d 840. Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., D.C.Ill.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 974. Rizzi v. Calumet City, D.C.Ill.1999, 183 F.R.D. 639. International Bhd. of Teamsters Local 734 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 34 F.Supp.2d 656, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 196 F.3d 818. Morgan v. Ameritech, D.C.Ill.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 1087. Roberts v. Board of Educ., D.C.Ill.1998, 25 F.Supp.2d 866. Jones v. Detella, D.C.Ill.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 824. NIM Plastics Corp. v. Standex Int'l Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1003. Cunningham v. Eyman, D.C.Ill.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 969. Tabor v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 988. MJ & Partners Restaurant Ltd. Partnership v. Zadikoff, D.C.Ill.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 922. Warren v. Sakuri, D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 991. Neuma, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 952. Singer v. Bulk Petroleum Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 916. Majchrowski v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 946. Love v. City of Chicago Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ill.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 611. Native American Arts, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 599. Jones v. Edgar, D.C.Ill.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 979. Vakharia v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care Centers, D.C.Ill.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1028. Howard v. Local 152 of Int'l Constr. & Gen. Laborers' Union of America, D.C.Ill.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1213. Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1188. Payne v. Abbott Labs., D.C.Ill.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1145. Jackson v. DeTella, D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 901. Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Tang Indus., Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 889. DeLeon v. Beneficial Constr. Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 859. Glutzer v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Ill.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1070. Freeman v. Godinez, D.C.Ill.1998, 996 F.Supp. 822. Blumenthal v. Murray, D.C.Ill.1998, 995 F.Supp. 831. Fremont Financial Corp. v. IPC/Levy, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 994 F.Supp. 988. Watters v. Harrah's Illinois Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 993 F.Supp. 667. McLaughlin v. Cook County Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ill.1998, 993 F.Supp. 661. Meek v. Springfield Police Dep't, D.C.Ill.1998, 990 F.Supp. 598. Petri v. Gatlin, D.C.Ill.1997, 997 F.Supp. 956.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

McKay v. Town & Country Cadillac, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 991 F.Supp. 966. Vasquez v. Gertler & Gertler, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1997, 987 F.Supp. 652. Naguib v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 1082. Wooten v. Acme Steel Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 524. Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 985 F.Supp. 827. Bixby's Food Sys., Inc. v. McKay, D.C.Ill.1997, 985 F.Supp. 802. Copeland v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1182. Hastings v. Fidelity Mortgage Decisions Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 600. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Peters, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 787. Cemail v. Viking Dodge, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1296. Ozkaya v. Telecheck Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 578. Anisimov v. Lake, D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 531. Evans v. Allen, D.C.Ill.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1102. Thomas v. Chicago Housing Authority, D.C.Ill.1997, 981 F.Supp. 558. Williams v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 980 F.Supp. 938. Harrell v. City of Jacksonville, D.C.Ill.1997, 976 F.Supp. 777, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1999, 169 F.3d 428. Bills v. Homer Consolidated School Dist., D.C.Ill.1997, 967 F.Supp. 1063. FDIC v. Gravee, D.C.Ill.1997, 966 F.Supp. 622. Hendrickson v. Gunther-Nash Mining Constr. Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 955 F.Supp. 87. Banco Del Estado v. Navistar Int'l Transportation Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1275. Rehm v. Eagle Fin. Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1246. Conrad v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1997, 954 F.Supp. 180. Wiskup v. Liberty Buick Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 953 F.Supp. 958. Berens v. Ludwig, D.C.Ill.1997, 953 F.Supp. 249, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 160 F.3d 1144. Recreation Servs., Inc. v. Odyssey Fun World, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 952 F.Supp. 594. Pelfresne v. Village of Rosemont, D.C.Ill.1997, 952 F.Supp. 589. Graham v. Gendex Medical XRay, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 176 F.R.D. 288. Varner v. Illinois State Univ., D.C.Ill.1996, 986 F.Supp. 1107, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 150 F.3d 706, affirmed after remand on other grounds C.A.7th, 2000, 226 F.3d 927. Fedor v. Illinois Dep't of Employment Sec., D.C.Ill.1996, 955 F.Supp. 891. Codest Engineering v. Hyatt Int'l Corp., D.C.Ill.1996, 954 F.Supp. 1224. U.S. v. Funds in the Amount of $9,800, D.C.Ill.1996, 952 F.Supp. 1254. Stepan Co. v. Winter Panel Corp., D.C.Ill.1996, 948 F.Supp. 802. Johnstone v. First Bank Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1996, 947 F.Supp. 1220. R & V Pine Tree, Inc. v. Village of Forest Park, D.C.Ill.1996, 947 F.Supp. 342. Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach., Ltd., D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1358. Kastel v. Winnetka Bd. of Educ., Dist. 36, D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1329. Blumenthal v. Murray, D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 623. In re Discovery Zone Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ill.1996, 943 F.Supp. 924. Abdoh v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1996, 930 F.Supp. 311. TLMS Motor Corp. v. Toyota Motor Distributors, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 912 F.Supp. 329. Allied Metal Co. v. Edgerton Metal Prods., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 908 F.Supp. 576. Management Servs. of Illinois, Inc. v. Health Management Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 289. U.S. v. Brickman, D.C.Ill.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1164. Graves v. Tru-Link Fence Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 905 F.Supp. 515. Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 904 F.Supp. 753, 756–757, citing Wright & Miller. Gilbert v. First Alert, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 904 F.Supp. 714. Industrial Specialty Chems., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 902 F.Supp. 805. Gonzalez v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1995, 888 F.Supp. 887. Rojicek v. Community Consolidated School Dist. 15, D.C.Ill.1995, 888 F.Supp. 878.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Griffith v. Keystone Steel & Wire, a Div. of Keystone Consolidated Indus., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 887 F.Supp. 1133. Piquard v. City of East Peoria, D.C.Ill.1995, 887 F.Supp. 1106. Curcio v. Chinn Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 887 F.Supp. 190. Caplan v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 885 F.Supp. 175. Offutt v. Kaplan, D.C.Ill.1995, 884 F.Supp. 1179. Williams v. Sabin, D.C.Ill.1995, 884 F.Supp. 294. Shipbaugh v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, D.C.Ill.1995, 883 F.Supp. 295. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Gofen & Glossberg, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 713. Abeja-Ortiz v. Cisneros, D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 124. Indeck Power Equip. Co. v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp., D.C.Ill.1995, 881 F.Supp. 338. Seber v. Unger, D.C.Ill.1995, 881 F.Supp. 323. Arenson v. Whitehall Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1202. Wilson v. Cook County Bd. of Comm'rs, D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1163. Damato v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1156. Landfair v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1106. Kriendler v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 1140. Cashman v. Coopers & Lybrand, D.C.Ill.1995, 877 F.Supp. 425. James v. Professionals' Detective Agency, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 876 F.Supp. 1013. Rooding v. Peters, D.C.Ill.1995, 876 F.Supp. 946. Matthews v. Rollins Hudig Hall Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 874 F.Supp. 192, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1995, 72 F.3d 50. United Airlines, Inc. v. ALG, Incorporated, D.C.Ill.1995, 873 F.Supp. 147. Whirlpool Financial Corp. v. GN Holdings, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 873 F.Supp. 111. Hoban v. USLIFE Credit Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 163 F.R.D. 509. Doe v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 883 F.Supp. 1126. Molfulleda v. Phillips, D.C.Ill.1994, 882 F.Supp. 689. Battye v. Child Support Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 873 F.Supp. 103. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Area Pension Fund v. Feldman, D.C.Ill.1994, 872 F.Supp. 493. Moore v. Fidelity Financial Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 869 F.Supp. 557, citing Wright & Miller. RTC v. S & K Chevrolet, D.C.Ill.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1047. Taylor v. Anderson, D.C.Ill.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1024. Straka v. Francis, D.C.Ill.1994, 867 F.Supp. 767. Whirlpool Financial Corp. v. Sevaux, D.C.Ill.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1097. Hodges by Hodges v. Public Bldg. Comm'n of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1493. Doe v. Village of Oak Park, D.C.Ill.1994, 863 F.Supp. 797. Antonelli v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1994, 863 F.Supp. 756, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1996, 81 F.3d 1422. Cass v. American Properties, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 861 F.Supp. 55. Nappi v. Meridian Leasing Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1177. Janivo Holding, B.V. v. Continental Bank, D.C.Ill.1994, 859 F.Supp. 316. Henderson v. McDonald, D.C.Ill.1994, 857 F.Supp. 49. Vickery v. Jones, D.C.Ill.1994, 856 F.Supp. 1313. In re Nuveen Fund Litigation, D.C.Ill.1994, 855 F.Supp. 950. Dawson v. W. & H. Voortman, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1994, 853 F.Supp. 1038. Desnick v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 851 F.Supp. 303, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1995, 44 F.3d 1345. Jackson v. Doria, D.C.Ill.1994, 851 F.Supp. 288. Nielsen v. Greenwood, D.C.Ill.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1233. Bergquist v. U.S. National Weather Serv., D.C.Ill.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1221. Adams v. Cavanagh Communities Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1390. Bright v. Roadway Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 846 F.Supp. 693. RTC v. KPMG Peat Marwick, D.C.Ill.1994, 844 F.Supp. 431.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

In re Scattered Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ill.1994, 844 F.Supp. 416, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 47 F.3d 857. Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. Krain, D.C.Ill.1994, 843 F.Supp. 404. The First Nat. Bank of Chicago as Trustee of Institutional Real Estate Fund F v. ACCO USA, Inc.-IBT Retirement Plan, D.C.Ill.1994, 842 F.Supp. 311. City of Chicago Heights, Illinois v. LoBue, D.C.Ill.1994, 841 F.Supp. 819. Marie O. v. Edgar, D.C.Ill.1994, 157 F.R.D. 433. Israeli Aircraft Indus., Ltd. v. Sanwa Bus. Credit Corp., D.C.Ill.1993, 850 F.Supp. 686. Carbone v. Zollar, D.C.Ill.1993, 845 F.Supp. 534. Northen v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1993, 841 F.Supp. 234. Heller Int'l Corp. v. Sharp, D.C.Ill.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1297. O'Hern v. Delta Airlines, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1264. Greenley v. Meersman, D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 381. U.S. v. $288,930.00 in U.S. Currency, D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 367. Eret v. Continental Holding, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 358. Wallace Computer Servs., Inc. v. Adams Bus. Forms, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1413, 1420. Great Lakes Higher Educ. Corp. v. Austin Bank of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 892. Ruich v. Ruff, Weidenaar & Reidy, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 881. AM International, Inc. v. Graphic Management Associates, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 836 F.Supp. 487. Madden v. Country Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1081. Napoli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1053, vacated on other grounds D.C.Ill.1996, 926 F.Supp. 780. Janopoulos v. Harvey L. Walner & Associates, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 459. Admiral Theatre v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1195. Chemical Futures & Options, Inc. v. RTC, D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1188. Matter v. Williams, D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 244. Stein v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook County, Illinois, D.C.Ill.1993, 829 F.Supp. 251. Allen v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1993, 828 F.Supp. 543. Hengel, Inc. v. Hot 'N Now, D.C.Ill.1993, 825 F.Supp. 1311. Brown v. LaSalle Northwest Nat. Bank, D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1078. Anderson v. Humana, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 368, affirmed C.A.7th, 1994, 24 F.3d 889. Small v. Sullivan, D.C.Ill.1992, 820 F.Supp. 1098. Bailey v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., D.C.Ill.1992, 814 F.Supp. 37. Tektel, Inc. v. Maier, D.C.Ill.1992, 813 F.Supp. 1331. In re Abbott Labs. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ill.1992, 813 F.Supp. 1315. Braden Shielding Sys., a Unit of Jason Inc. v. Shielding Dynamics of Texas, D.C.Ill.1992, 812 F.Supp. 819. Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., D.C.Ill.1992, 812 F.Supp. 788, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.7th, 1993, 987 F.2d 429, on remand D.C.Ill.1994, 1994 WL 71430. Bryant v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., D.C.Ill.1992, 809 F.Supp. 584. Gadson v. Newman, D.C.Ill.1992, 807 F.Supp. 1412. Wright v. Bosch Trucking Co., D.C.Ill.1992, 804 F.Supp. 1069. Wright v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., D.C.Ill.1992, 796 F.Supp. 1120. Van Schouwen v. Connaught Corp., D.C.Ill.1991, 782 F.Supp. 1240, 1243, citing Wright & Miller. Kinney v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., D.C.Ill.1991, 780 F.Supp. 1178, 1180, citing Wright & Miller. Greenberg v. Boettcher & Co., D.C.Ill.1991, 755 F.Supp. 776. Schenley Affiliated Brands, Inc. v. Mar-Salle, Inc., D.C.Ill.1989, 703 F.Supp. 744. Cleland v. Stadt, D.C.Ill.1987, 670 F.Supp. 814. Cochran v. Rowe, D.C.Ill.1977, 438 F.Supp. 566. Gerrard v. Blackman, D.C.Ill.1975, 401 F.Supp. 1189. Murphy v. Wheaton, D.C.Ill.1974, 381 F.Supp. 1252. Lucas v. Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., D.C.Ill.1974, 62 F.R.D. 399. League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Fields, D.C.Ill.1972, 352 F.Supp. 1053.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

American Dairy Queen Corp. v. Augustyn, D.C.Ill.1967, 278 F.Supp. 717. R.I.T.A. Chemical Corp. v. Malmstrom Chem. Corp., D.C.Ill.1962, 200 F.Supp. 954.

Indiana Woodall v. AES Corporation, D.C.Ind.2002, 2002 WL 1461718. Marion County Democratic Party v. Marion County Election Bd., D.C.Ind.2002, 2002 WL 1354717. Stokes v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., D.C.Ind.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 966. Reed v. McBride, D.C.Ind.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 845. Spolnik v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Ind.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 998. F. McConnell & Sons, Inc. v. Target Data Sys., Inc., D.C.Ind.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 980. Craig v. Cohn, D.C.Ind.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 944. Moore v. Speybroeck, D.C.Ind.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 850. Thompson v. Huntington, D.C.Ind.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1071. Coats v. Kraft Foods, Inc., D.C.Ind.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 862. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 994. Waters v. Brown, D.C.Ind.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 654, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 175 F.3d 1022. Zimmerman v. Hoard, D.C.Ind.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 633. Erwin v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ind.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1227. U.S. ex rel. Durcholz v. FKW Incorporated, D.C.Ind.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1143. Town of Ogden Dunes v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 996 F.Supp. 850. Estate of Conner by Conner v. Ambrose, D.C.Ind.1997, 990 F.Supp. 606. Printpack, Inc. v. Graphic Communications Union Local 761S, D.C.Ind.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1201. Hurd v. Monsanto Co., D.C.Ind.1995, 908 F.Supp. 604. Stamatio v. Hurco Cos., D.C.Ind.1995, 885 F.Supp. 1180. Worthington v. Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc., D.C.Ind.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1067. Methodist Hosp. v. Indiana Family & Social Servs. Admin., D.C.Ind.1994, 860 F.Supp. 1309. LaPorte County Republican Cent. Committee v. Board of Comm'rs of County of LaPorte, D.C.Ind.1994, 851 F.Supp. 340, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1994, 43 F.3d 1126. Marozsan v. U.S., D.C.Ind.1994, 849 F.Supp. 617, 633. Johnson v. Northern Indiana Public Serv. Co., D.C.Ind.1994, 844 F.Supp. 466. RTC v. O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer, D.C.Ind.1993, 840 F.Supp. 1270. Garus v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., D.C.Ind.1993, 839 F.Supp. 563. West v. LTV Steel Co., D.C.Ind.1993, 839 F.Supp. 559. Mauke v. Town of Dune Acres, D.C.Ind.1993, 835 F.Supp. 468. Baker v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., D.C.Ind.1993, 830 F.Supp. 1161. Tracy v. Bittles, D.C.Ind.1993, 820 F.Supp. 396. Indiana Hi-Rail Corp. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., D.C.Ind.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1254. Washington v. Foresman, D.C.Ind.1993, 148 F.R.D. 241. Fleming v. Alcoa Building Prods., D.C.Ind.1992, 820 F.Supp. 1113. Inner City Leasing & Trucking Co. v. City of Gary, Indiana, D.C.Ind.1990, 759 F.Supp. 461. Heuer v. Loop, D.C.Ind.1961, 198 F.Supp. 546.

Wisconsin Northgate Motors, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Wis.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1071. Roe v. City of Milwaukee, D.C.Wis.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 1119. Holland v. Morgan, D.C.Wis.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 827 (§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). Balcerzak v. City of Milwaukee, D.C.Wis.1997, 980 F.Supp. 983. Pabst Brewing Co. v. Corrao, D.C.Wis.1997, 176 F.R.D. 552. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson, D.C.Wis.1996, 943 F.Supp. 999, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 161 F.3d 449 certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1459, 526 U.S. 1066, 143 L.Ed.2d 544. Simmons v. Honrath, D.C.Wis.1995, 883 F.Supp. 371.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

O'Patka v. Menasha Corp., D.C.Wis.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1202. Zanella v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Wis.1995, 878 F.Supp. 144. Kaufmann v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1995, 876 F.Supp. 1044. Stefanski v. R.A. Zehetner & Associates, Inc., D.C.Wis.1994, 855 F.Supp. 1030. General Motors Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., D.C.Wis.1994, 855 F.Supp. 1005. McCulley v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, D.C.Wis.1994, 851 F.Supp. 1271. Carney v. White, D.C.Wis.1994, 843 F.Supp. 462. Nunley v. Kloehn, D.C.Wis.1994, 158 F.R.D. 614. U.S. ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Ct. for Taylor County, D.C.Wis.1993, 851 F.Supp. 345. Kaufmann v. U.S., D.C.Wis.1993, 840 F.Supp. 641. Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin v. Doyle, D.C.Wis.1993, 828 F.Supp. 1401, affirmed C.A.7th, 1995, 45 F.3d 1079. Petersen v. University of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, D.C.Wis.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1276. Abraham v. Beatrice Foods Co., D.C.Wis.1976, 418 F.Supp. 1384. Weidenfeller v. Kidulis, D.C.Wis.1974, 380 F.Supp. 445. Guerrero v. Schmidt, D.C.Wis.1973, 352 F.Supp. 789. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of America v. Northridge Corp., D.C.Wis.1972, 55 F.R.D. 1. Nanez v. Ritger, D.C.Wis.1969, 304 F.Supp. 354.

Eighth Circuit Holden Farms, Inc. v. Hog Slat, Inc., C.A.8th, 2003, 347 F.3d 1055. Schaller Telephone Co. v. Golden Sky Sys., Inc., C.A.8th, 2002, 298 F.3d 736. Broadus v. O.K. Indus., Inc., C.A.8th, 2000, 226 F.3d 937. S.S. ex rel. Jervis v. McMullen, C.A.8th, 1999, 186 F.3d 1066. Hanten v. School Dist. of Riverview Gardens, C.A.8th, 1999, 183 F.3d 799. St. Croix Waterway Ass'n v. Meyer, C.A.8th, 1999, 178 F.3d 515. Briehl v. General Motors Corp., C.A.8th, 1999, 172 F.3d 623. Gordon v. Hansen, C.A.8th, 1999, 168 F.3d 1109. Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank of Poplar Bluff, C.A.8th, 1999, 167 F.3d 402. Riley v. St. Louis County of Missouri, C.A.8th, 1998, 153 F.3d 627, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1113, 525 U.S. 1178, 143 L.Ed.2d 109. Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, C.A.8th, 1998, 152 F.3d 859, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1035, 525 U.S. 1142, 143 L.Ed.2d 43. Enowmbitang v. Seagate Technology, Inc., C.A.8th, 1998, 148 F.3d 970. Morstad v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, C.A.8th, 1998, 147 F.3d 741. Autio v. AFSCME, Local 3139, C.A.8th, 1998, 140 F.3d 802. Anderson v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., C.A.8th, 1998, 139 F.3d 599. Double D Spotting Serv., Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc., C.A.8th, 1998, 136 F.3d 554. Doe v. Hartz, C.A.8th, 1998, 134 F.3d 1339. Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale School Dist., C.A.8th, 1998, 133 F.3d 649. McMorrow v. Little, C.A.8th, 1997, 103 F.3d 704, on rehearing C.A.8th, 1997, 109 F.3d 432. Atkinson v. Bohn, C.A.8th, 1996, 91 F.3d 1127. Hafley v. Lohman, C.A.8th, 1996, 90 F.3d 264. Frey v. City of Herculaneum, C.A.8th, 1995, 44 F.3d 667. Reeve v. Oliver, C.A.8th, 1994, 41 F.3d 381. Carney v. Houston, C.A.8th, 1994, 33 F.3d 893. Forbes v. Arkansas Educational Television Communication Network Foundation, C.A.8th, 1994, 22 F.3d 1423, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 500, 513 U.S. 995, 130 L.Ed.2d 409. Smith v. St. Bernards Regional Medical Center, C.A.8th, 1994, 19 F.3d 1254. Hamm v. Groose, C.A.8th, 1994, 15 F.3d 110. Kohl v. Casson, C.A.8th, 1993, 5 F.3d 1141. Davis v. Hall, C.A.8th, 1993, 992 F.2d 151 (per curiam). Ring v. First Interstate Mortgage, Inc., C.A.8th, 1993, 984 F.2d 924.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

McCormack v. Citibank, N.A., C.A.8th, 1992, 979 F.2d 643. Seven-Up Bottling Co. v. Seven-Up Co., C.A.8th, 1977, 561 F.2d 1275. Wilbron v. Hutto, C.A.8th, 1975, 509 F.2d 621. Bramlet v. Wilson, C.A.8th, 1974, 495 F.2d 714. Wilkerson v. City of Coralville, Iowa, C.A.8th, 1973, 478 F.2d 709. Richard v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., C.A.8th, 1972, 469 F.2d 1249. Thomason v. Hospital T.V. Rentals, Inc., C.A.8th, 1959, 272 F.2d 263. Lada v. Wilkie, C.A.8th, 1957, 250 F.2d 211.

Arkansas Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Watson, D.C.Ark.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 1027. Arkansas Carpenters' Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ark.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 936. Mason v. Barker, D.C.Ark.1997, 977 F.Supp. 941. Gilmer v. Buena Vista Home Video, Inc., D.C.Ark.1996, 939 F.Supp. 665. Davis v. Fulton County, Arkansas, D.C.Ark.1995, 884 F.Supp. 1245. Chandler v. Fast Lane, Inc., D.C.Ark.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1138. Parsons v. Burns, D.C.Ark.1993, 846 F.Supp. 1372. FDIC v. Deloitte & Touche, D.C.Ark.1992, 834 F.Supp. 1129.

Iowa Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, D.C.Iowa 2002, 212 F.Supp.2d 1034. Schultzen v. Woodbury Cent. Community School Dist., D.C.Iowa 2002, 187 F.Supp.2d 1099. Phillips Kiln Servs., Ltd. v. International Paper Co., D.C.Iowa 2002, 2002 WL 1712870. Salcido ex rel. Gilliland v. Woodbury County, Iowa, D.C.Iowa 1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 1035. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stockdale Agency, D.C.Iowa 1999, 50 F.Supp.2d 871. Davies v. Genesis Medical Center, D.C.Iowa 1998, 994 F.Supp. 1078. Terra Indus., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Iowa 1997, 990 F.Supp. 679. Leiberkneckt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., D.C.Iowa 1997, 980 F.Supp. 300. Thompson v. Thalacker, D.C.Iowa 1996, 950 F.Supp. 1440. Powell v. Tordoff, D.C.Iowa.1995, 911 F.Supp. 1184. Reynolds v. Condon, D.C.Iowa 1995, 908 F.Supp. 1494. DeWit v. Firstar Corp., D.C.Iowa 1995, 879 F.Supp. 947. Woodke v. Dahm, D.C.Iowa 1995, 873 F.Supp. 179, affirmed C.A.8th, 1995, 70 F.3d 983. Marcussen v. Brandstat, D.C.Iowa 1993, 836 F.Supp. 624. Wiltgen v. U.S., D.C.Iowa 1992, 813 F.Supp. 1387. Courter v. Winfield-Mt. Union Community School Dist., D.C.Iowa 1974, 378 F.Supp. 1191. Pierson v. Grant, D.C.Iowa 1973, 357 F.Supp. 397. Patrick v. I.D. Packing Co., D.C.Iowa 1969, 308 F.Supp. 821.

Minnesota Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, D.C.Minn.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 1032, quoting Wright & Miller. Johnson v. U.S. Bancorp, D.C.Minn.2003, 2003 WL 21273672, citing Knapp v. Hanson, C.A.8th, 1999, 183 F.3d 786. Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.Minn.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 912. Associated Contract Loggers, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., D.C.Minn.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 1029. Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.Minn.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 1064. In re Summit Medical Sys., Inc., D.C.Minn.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 1068. Force v. ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., D.C.Minn.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 843. U.S. ex rel. Zissler v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, D.C.Minn.1998, 992 F.Supp. 1097, reversed on other grounds C.A.8th, 1998, 154 F.3d 870. Midwestern Machinery Co. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., D.C.Minn.1998, 990 F.Supp. 1128. In re Milk Prods. Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Minn.1997, 84 F.Supp.2d 1016.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Moubry v. Independent School Dist. No. 696, D.C.Minn.1996, 951 F.Supp. 867. Upsher-Smith Lab., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., D.C.Minn.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1411. Krambeer v. Eisenberg, D.C.Minn.1996, 923 F.Supp. 1170. Gonzales v. West End Iron & Metal Corp., D.C.Minn.1996, 915 F.Supp. 1031. In re Temporomandibular Joint Implants Prods. Liability Litigation, D.C.Minn.1995, 872 F.Supp. 1019. Slice v. Sons of Norway, D.C.Minn.1993, 866 F.Supp. 397. Maxwell v. K Mart Corp., D.C.Minn.1994, 851 F.Supp. 1343. Tonn v. U.S., D.C.Minn.1993, 847 F.Supp. 711, affirmed C.A.8th, 1994, 27 F.3d 1356, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 1107, 513 U.S. 1153, 130 L.Ed.2d 1073, rehearing denied 115 S.Ct. 1726, 514 U.S. 1078, 131 L.Ed.2d 584. In re U.S.A. ex rel. Hall Litigation, D.C.Minn.1993, 825 F.Supp. 1422. McMaster v. Minnesota, D.C.Minn.1993, 819 F.Supp. 1429. In re Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Minn.1993, 159 F.R.D. 513. Dou Yee Enterprises (S) PTE, Ltd. v. Advantek, Inc., D.C.Minn.1993, 149 F.R.D. 185. Richards v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co., D.C.Minn.1992, 804 F.Supp. 1101. Scarrella v. Spannaus, D.C.Minn.1974, 376 F.Supp. 857.

Missouri Price v. Harrah's Maryland Heights Operating Co., D.C.Mo.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 919. Clark v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, D.C.Mo.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 1064. Medlock v. City of St. Charles, D.C.Mo.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 1079. In re BankAmerica Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mo.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 976. Filbern v. Habitat for Humanity, Inc., D.C.Mo.1999, 57 F.Supp.2d 833. Gralike v. Cook, D.C.Mo.1998, 996 F.Supp. 901, affirmed C.A.8th, 1999, 191 F.3d 911. Gralike v. Cook, D.C.Mo.1998, 996 F.Supp. 889. Doan v. INS, D.C.Mo.1997, 990 F.Supp. 744, affirmed C.A.8th, 1998, 160 F.3d 508. Spinks v. City of St. Louis Water Div., D.C.Mo.1997, 176 F.R.D. 572. Walker Management, Inc. v. Affordable Communities of Missouri, D.C.Mo.1996, 912 F.Supp. 455. Hartman v. Smith & Davis Mfg. Co., D.C.Mo.1995, 904 F.Supp. 983. Mauzy v. Mexico School Dist. No. 59, D.C.Mo.1995, 878 F.Supp. 153. Mathis v. American Group Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mo.1994, 873 F.Supp. 1348. RTC v. Fiala, D.C.Mo.1994, 870 F.Supp. 962. Wittmann v. U.S., D.C.Mo.1994, 869 F.Supp. 726. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Berger, D.C.Mo.1994, 864 F.Supp. 106. Russell v. City of Overland Police Dep't, D.C.Mo.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1350. Gruben v. Famous-Barr Co., D.C.Mo.1993, 823 F.Supp. 664. Travis v. Frank, D.C.Mo.1992, 804 F.Supp. 1160. Hurt v. Dow Chem. Co., D.C.Mo.1990, 759 F.Supp. 556. Amendola v. Kansas City So. R.W. Co., D.C.Mo.1988, 699 F.Supp. 1401. New Dawn Natural Foods, Inc. v. Natural Nectar Corp., D.C.Mo.1987, 670 F.Supp. 869. Rodgers v. Westbrook, D.C.Mo.1973, 362 F.Supp. 353. U.S. v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n, D.C.Mo.1966, 263 F.Supp. 340, reversed per curiam on other grounds 1967, 88 S.Ct. 106, 389 U.S. 27, 19 L.Ed.2d 28.

Nebraska Whaley v. U.S., D.C.Neb.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 1060. Christianson v. Clarke, D.C.Neb.1996, 932 F.Supp. 1178. Ronwin v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., D.C.Neb.1992, 807 F.Supp. 87, affirmed C.A.8th, 1993, 996 F.3d 1221. Marvicka v. Brodhead-Garrett Co., D.C.Neb.1977, 76 F.R.D. 205. Stewart v. Hevelone, D.C.Neb.1968, 283 F.Supp. 842.

North Dakota

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Thomson v. Olson, D.C.N.D.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1267.

South Dakota Christian Children's Fund Inc. v. Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Ct., D.C.S.D.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 1161. Webb v. Lawrence County, D.C.S.D.1996, 950 F.Supp. 960, citing Wright & Miller. FGS Constructors, Inc. v. Carlow, D.C.S.D.1993, 823 F.Supp. 1508, citing Wright & Miller. Mousseaux v. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, D.C.S.D.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1433.

Ninth Circuit Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., C.A.9th, 2004, 356 F.3d 1058. Diaz v. Gates, C.A.9th, 2004, 354 F.3d 1169. Karam v. City of Burbank, C.A.9th, 2003, 352 F.3d 1188. Geraci v. Homestreet Bank, C.A.9th, 2003, 347 F.3d 749. National Audubon Soc., Inc. v. Davis, C.A.9th, 2002, 307 F.3d 835. Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., C.A.9th, 2002, 301 F.3d 1163. Whitmire v. Arizona, C.A.9th, 2002, 298 F.3d 1134. Gompper v. VISX, Incorporated, C.A.9th, 2002, 298 F.3d 893. Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc., C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 979. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, C.A.9th, 2000, 231 F.3d 520. Evanns v. AT&T Corporation, C.A.9th, 2000, 229 F.3d 837. Pacheco v. U.S., C.A.9th, 2000, 220 F.3d 1126. Wright v. Riveland, C.A.9th, 2000, 219 F.3d 905. Williamson v. General Dynamics Corp., C.A.9th, 2000, 208 F.3d 1144. Loyd v. Paine Webber, Inc., C.A.9th, 2000, 208 F.3d 755. DeGrassi v. City of Glendora, C.A.9th, 2000, 207 F.3d 636. AlliedSignal, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, C.A.9th, 1999, 182 F.3d 692. Maktab Tarighe Oveyssi Shah Maghsoudi, Inc. v. Kianfar, C.A.9th, 1999, 179 F.3d 1244. Lakeside Non-Ferrous Metals, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., C.A.9th, 1999, 172 F.3d 702. Schneider v. California Dep't of Corrections, C.A.9th, 1998, 151 F.3d 1194. Enesco Corp. v. Price/Costco Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 146 F.3d 1083. Jensen v. City of Oxnard, C.A.9th, 1998, 145 F.3d 1078, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 540, 525 U.S. 1016, 142 L.Ed.2d 449. Butler v. Apfel, C.A.9th, 1998, 144 F.3d 622. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 143 F.3d 1293. Delew v. Wagner, C.A.9th, 1998, 143 F.3d 1219. Abboud v. INS, C.A.9th, 1998, 140 F.3d 843. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, C.A.9th, 1998, 138 F.3d 393. Tyler v. Cisneros, C.A.9th, 1998, 136 F.3d 603, appeal after remand C.A.9th, 2000, 236 F.3d 1124. Wyler Summit Partnership v. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 135 F.3d 658, appeal after remand C.A.9th, 2000, 231 F.3d 546. Campanelli v. Bockrath, C.A.9th, 1996, 100 F.3d 1476, on remand D.C.Cal.1997, 1997 WL 325422. Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., C.A.9th, 1996, 95 F.3d 791. Walleri v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, C.A.9th, 1996, 83 F.3d 1575. Hydranautics v. Filmtec Corp., C.A.9th, 1995, 70 F.3d 533, reversed on other grounds following remand C.A.9th, 1996, 100 F.3d 962. Parks School of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, C.A.9th, 1995, 51 F.3d 1480. Moyo v. Gomez, C.A.9th, 1994, 40 F.3d 982, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 732, 513 U.S. 1081, 130 L.Ed.2d 635. Carson Harbor Village Ltd. v. City of Carson, C.A.9th, 1994, 37 F.3d 468. Housley v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1994, 35 F.3d 400. Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Lerner, C.A.9th, 1994, 31 F.3d 924. Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund for California v. Tri Capital Corp., C.A.9th, 1994, 25 F.3d 849, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 580, 513 U.S. 1018, 130 L.Ed.2d 495. Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, C.A.9th, 1994, 18 F.3d 752.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County, C.A.9th, 1994, 14 F.3d 457. Barron v. Reich, C.A.9th, 1994, 13 F.3d 1370. National Abortions Fed'n v. Operation Rescue, C.A.9th, 1993, 8 F.3d 680. Figueroa v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1993, 7 F.3d 1405. Pack v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1993, 992 F.2d 955. Arcade Water Dist. v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1991, 940 F.2d 1265. Abramson v. Brownstein, C.A.9th, 1990, 897 F.2d 389. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, C.A.9th, 1988, 897 F.2d 368. Jackson v. Southern California Gas Co., C.A.9th, 1989, 881 F.2d 638. Gobel v. Maricopa County, C.A.9th, 1989, 867 F.2d 1201. Durning v. First Boston Corp., C.A.9th, 1987, 815 F.2d 1265, certiorari denied 108 S.Ct. 330, 484 U.S. 944, 98 L.Ed.2d 358. Newman v. Universal Pictures, Inc., C.A.9th, 1987, 813 F.2d 1519, certiorari denied 108 S.Ct. 2831, 486 U.S. 1059, 100 L.Ed.2d 931. Bergquist v. County of Cochise, C.A.9th, 1986, 806 F.2d 1364. California Dump Truck Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Associated Gen. Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc., C.A.9th, 1977, 562 F.2d 607. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Bd. of Culinary Workers, C.A.9th, 1976, 542 F.2d 1076, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1571, 430 U.S. 940, 51 L.Ed.2d 787. Harmsen v. Smith, C.A.9th, 1976, 542 F.2d 496, certiorari denied 104 S.Ct. 89, 464 U.S. 822, 78 L.Ed.2d 97. Runnels v. Rosendale, C.A.9th, 1974, 499 F.2d 733. Fajeriak v. McGinnis, C.A.9th, 1974, 493 F.2d 468. Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, C.A.9th, 1969, 417 F.2d 426. DeWitt v. Pail, C.A.9th, 1966, 366 F.2d 682. Corsican Productions v. Pitchess, C.A.9th, 1964, 338 F.2d 441.

Arizona In re White Electronic Designs Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ariz.2006, 416 F.Supp.2d 754. Southwest Pet Prods., Inc. v. Koch Indus., Inc., D.C.Ariz.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 1115. Recreational Devs. of Phoenix, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, D.C.Ariz.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 1072. Bailey v. IRS, D.C.Ariz.1999, 188 F.R.D. 346, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 893. SEC v. Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc., D.C.Ariz.1998, 17 F.Supp.2d 985. Crawford v. American Institute of Professional Careers, Inc., D.C.Ariz.1996, 934 F.Supp. 335. Lara v. Cowan, D.C.Ariz.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1456. In re American Continental Corp./Lincoln Savs. & Loan Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ariz.1993, 845 F.Supp. 1377. Espinoza v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc., D.C.Ariz.1990, 806 F.Supp. 855.

California RDF Media Ltd. v. Fox Broadcasting Co., D.C.Cal.2005, 372 F.Supp.2d 556. Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip, Inc., D.C.Cal.2005, 2005 WL 1787426. Schreiber v. Kintana, Inc., D.C.Cal.2005, 2005 WL 1683621. Van Winkle v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 1158. Doe v. Mann, D.C.Cal.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 1229. In re Sagent Technology, Inc., Derivative Litigation, D.C.Cal.2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 1079. Gallardo v. DiCarlo, D.C.Cal.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 1160. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., D.C.Cal.2002, 194 F.Supp.2d 1040, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded on other grounds C.A.9th, 2003, 349 F.3d 1191. Van Hulle v. Pacific Telesis Corp., D.C.Cal.2000, 124 F.Supp.2d 642. Medimatch, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 120 F.Supp.2d 842, quoting Wright & Miller. Leon v. County of San Diego, D.C.Cal.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 1197. Scherz v. South Carolina Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 1000. Guerrero v. Gates, D.C.Cal.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 1287. Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino, D.C.Cal.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 1239.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Icasiano v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 1187. Wyatt v. Liljenquist, D.C.Cal.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1062, quoting Wright & Miller. Selby v. New Line Cinema Corp., D.C.Cal.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1053. Smeltzer v. Slater, D.C.Cal.2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 1095. Ovando v. City of Los Angeles, D.C.Cal.2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 1011. Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol, D.C.Cal.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 1131. U.S. SEC v. ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 1097, quoting Wright & Miller. Glen Holly Entertainment, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc., D.C.Cal.1999, 100 F.Supp.2d 1086. U.S. v. One 1992 Ford Mustang GT, D.C.Cal.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 1131. Barapind v. Reno, D.C.Cal.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132. Roe v. Unocal Corp., D.C.Cal.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1073. Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, D.C.Cal.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 1083, citing Wright & Miller. Nuno v. County of San Bernardino, D.C.Cal.1999, 58 F.Supp.2d 1127. Von Colln v. County of Ventura, D.C.Cal.1999, 189 F.R.D. 583. Pegasus Holdings v. Veterinary Centers of America, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 38 F.Supp.2d 1158. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., D.C.Cal.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 1013. Films of Distinction, Inc. v. Allegro Film Productions, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1068. Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1035. Cornwell v. Joseph, D.C.Cal.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1106. Ricotta v. California, D.C.Cal.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 961, affirmed C.A.9th, 1999, 173 F.3d 861. Aquino v. Credit Control Servs., D.C.Cal.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 927. Wenger v. Lumisys, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1231. Allison v. Brooktree Corp., D.C.Cal.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1342. City of Merced v. Fields, D.C.Cal.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1326. Dunlap v. Association of Bay Area Govs., D.C.Cal.1998, 996 F.Supp. 962, quoting Wright & Miller. Qualcomm, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 179 F.R.D. 580. Utility Reform Network v. California Public Utils. Comm'n, D.C.Cal.1997, 26 F.Supp.2d 1208. Diaz v. Carlson, D.C.Cal.1997, 5 F.Supp.2d 809, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 142 F.3d 443. Fontanilla v. City & County of San Francisco, D.C.Cal.1997, 987 F.Supp. 1206. Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1303. Meek v. County of Riverside, D.C.Cal.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1410, affirmed in part, dismissed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 183 F.3d 962. National Coalition Gov. of Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 176 F.R.D. 329. Remington Invs., Inc. v. Kadenacy, D.C.Cal.1996, 930 F.Supp. 446. Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State, D.C.Cal.1996, 922 F.Supp. 1426. Industrial Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. Henry, D.C.Cal.1995, 909 F.Supp. 1368, reversed on other grounds C.A.9th, 1997, 125 F.3d 1305. Dogloo, Inc. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, D.C.Cal.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1383. Bates v. Jones, D.C.Cal.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1080. Grace v. Federal Emergency Management, D.C.Cal.1995, 889 F.Supp. 394, citing Wright & Miller. General Star Indem. Co. v. Schools Excess Liability Fund, D.C.Cal.1995, 888 F.Supp. 1022. DePaoli v. Carlton, D.C.Cal.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1351. In re Clearly Canadian Secs. Litigation, D.C.Cal.1995, 875 F.Supp. 1410. Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 874 F.Supp. 1072. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, D.C.Cal.1994, 871 F.Supp. 381. Steiner v. Hale, D.C.Cal.1994, 868 F.Supp. 284. Trenton v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., D.C.Cal.1994, 865 F.Supp. 1416. Bloom v. Martin, D.C.Cal.1994, 865 F.Supp. 1377, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 77 F.3d 318. Allman v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 865 F.Supp. 665. Independent Cellular Telephone, Inc. v. Daniels & Associates, D.C.Cal.1994, 863 F.Supp. 1109. Parravano v. Babbitt, D.C.Cal.1994, 861 F.Supp. 914, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Citizens for a Better Environment—California v. Union Oil Co. of California, D.C.Cal.1994, 861 F.Supp. 889. Glenbrook Homeowners Ass'n v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1994, 858 F.Supp. 986. Haskell v. Time, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1392. Ramos v. California Committee of Bar Examiners of State Bar of California, D.C.Cal.1994, 857 F.Supp. 702. Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., D.C.Cal.1994, 856 F.Supp. 561, reversed on other grounds C.A.9th, 1996, 74 F.3d 955. Rabkin v. Dean, D.C.Cal.1994, 856 F.Supp. 543. MAI Systems Corp. v. UIPS, D.C.Cal.1994, 856 F.Supp. 538. Microsoft Corp. v. A-Tech Corp., D.C.Cal.1994, 855 F.Supp. 308. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau Of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1994, 850 F.Supp. 1388. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1492, reversed on other grounds C.A.9th, 1996, 76 F.3d 259. Church of Scientology Int'l v. Kolts, D.C.Cal.1994, 846 F.Supp. 873. Anthony v. County of Sacramento, Sheriff's Dep't, D.C.Cal.1994, 845 F.Supp. 1396. Clemes v. Del Norte County Unified School Dist., D.C.Cal.1994, 843 F.Supp. 583. Haltman v. Aura Sys., Inc., D.C.Cal.1993, 844 F.Supp. 544. Plessinger v. Castleman & Haskell, D.C.Cal.1993, 838 F.Supp. 448. Palm v. U.S., D.C.Cal.1993, 835 F.Supp. 512. Kaufman & Broad-South Bay v. Unisys Corp., D.C.Cal.1993, 822 F.Supp. 1468. Van Dyke v. Regents of Univ. of California, D.C.Cal.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1341. Rose v. City of Los Angeles, D.C.Cal.1993, 814 F.Supp. 878. Cabo Distributing Co. v. Brady, D.C.Cal.1992, 821 F.Supp. 601. Wanetick v. Mel's of Modesto, D.C.Cal.1992, 811 F.Supp. 1402. Rintel v. Wathen, D.C.Cal.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1467. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, D.C.Cal.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1503, affirmed C.A.9th, 1993, 10 F.3d 667. Doe v. Schachter, D.C.Cal.1992, 804 F.Supp. 53. Lindsey v. Admiral Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1992, 804 F.Supp. 47. Whitman v. Schlumberger Ltd., D.C.Cal.1992, 793 F.Supp. 228. British Columbia Inv. Co. v. FDIC, D.C.Cal.1976, 420 F.Supp. 1217. Crofoot v. Sperry Rand Corp., D.C.Cal.1976, 408 F.Supp. 1154. Maes v. Motivation for Tomorrow, Inc., D.C.Cal.1973, 356 F.Supp. 47. Penn v. Stumpf, D.C.Cal.1970, 308 F.Supp. 1238. Asher v. Reliance Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1970, 308 F.Supp. 847.

Hawaii Deck v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., D.C.Haw.2000, 121 F.Supp.2d 1292. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Andraea Partners, D.C.Haw.2000, 197 F.R.D. 424. In re Li, D.C.Haw.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1052. Zimmerman v. Oregon Dep't of Justice, D.C.Ore.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1327. Burns-Vidlak by Burns v. Chandler, D.C.Haw.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1144, appeal dismissed C.A.9th, 1999, 165 F.3d 1257. Sloan v. West, D.C.Haw.1996, 8 F.Supp.2d 1207. Moore v. Kamikawa, D.C.Haw.1995, 940 F.Supp. 260. Forsyth v. Eli Lilly & Co., D.C.Haw.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1153. Covington v. U.S., D.C.Haw.1995, 902 F.Supp. 1207. Erickson v. West, D.C.Haw.1995, 876 F.Supp. 239. Kersting v. U.S., D.C.Haw.1992, 818 F.Supp. 297, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 206 F.3d 817. Paulson, Inc. v. Bromar, Inc., D.C.Haw.1992, 808 F.Supp. 736. Smith v. Hurd, D.C.Haw.1988, 699 F.Supp. 1433.

Idaho Edwards v. Ellsworth, May, Sudweeks, Stubbs, Ibsen & Perry, D.C.Idaho 1997, 10 F.Supp.2d 1131, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 152 F.3d 924.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Santana v. Zilog, Inc., D.C.Idaho 1995, 878 F.Supp. 1373, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 95 F.3d 780. Erickson v. Luke, D.C.Idaho 1995, 878 F.Supp. 1364.

Montana Knievel v. ESPN, Incorporated, D.C.Mont.2002, 223 F.Supp.2d 1173.

Nevada Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. Cortez, D.C.Nev.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1102. Smith v. U.S., D.C.Nev.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1136. Pesci v. IRS, D.C.Nev.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 1189. In re Anchor Gaming Secs. Litigation, D.C.Nev.1999, 33 F.Supp.2d 889. Atilano v. U.S., D.C.Nev.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 1276. Tanner v. Prima Donna Resorts, Inc., D.C.Nev.1996, 919 F.Supp. 351. Conkey v. Reno, D.C.Nev.1995, 885 F.Supp. 1389. Paradise v. Robinson & Hoover, D.C.Nev.1995, 883 F.Supp. 521. Fox v. Sierra Dev. Co., D.C.Nev.1995, 876 F.Supp. 1169. Churchill v. Barach, D.C.Nev.1994, 863 F.Supp. 1266. Hallett v. U.S. Department of Navy, D.C.Nev.1994, 850 F.Supp. 874. Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n, Inc., D.C.Nev.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1366. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union Welfare Fund v. Gentner, D.C.Nev.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1354, affirmed C.A.9th, 1995, 50 F.3d 719. Parker v. Asher, D.C.Nev.1988, 701 F.Supp. 192. Tunheim v. Bowman, D.C.Nev.1973, 366 F.Supp. 1395.

Oregon Simson v. U.S., D.C.Ore.1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 1193. U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. TCG Oregon, D.C.Ore.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 1237. U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. MFS Intelenet, Inc., D.C.Ore.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 1221. Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, D.C.Ore.1996, 945 F.Supp. 1355. Oregon Precision Indus., Inc. v. International Omni-Pac Corp., D.C.Ore.1995, 889 F.Supp. 412. Carpenter v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., D.C.Ore.1995, 880 F.Supp. 758. Rowley v. American Airlines, D.C.Ore.1995, 875 F.Supp. 708. Mittendorf v. Stone Lumber Co., D.C.Ore.1994, 874 F.Supp. 292. Fuller Bros., Inc. v. International Marketing, Inc., D.C.Ore.1994, 870 F.Supp. 299. Steinke v. Washington County, D.C.Ore.1994, 857 F.Supp. 55. Oregon Laborers-Employers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. All State Industrial & Marine Cleaning, Inc., D.C.Ore.1994, 850 F.Supp. 905. Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, D.C.Ore.1994, 844 F.Supp. 632, affirmed C.A.9th, 1995, 46 F.3d 54. Morris v. Myers, D.C.Ore.1993, 845 F.Supp. 750. Johnson v. Con-Vey/Keystone, Inc., D.C.Ore.1993, 814 F.Supp. 931.

Washington Sayers v. Bam Margera, Inc., D.C.Wash.2005, 2005 WL 2789051. Association of Washington Public Hosp. Dists. v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Wash.1999, 79 F.Supp.2d 1219, affirmed C.A.9th, 2001, 241 F.3d 696. SEC v. Liberty Capital Group, Inc., D.C.Wash.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 1160. In re Boeing Secs. Litigation, D.C.Wash.1998, 40 F.Supp.2d 1160 (standard not changed by application of Rule 9(b)). Ziegler v. Ziegler, D.C.Wash.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 601. Epstein v. Itron, Inc., D.C.Wash.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1314. Farrakhan v. Locke, D.C.Wash.1997, 987 F.Supp. 1304. Washington Wilderness Coalition v. Hecla Mining Co., D.C.Wash.1994, 870 F.Supp. 983. Solsvik v. Maremar Compania Naviera, S.A., D.C.Wash.1975, 399 F.Supp. 712.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Tenth Circuit Lovell v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., C.A.10th, 2006, 466 F.3d 893. Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corp., C.A.10th, 2005, 425 F.3d 1249. Issa v. Comp USA, C.A.10th, 2003, 354 F.3d 1174. Bell v. Fur Breeders Agricultural Co-op, C.A.10th, 2003, 348 F.3d 1224. Pirraglia v. Novell, Inc., C.A.10th, 2003, 339 F.3d 1182. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kansas, C.A.10th, 2003, 318 F.3d 1183. County of Santa Fe, New Mexico v. Public Serv. Co. of New Mexico, C.A.10th, 2002, 311 F.3d 1031. MacArthur v. San Juan County, C.A.10th, 2002, 309 F.3d 1216, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 2252, 539 U.S. 902, 156 L.Ed.2d 110. Ruiz v. McDonnell, C.A.10th, 2002, 299 F.3d 1173. Davis-Warren Auctioneers, J.V. v. FDIC, C.A.10th, 2000, 215 F.3d 1159. Keith v. Rizzuto, C.A.10th, 2000, 212 F.3d 1190, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 387, 531 U.S. 960, 148 L.Ed.2d 298. Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep't, C.A.10th, 1999, 195 F.3d 553, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 2001, 13 Fed.Appx. 767. Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc., C.A.10th, 1999, 186 F.3d 1301. Calderon v. Kansas Dep't of Social & Rehabilitation Servs., C.A.10th, 1999, 181 F.3d 1180. Sutton v. Utah State School for the Deaf & Blind, C.A.10th, 1999, 173 F.3d 1226. Southern Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste Management, C.A.10th, 1998, 161 F.3d 1259. Leonhardt v. Western Sugar Co., C.A.10th, 1998, 160 F.3d 631. Dill v. City of Edmond, Oklahoma, C.A.10th, 1998, 155 F.3d 1193. Morse v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, C.A.10th, 1998, 154 F.3d 1124. Shaffer v. Saffle, C.A.10th, 1998, 148 F.3d 1180, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 520, 525 U.S. 1005, 142 L.Ed.2d 431. Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc., C.A.10th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1302. Witt v. Roadway Express, C.A.10th, 1998, 136 F.3d 1424, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 188, 525 U.S. 881, 142 L.Ed.2d 153, on remand D.C.Kan.2001, 164 F.Supp.2d 1232. Lee v. Gallup Auto Sales, Inc., C.A.10th, 1998, 135 F.3d 1359. Bauchman for Bauchman v. West High School, C.A.10th, 1997, 132 F.3d 542, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 2370, 524 U.S. 953, 141 L.Ed.2d 738. GFF Corporation v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., C.A.10th, 1997, 130 F.3d 1381. Summum v. Callaghan, C.A.10th, 1997, 130 F.3d 906. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., C.A.10th, 1997, 130 F.3d 893. Riddle v. Mondragon, C.A.10th, 1996, 83 F.3d 1197. Reynolds v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colorado, C.A.10th, 1995, 69 F.3d 1523. Jojola v. Chavez, C.A.10th, 1995, 55 F.3d 488. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., C.A.10th, 1995, 46 F.3d 1491. Housley v. Dodson, C.A.10th, 1994, 41 F.3d 597. Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dep't of Mental Health, C.A.10th, 1994, 41 F.3d 584. Brever v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., C.A.10th, 1994, 40 F.3d 1119. Noland v. McAdoo, C.A.10th, 1994, 39 F.3d 269. Smith v. Colorado Dep't of Corrections, C.A.10th, 1994, 23 F.3d 339. Lucero v. Gunter, C.A.10th, 1994, 17 F.3d 1347, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 1995, 52 F.3d 874. Swoboda v. Dubach, C.A.10th, 1993, 992 F.2d 286, quoting Miller v. Glanz, C.A.10th, 1991, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 1993, 989 F.2d 507. Horowitz v. Schneider Nat., Inc., C.A.10th, 1993, 992 F.2d 279. Lafoy v. HMO Colorado, C.A.10th, 1993, 988 F.2d 97. Hospice of Metro Denver v. Group Health Ins. of Oklahoma, Inc., C.A.10th, 1991, 944 F.2d 752. Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs Co. v. City of Lawrence, Kansas, C.A.10th, 1991, 927 F.2d 1111. In re Edmonds, C.A.10th, 1991, 924 F.2d 176. Johansen v. City of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, C.A.10th, 1988, 862 F.2d 1423. Swanson v. Bixler, C.A.10th, 1984, 750 F.2d 810. Dewell v. Lawson, C.A.10th, 1974, 489 F.2d 877.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Gas-A-Car, Inc. v. American Petrofina, Inc., C.A.10th, 1973, 484 F.2d 1102. Hudson v. Harris, C.A.10th, 1973, 478 F.2d 244.

Colorado Wildwood Child & Adult Care Food Program, Inc. v. Colorado Dep't of Public Health & Environment, D.C.Colo.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 1167. O'Hayre v. Board of Educ. for Jefferson County School Dist. R-1, D.C.Colo.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 1284. Simon v. Cyrus Amax Minerals Health Care Plan, D.C.Colo.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 1263. Leprino Foods Co. v. U.S., D.C.Colo.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 1161. Angres v. Smallworldwide PLC, D.C.Colo.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 1167. Shepherd v. U.S. Olympic Committee, D.C.Colo.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 1136. Full Draw Productions v. Easton Sports, Inc., D.C.Colo.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1001. Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy, D.C.Colo.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 1090. Walker v. Board of Trustees, Regional Transportation Dist., D.C.Colo.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1105. Dauro Advertising, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Colo.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 1165. Harris v. Morales, D.C.Colo.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1319. Klover v. Antero Healthplans, D.C.Colo.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 1003. International Monetary Exchange, Inc. v. First Data Corp., D.C.Colo.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 1261. Hurtado v. Reno, D.C.Colo.1999, 34 F.Supp.2d 1261. Amoco Production Co. v. Aspen Group, D.C.Colo.1999, 189 F.R.D. 614. Amoco Production Co. v. Aspen Group, D.C.Colo.1998, 25 F.Supp.2d 1162 (crosscomplaint). Reeves v. Queen City Transportation, D.C.Colo.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 1181. Queen Uno Ltd. Partnership v. Coeur D'Alene Mines Corp., D.C.Colo.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1345. Cassidy v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. of Texas, D.C.Colo.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1200. Brunetti v. Rubin, D.C.Colo.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1408. Mein v. Pool Co. Disabled Int'l Employee Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, Pool Co., D.C.Colo.1998, 989 F.Supp. 1337. Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., D.C.Colo.1998, 178 F.R.D. 545. Jefferson County School Dist. No. R1 v. Moody's Investor's Servs., Inc., D.C.Colo.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1341, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 175 F.3d 848. Robertson v. Board of County Comm'rs of County of Morgan, D.C.Colo.1997, 985 F.Supp. 980, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 166 F.3d 1222. Morrison v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C., D.C.Colo.1997, 983 F.Supp. 937. Stat-Tech Liquidating Trust v. Fenster, D.C.Colo.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1325. Sportsmen's Wildlife Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of the Interior, D.C.Colo.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1510. Bowe v. SMC Electrical Prods., Inc., D.C.Colo.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1066. Friedlob v. Trustees of the Alpine Mut. Fund Trust, D.C.Colo.1995, 905 F.Supp. 843. Arkansas-Platte & Gulf Partnership v. Dow Chem. Co., D.C.Colo.1995, 886 F.Supp. 762. Burkins v. U.S., D.C.Colo.1994, 865 F.Supp. 1480. Allstate Ins. Co. v. U.S., D.C.Colo.1994, 864 F.Supp. 1015. Connolly v. Beckett, D.C.Colo.1994, 863 F.Supp. 1379. West Pines Psychiatric Hosp. v. Samsonite Benefit Plan, D.C.Colo.1994, 848 F.Supp. 907. Galusha v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, D.C.Colo.1994, 844 F.Supp. 1401. Sugro, Inc. v. U.S., D.C.Colo.1994, 156 F.R.D. 233. Rottman v. Krabloonik, Inc., D.C.Colo.1993, 834 F.Supp. 1269. Mass v. Martin Marietta Corp., D.C.Colo.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1530. American Cas. Co. v. Glaskin, D.C.Colo.1992, 805 F.Supp. 866. Fry v. Board of County Comm'rs of the County of Baca, D.C.Colo.1991, 837 F.Supp. 330 (using essentially same standard and listing various sources for support). T.V. Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Incorporated, D.C.Colo.1991, 767 F.Supp. 1062, affirmed C.A.10th, 1992, 964 F.2d 1022, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 601, 506 U.S. 999, 121 L.Ed.2d 537. Winslow v. Romer, D.C.Colo.1991, 759 F.Supp. 670.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

FDIC v. Wise, D.C.Colo.1991, 758 F.Supp. 1414. Boulter v. Jordan, D.C.Colo.1990, 733 F.Supp. 85.

Kansas Executive Risk Indem. Inc. v. Sprint Corp., D.C.Kan.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 1196. Full Faith Church of Love West, Inc. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., Inc., D.C.Kan.2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 1285. Carson v. Lynch Multimedia Corp., D.C.Kan.2000, 123 F.Supp.2d 1254. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kansas, D.C.Kan.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 1239. PAS Communications, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint, Inc., D.C.Kan.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 1106. Cooper v. Caldera, D.C.Kan.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1160. Sipes ex rel. Slaughter v. Russell, D.C.Kan.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 1199. Briggs v. Walker, D.C.Kan.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 1196. State ex rel. Graves v. U.S., D.C.Kan.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 1094. Brooks v. Sauceda, D.C.Kan.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1115, affirmed C.A.10th, 2000, 242 F.3d 387. Steinert v. Winn Group, Inc., D.C.Kan.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 1234. Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1999, 80 F.Supp.2d 1175. Cameron v. Navarre Farmers Union Coop. Ass'n, D.C.Kan.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1178. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. Cargill, Inc., D.C.Kan.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1155. EEOC v. Swift Transportation Co., D.C.Kan.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1151. Ramada Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Tresprop, Ltd., D.C.Kan.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 1205. Marrie v. Nickels, D.C.Kan.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1252. Vanover v. Cook, D.C.Kan.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1331. Scott v. Topeka Performing Arts Center, D.C.Kan.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1325. Adidas America, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, D.C.Kan.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 1097. Sellens v. Telephone Credit Union, D.C.Kan.1999, 189 F.R.D. 461. Ramada Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Tresprop, Ltd., D.C.Kan.1999, 188 F.R.D. 610. IMC Chemicals, Inc. v. Niro, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 1328 (refusing to dismiss because not beyond doubt). Riggs v. Boeing Co., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1215. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1173. Lange v. Showbiz Pizza Time, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1150. Blackwell v. Harris Chem. No. America, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1302. Ortega v. Nguyen, D.C.Kan.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1178. Prager v. LaFaver, D.C.Kan.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 906. Hall v. Doering, D.C.Kan.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1464. Hall v. Doering, D.C.Kan.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1445. Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1312. Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1299. Mills v. Kansas, Eighth Judicial Dist., D.C.Kan.1998, 994 F.Supp. 1356. Shoup v. Higgins Rental Center, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 991 F.Supp. 1265. Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Dymon, Inc., D.C.Kan.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1394. Whayne v. Kansas, D.C.Kan.1997, 980 F.Supp. 387. Brown v. Callahan, D.C.Kan.1997, 979 F.Supp. 1357. White v. Midwest Office Technology, Inc., D.C.Kan.1997, 979 F.Supp. 1354. Classic Communications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., D.C.Kan.1997, 956 F.Supp. 910. Freeman v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., D.C.Kan.1997, 176 F.R.D. 581. Turner & Boisseau, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 944 F.Supp. 842. Huddleston v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 942 F.Supp. 504. Fusion, Inc. v. Nebraska Aluminum Castings, Inc., D.C.Kan.1996, 934 F.Supp. 1270. Spillman v. Carter, D.C.Kan.1996, 918 F.Supp. 336. Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1102. Houck v. City of Prairie Village, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1996, 912 F.Supp. 1438.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Houck v. City of Prairie Village, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1996, 912 F.Supp. 1428. Old Colony Ventures I v. SMWNPF Holdings, Inc., D.C.Kan.1995, 910 F.Supp. 543. Butler v. Capitol Fed. Savs., D.C.Kan.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1230. Miller v. Brungardt, D.C.Kan.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1215 (dictum). Lyman v. Nabil's Inc., D.C.Kan.1995, 903 F.Supp. 1443. Davis v. Olin, D.C.Kan.1995, 886 F.Supp. 804. Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Kan.1995, 884 F.Supp. 1515. Witt v. Roadway Express, D.C.Kan.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1455. Reidenbach v. U.S.D. #437, D.C.Kan.1995, 878 F.Supp. 178. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1995, 874 F.Supp. 332. Parsons v. Board of County Comm'rs of Marshall County, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1994, 873 F.Supp. 542. Oyler v. Finney, D.C.Kan.1994, 870 F.Supp. 1018. Gilmore v. List & Clark Constr. Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1310. Gilmore v. List & Clark Constr. Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 862 F.Supp. 294. Dees v. Vendel, D.C.Kan.1994, 856 F.Supp. 1531. Morris v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, D.C.Kan.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1421. Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., D.C.Kan.1994, 848 F.Supp. 938. West v. Boeing Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 843 F.Supp. 670, vacated in part on other grounds on reconsideration in part D.C.Kan.1994, 851 F.Supp. 395. Smith v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 842 F.Supp. 1373. Moten v. American Linen Supply Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 155 F.R.D. 202. Deere & Co. v. Zahm, D.C.Kan.1993, 837 F.Supp. 346. Barton Solvents, Inc. v. Southwest Petro-Chem., Inc., D.C.Kan.1993, 836 F.Supp. 757. Monarch Normandy Square Partners v. Normandy Square Associates Ltd. Partnership, D.C.Kan.1993, 817 F.Supp. 899. Van Hoove v. Mid-America Building Maintenance, Inc., D.C.Kan.1993, 811 F.Supp. 609. Schrag v. Dinges, D.C.Kan.1992, 788 F.Supp. 1543. Lawton v. Medevac Mid-America, Inc., D.C.Kan.1991, 138 F.R.D. 586.

New Mexico DiMezza v. First USA Bank, Inc., D.C.N.M.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 1296. Overton v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 1034, affirmed C.A.10th, 2000, 202 F.3d 282. Cordova v. Vaughn Municipal School Dist. Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.M.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 1216. Lopez v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1239. Benavidez v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1997, 998 F.Supp. 1225, reversed on other grounds C.A.10th, 1999, 177 F.3d 927. Maya v. General Motors Corp., D.C.N.M.1996, 953 F.Supp. 1245. Sutton v. New Mexico Dep't of Children, Youth & Families, D.C.N.M.1996, 922 F.Supp. 516. City of Las Cruces v. El Paso Elec. Co., D.C.N.M.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1238. Hill v. Cray Research, Inc., D.C.N.M.1991, 864 F.Supp. 1070. Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., D.C.N.M.1993, 842 F.Supp. 475. Ruiz v. Kepler, D.C.N.M.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1444. Yeitrakis v. Schering-Plough Corp., D.C.N.M.1992, 804 F.Supp. 238.

Oklahoma Yuan v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc., D.C.Okl.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1259 (opinion withdrawn). Brannon v. Boatmen's Bancshares, Inc., D.C.Okl.1997, 952 F.Supp. 1478, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 153 F.3d 1144. GainesTabb v. ICI Explosives USA, Inc., D.C.Okl.1996, 995 F.Supp. 1304, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 160 F.3d 613. U.S. ex rel. Aranda v. Community Psychiatric Centers of Oklahoma, D.C.Okl.1996, 945 F.Supp. 1485. Carter v. State Ins. Fund, D.C.Okl.1995, 877 F.Supp. 575. Coyle v. Hughs, D.C.Okl.1977, 436 F.Supp. 591. Timo v. Associated Indem. Corp., D.C.Okl.1976, 412 F.Supp. 1056. Warner v. Croft, D.C.Okl.1975, 406 F.Supp. 717, 719 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Utah Jensen v. Reeves, D.C.Utah 1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 1265, affirmed C.A.10th, 2001, 3 Fed.Appx. 905. United Mine Workers of America v. Utah, D.C.Utah 1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1298. Ankers v. Rodman, D.C.Utah 1997, 995 F.Supp. 1329. Geneva Steel Co. v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp., D.C.Utah 1997, 980 F.Supp. 1209. Seolas v. Bilzerian, D.C.Utah 1997, 951 F.Supp. 978. In re Commercial Explosives Litigation, D.C.Utah 1996, 945 F.Supp. 1489. Gossner Foods, Inc. v. EPA, D.C.Utah 1996, 918 F.Supp. 359. Washington County v. U.S., D.C.Utah 1995, 903 F.Supp. 40. Oppenheimer v. Novell, Inc., D.C.Utah 1994, 851 F.Supp. 412. Goodnight v. Shalala, D.C.Utah 1993, 837 F.Supp. 1564.

Wyoming Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hunt, D.C.Wyo.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 1261. U.S. v. 657 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Park County, Wyoming, D.C.Wyo.1997, 978 F.Supp. 999. Duart v. FMC Wyoming Corp., D.C.Wyo.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1447. Bintner v. Burlington Northern, Inc., D.C.Wyo.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1484. Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Tuco, Inc., D.C.Wyo.1994, 156 F.R.D. 665. Goss v. Sullivan, D.C.Wyo.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1532. Gustafson v. Bridger Coal Co., D.C.Wyo.1993, 834 F.Supp. 352.

Eleventh Circuit Novoneuron Inc. v. Addiction Research Institute, Inc., 326 Fed. Appx. 505 (11th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Bell v. Florida Highway Patrol, 325 Fed. Appx. 758 (11th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Baker v. Rexroad, C.A.11th, 2005, 159 Fed.Appx. 61 (not to be cited per Eleventh Circuit Rule 36–2). Williams v. Robbins, C.A.11th, 2005, 153 Fed.Appx. 574 (not to be cited per Eleventh Circuit Rule 36–2). La Grasta v. First Union Secs., Inc., C.A.11th, 2004, 358 F.3d 840. Hoffman-Pugh v. Ramsey, C.A.11th, 2002, 312 F.3d 1222. Covad Communications Co. v. BellSouth Corp., C.A.11th, 2002, 299 F.3d 1272, certiorari granted, judgment vacated on other grounds 2004, 124 S.Ct. 1143, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 1040. Oxford Asset Management, Ltd. v. Jaharis, C.A.11th, 2002, 297 F.3d 1182. Marsh v. Butler County, Alabama, C.A.11th, 2000, 225 F.3d 1243. Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., C.A.11th, 2000, 225 F.3d 1228. Marsh v. Butler County, Alabama, C.A.11th, 2000, 212 F.3d 1318. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., C.A.11th, 2000, 208 F.3d 1308. Mesocap Indus. Ltd. v. Torm Lines, C.A.11th, 1999, 194 F.3d 1342. Canadyne-Georgia Corp. v. NationsBank, N.A., C.A.11th, 1999, 183 F.3d 1269. White v. Lemacks, C.A.11th, 1999, 183 F.3d 1253. Kobatake v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., C.A.11th, 1998, 162 F.3d 619. Ellis v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., C.A.11th, 1998, 160 F.3d 703. Hall v. Coram Healthcare Corp., C.A.11th, 1998, 157 F.3d 1286. Roberts v. Florida Power & Light Co., C.A.11th, 1998, 146 F.3d 1305, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1027, 525 U.S. 1139, 143 L.Ed.2d 38. Beck v. Deloitte & Touche, C.A.11th, 1998, 144 F.3d 732. Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., C.A.11th, 1998, 139 F.3d 1385, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 509, 525 U.S. 1000, 142 L.Ed.2d 422. Stone v. Wall, C.A.11th, 1998, 135 F.3d 1438. In re Johannessen, C.A.11th, 1996, 76 F.3d 347. Welch v. Laney, C.A.11th, 1995, 57 F.3d 1004.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., C.A.11th, 1994, 29 F.3d 1480. Cannon v. Macon County, C.A.11th, 1993, 1 F.3d 1558. Gonzalez v. McNary, C.A.11th, 1993, 980 F.2d 1418. Luckey v. Harris, C.A.11th, 1988, 860 F.2d 1012.

Alabama Golthy v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.2003, 287 F.Supp.2d 1259. Romero v. City of Clanton, D.C.Ala.2002, 220 F.Supp.2d 1313. A.N.R. ex rel. Reed v. Caldwell, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1294. Adams v. Franklin, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1255. Moss v. W & A Cleaners, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1181. Taylor v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 1297. Edwards v. Alabama Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ala.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 1242. Herman v. Continental Grain Co., D.C.Ala.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 1290. Sims ex rel. Sims v. Glover, D.C.Ala.1999, 84 F.Supp.2d 1273. Hughes v. Cooper Tire Co., D.C.Ala.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1312. Skilstaf, Inc. v. Adminitron, Inc., D.C.Ala.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d. 1210. Blalock v. Dale County Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ala.1998, 33 F.Supp.2d 995. Helton v. Hawkins, D.C.Ala.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1276. Auburn Medical Center, Inc. v. Andrus, D.C.Ala.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1291. Willis v. Quality Mortgage USA, Inc., D.C.Ala.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 1306. Braden v. Piggly Wiggly, D.C.Ala.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 1357. Smith v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1203. Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. James, D.C.Ala.1998, 984 F.Supp. 1404. Legion Ins. Co. v. Garner Ins. Agency, Inc., D.C.Ala.1997, 991 F.Supp. 1326. Toole v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.C.Ala.1997, 980 F.Supp. 419. Deerman v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., D.C.Ala.1997, 955 F.Supp. 1393. U.S. ex rel. Sanders v. East Alabama Healthcare Authority, D.C.Ala.1996, 953 F.Supp. 1404. Douglas v. Evans, D.C.Ala.1995, 888 F.Supp. 1536. Shaw-Campbell v. Runyon, D.C.Ala.1995, 888 F.Supp. 1111. Lightner v. City of Ariton, Alabama, D.C.Ala.1995, 884 F.Supp. 468. John Does 1, 2, 3 & 4 v. Covington County School Bd., D.C.Ala.1995, 884 F.Supp. 462. Browning v. City of Wedowee, Alabama, D.C.Ala.1995, 883 F.Supp. 618. Lewis v. Board of Trustees of Alabama State Univ., D.C.Ala.1995, 874 F.Supp. 1299. Knox v. U.S., D.C.Ala.1995, 874 F.Supp. 1282. Bahadirli v. Domino's Pizza, D.C.Ala.1995, 873 F.Supp. 1528. Malone v. Chambers County Bd. of Comm'rs, D.C.Ala.1994, 875 F.Supp. 773. Yeager v. Norwest Multifamily, Inc., D.C.Ala.1994, 865 F.Supp. 768. Hayden v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, D.C.Ala.1994, 855 F.Supp. 344. McFarland v. Folsom, D.C.Ala.1994, 854 F.Supp. 862. Johnston v. Foster-Wheeler Constructors, Inc., D.C.Ala.1994, 158 F.R.D. 496. James v. Wallace, D.C.Ala.1974, 382 F.Supp. 1177. Forbush v. Wallace, D.C.Ala.1971, 341 F.Supp. 217, affirmed without opinion 1972, 92 S.Ct. 1197, 405 U.S. 970, 31 L.Ed.2d 246.

Florida Danielle v. Adriazola, D.C.Fla.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 1368. Hodges v. Buzzeo, D.C.Fla.2002, 193 F.Supp.2d 1279. SEC v. Dunlap, D.C.Fla.2002, 2002 WL 1007626. Harris v. Bush, D.C.Fla.2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 1272. Eye Care Int'l, Inc. v. Underhill, D.C.Fla.2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 1310. Medalie v. FSC Securities Corp., D.C.Fla.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 1295.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Crowell v. Morgan, Stanley, Dean Witter Servs. Co., D.C.Fla.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 1287. In re Sunbeam Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1999, 89 F.Supp.2d 1326. U.S. ex rel. Butler v. Magellan Health Servs., Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 1201. SEC v. Physicians Guardian Unit Inv. Trust, D.C.Fla.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1342. Kim v. Keenan, D.C.Fla.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1228. Otworth v. The Florida Bar, D.C.Fla.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1209. U.S. ex rel. Kozhukh v. Constellation Technology Corp., D.C.Fla.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 1239. Kissimmee River Valley Sportsmans Ass'n v. City of Lakeland, D.C.Fla.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 1289, affirmed C.A.11th, 2001, 250 F.3d 1324. In re Physician Corp. of America Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1999, 50 F.Supp.2d 1304. O'Rourke v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., D.C.Fla.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 1383. Hare v. Citrus World Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 1365. Rhodes v. Omega Research, Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 1353. SEC v. Lambert, D.C.Fla.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 1348. Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P. v. E & A Beepers Corp., D.C.Fla.1999, 188 F.R.D. 662. Burns v. Rice, D.C.Fla.1998, 39 F.Supp.2d 1350, affirmed C.A.11th, 2000, 210 F.3d 393. Stapleton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1344. Weld v. Southeastern Cos., D.C.Fla.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 1318. Harris v. District Bd. of Trustees of Polk Community College, D.C.Fla.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1319. Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, D.C.Fla.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 1369 (heavy burden). Woods v. Commissioner, IRS, D.C.Fla.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 1357. Henniger v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1334. Elger v. Martin Memorial Health Sys., Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1351. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. U.S., D.C.Fla.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1346. Nautica Int'l, Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P., D.C.Fla.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 1333. Parham v. Lamar, D.C.Fla.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1457. Wasserman v. Three Seasons Ass'n No. 1, Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1445. American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1481. Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc. v. West, D.C.Fla.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1254. Haskin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1437. Farabee v. Rider, D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1398. DiGiro v. Pall Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1471. Smith Barney, Inc. v. Scanlon, D.C.Fla.1998, 180 F.R.D. 444. Aruvision Holding & Exploitation, B.V. v. Disney/ABC Television Int'l, Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 992 F.Supp. 1370. Nelson v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 991 F.Supp. 1452. U.S. v. One (1) 1980 Cessna 441 Conquest II Aircraft, D.C.Fla.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1465. Chumbley v. Gashinski, D.C.Fla.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1406. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dade County Esoil Management Co., D.C.Fla.1997, 982 F.Supp. 873. Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Florida, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1455. Saunders v. Hunter, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1236. Seibel v. Society Lease, Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 969 F.Supp. 713. Dr. Fred Hatfield's Sportstrength Training Equip. Co. v. Balik, D.C.Fla.1997, 174 F.R.D. 496. Elliott v. Sherwood Manor Mobile Home Park, D.C.Fla.1996, 947 F.Supp. 1574. Hollingsworth v. Iwerks Entertainment, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 947 F.Supp. 473. Tevini v. CHC International, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 946 F.Supp. 985. Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1538. Hunter v. Chiles, D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 914. Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 876. Ferreiro v. U.S., D.C.Fla.1996, 934 F.Supp. 1375. Battista v. Cannon, D.C.Fla.1996, 934 F.Supp. 400.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Harris v. Iorio, D.C.Fla.1996, 922 F.Supp. 588. Hicks v. Lewis, D.C.Fla.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1368. Dominican Energy Ltd. v. Dominican Republic, D.C.Fla.1995, 903 F.Supp. 1507. Lajos v. duPont Publishing, Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 888 F.Supp. 143. Cramer v. Florida, D.C.Fla.1995, 885 F.Supp. 1545. Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., D.C.Fla.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1024. Trustees of the Hotel Indus. Pension Fund v. Carol Management Corp., D.C.Fla.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1548. Zombori v. Digital Equip. Corp., D.C.Fla.1995, 878 F.Supp. 207. Lugones v. Sandals Resorts, Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 875 F.Supp. 821. Marshall v. Miller, D.C.Fla.1995, 873 F.Supp. 628. Burnett v. A. Bottacchi S.A. de Navegacion, D.C.Fla.1994, 882 F.Supp. 1050. Albert v. National Cash Register Co., D.C.Fla.1994, 874 F.Supp. 1328. Smith v. Avino, D.C.Fla.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1399. Sawinski v. Bill Currie Ford, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1383. Patterson v. Downtown Medical & Diagnostic Center, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1379. Ellen S. v. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners, D.C.Fla.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1489. In re Checkers Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1994, 858 F.Supp. 1168. Fletcher v. Florida, D.C.Fla.1994, 858 F.Supp. 169. Boyd v. Brookstone Corp. of New Hampshire, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 857 F.Supp. 1568. In re Southeast Banking Corp., D.C.Fla.1994, 855 F.Supp. 353. Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County, D.C.Fla.1994, 855 F.Supp. 351. Friedman v. South Carolina Ins. Co., D.C.Fla.1994, 855 F.Supp. 348. Hillsborough County v. A & E Road Oiling Serv., Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 853 F.Supp. 1402. Bunger v. Hartman, D.C.Fla.1994, 851 F.Supp. 461. Cherry v. Crow, D.C.Fla.1994, 845 F.Supp. 1520. Consolidated American Ins. Co. v. Hinton, D.C.Fla.1994, 845 F.Supp. 1515. NCR Credit Corp. v. Reptron Electronics, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 155 F.R.D. 690. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1994, 155 F.R.D. 215. Borges v. City of West Palm Beach, D.C.Fla.1993, 858 F.Supp. 174. Burger King Corp. v. Holder, D.C.Fla.1993, 844 F.Supp. 1528. Colodny v. Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch, D.C.Fla.1993, 838 F.Supp. 572. Dibernardo v. Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 838 F.Supp. 567. Di Domenico v. New York Life Ins. Co., D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1203. Searer v. Wells, D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1198. Clark v. Sierra, D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1179. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1158. Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, D.C.Fla.1993, 836 F.Supp. 833. Campbell v. Miller, D.C.Fla.1993, 836 F.Supp. 827. Underwood v. City of Fort Myers, D.C.Fla.1993, 836 F.Supp. 823. Nierenberg v. Heart Center of Southwest Florida, P.A., D.C.Fla.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1404. Jacobs v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Iowa, D.C.Fla.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1381. FDIC v. Gonzalez-Gorrondona, D.C.Fla.1993, 833 F.Supp. 1545. Hodges v. Gellerstedt, D.C.Fla.1993, 833 F.Supp. 898. Woodbury v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Fla.1993, 152 F.R.D. 229. Bender v. CenTrust Mortgage Corp., D.C.Fla.1992, 833 F.Supp. 1525, appeal dismissed C.A.11th, 1995, 51 F.3d 1027. Olsen v. Lane, D.C.Fla.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1525. Venero v. City of Tampa, Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 830 F.Supp. 1457. National Alcoholism Programs/Cooper City, Florida, Inc. v. Palm Springs Hosp. Employee Benefit Plan, D.C.Fla.1993, 825 F.Supp. 299. Morris v. Crow, D.C.Fla.1993, 825 F.Supp. 295.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Ippolito v. Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 824 F.Supp. 1562. Larson v. School Bd. of Pinellas County, Florida, D.C.Fla.1993, 820 F.Supp. 596. Golden v. Complete Holdings, Inc., D.C.Fla.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1495. Dearmas v. Av-Med, Inc., D.C.Fla.1993, 814 F.Supp. 1103. Hercules Inc. v. Pages, D.C.Fla.1993, 814 F.Supp. 79. City of Fort Lauderdale v. Ross, Saarinen, Bolton & Wilder, Inc., D.C.Fla.1992, 815 F.Supp. 444. Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Value Rent-A-Car Inc., D.C.Fla.1992, 814 F.Supp. 1084. Ali v. City of Clearwater, D.C.Fla.1992, 807 F.Supp. 701. Burger King Corp. v. Austin, D.C.Fla.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1007. Azevedo v. Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota, D.C.Fla.1992, 805 F.Supp. 938, vacated on other grounds on rehearing D.C.Fla.1993, 147 F.R.D. 255. M.G.J. Industries, Inc. v. Greyhound Financial Corp., D.C.Fla.1992, 801 F.Supp. 614. Bunger v. Hartman, D.C.Fla.1992, 797 F.Supp. 968. FDIC v. Haddad, D.C.Fla.1991, 778 F.Supp. 1559. Rios v. Navarro, D.C.Fla.1991, 766 F.Supp. 1158. Miller v. Weitzer Panache Ltd., D.C.Fla.1990, 751 F.Supp. 980. Schwab v. First Appalachian Ins. Co., D.C.Fla.1973, 58 F.R.D. 615. Jacksonville Newspaper Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union No. 57 v. Florida Publishing Co., D.C.Fla.1972, 340 F.Supp. 993, affirmed on other grounds C.A.5th, 1972, 468 F.2d 824, certiorari denied 93 S.Ct. 1531, 411 U.S. 906, 36 L.Ed.2d 196. Cohen v. City of Miami, D.C.Fla.1972, 54 F.R.D. 274. Smith v. Vincent, D.C.Fla.1952, 109 F.Supp. 451, affirmed on other grounds C.A.5th, 1953, 204 F.2d 945.

Georgia Powell v. Barrett, D.C.Ga.2005, 376 F.Supp.2d 1340. FTC v. Citigroup Inc., D.C.Ga.2001, 2001 WL 1763439 (unpublished). Prince Heaton Enterprises, Inc. v. Buffalo's Franchise Concepts, Inc., D.C.Ga.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 1357. Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., D.C.Ga.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1356. Cruet v. Emory Univ., D.C.Ga.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1353. Sherman ex rel. Sherman v. Helms, D.C.Ga.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 1365. Henkin v. AT & T Corporation, D.C.Ga.1999, 80 F.Supp.2d 1357. Banco Surinvest, S.A. v. SunTrust Bank, Atlanta, D.C.Ga.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 1366. U.S. v. Holt, D.C.Ga.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1374. Williams v. Lear Operations Corp., D.C.Ga.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 1377. Jersawitz v. People TV, D.C.Ga.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1330. North Georgia Petroleum Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Ga.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 1321. Rudd v. Suburban Lodges of America, Inc., D.C.Ga.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 1366. Garrison v. Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Inc., D.C.Ga.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 1336. Mitchell v. Ford Motor Credit Co., D.C.Ga.1998, 68 F.Supp.2d 1315. Agricredit Acceptance, LLC v. Hendrix, D.C.Ga.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 1361. Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., D.C.Ga.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 1358. In re Miller Indus., Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ga.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1323. McCain v. Scott, D.C.Ga.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1365. In re ValuJet, Inc., Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ga.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1472. Powell v. Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, D.C.Ga.1996, 918 F.Supp. 1575. Tee v. UAL Corporation, D.C.Ga.1995, 902 F.Supp. 1572. McCoy v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., D.C.Ga.1995, 878 F.Supp. 229. Parisie v. Morris, D.C.Ga.1995, 873 F.Supp. 1560. Sikes v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., D.C.Ga.1993, 841 F.Supp. 1572. Reeves v. U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, D.C.Ga.1992, 809 F.Supp. 92. Hickson v. Home Fed. of Atlanta, D.C.Ga.1992, 805 F.Supp. 1567. Burrell v. Board of Trustees of G.M.C., D.C.Ga.1988, 696 F.Supp. 1522.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

U.S. v. Samson Management Corp., D.C.Ga.1974, 64 F.R.D. 83. Atlanta Co-op News Project v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Ga.1972, 350 F.Supp. 234. Hutson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Ga.1970, 50 F.R.D. 406. U.S. by Clark v. Georgia Power Co., D.C.Ga.1969, 301 F.Supp. 538.

D.C. Circuit Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, C.A.2004, 353 F.3d 1024, 359 U.S.App.D.C. 299. Kingman Park Civic Ass'n v. Williams, C.A.2003, 348 F.3d 1033, 358 U.S.App.D.C. 295. Browning v. Clinton, C.A.2002, 292 F.3d 235, 352 U.S.App.D.C. 4. Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., C.A.2000, 216 F.3d 1111, 342 U.S.App.D.C. 268. Croixland Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Corcoran, C.A.1999, 174 F.3d 213, 335 U.S.App.D.C. 377. Anyanwutaku v. Moore, C.A.1998, 151 F.3d 1053, 331 U.S.App.D.C. 379 (dismissal pursuant to § 1915). Caribbean Broadcasting Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC, C.A.1998, 148 F.3d 1080, 331 U.S.App.D.C. 226. Chandler v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, C.A.1998, 145 F.3d 1355, 330 U.S.App.D.C. 285. Americable Int'l, Inc. v. Department of Navy, C.A.1997, 129 F.3d 1271, 327 U.S.App.D.C. 159. Harris v. Ladner, C.A.1997, 127 F.3d 1121, 326 U.S.App.D.C. 446. Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., C.A.1994, 16 F.3d 1271, 305 U.S.App.D.C. 60. Bonham v. District of Columbia Library Admin., C.A.1993, 989 F.2d 1242, 300 U.S.App.D.C. 370. Jones v. Rogers Memorial Hosp., C.A.1971, 442 F.2d 773, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 51. Westminster Investing Corp. v. G.C. Murphy Co., C.A.1970, 434 F.2d 521, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 247. Hudson v. Hardy, C.A.1968, 412 F.2d 1091, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 44, modified on rehearing on other grounds C.A.1970, 424 F.2d 854, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 366. Sass v. District of Columbia, C.A.1963, 316 F.2d 366, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 365. Francis O. Day Co. v. Shapiro, C.A.1959, 267 F.2d 669, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 392. Keith v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., D.C.D.C.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 31. Artis v. Greenspan, D.C.D.C.2002, 223 F.Supp.2d 149. Campbell v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., D.C.D.C.2002, 222 F.Supp.2d 8. M.K. v. Tenet, D.C.D.C.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 12. Service Employees Int'l Union Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.D.C.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 70. Vanover v. Hantman, D.C.D.C.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 91. Alexis v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 35. Wai v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.D.C.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 1. Appleton v. U.S., D.C.D.C.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 83. Griggs v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, D.C.D.C.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 23. Becker v. Gallaudet Univ., D.C.D.C.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 16. Price v. Phoenix Home Life Ins. Co., D.C.D.C.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 28. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.D.C.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 15. Croskey v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, D.C.D.C.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 8, affirmed per curiam C.A.1999, 1999 WL 58614. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 31. Slaby v. Fairbridge, D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 22. U.S. ex rel. Long v. SCS Business & Technical Institute, D.C.D.C.1998, 999 F.Supp. 78. Mittleman v. U.S., D.C.D.C.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1, affirmed C.A.D.C.1998, 1998 WL 796300. Page v. Shelby, D.C.D.C.1998, 995 F.Supp. 23. Boyer v. Conaboy, D.C.D.C.1997, 983 F.Supp. 4. Ki Young Chung v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1997, 982 F.Supp. 20. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 522. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 515. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 507. Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. & Training, Inc., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 53, affirmed C.A.1999, 168 F.3d 1362, 335 U.S. App.D.C. 62. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 21.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 16. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 10. U.S. v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 2. Rendall-Speranza v. Nassim, D.C.D.C.1996, 932 F.Supp. 19. de Los Rios v. NationsBank, N.A., D.C.D.C.1995, 911 F.Supp. 8. Whitaker v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, D.C.D.C.1995, 889 F.Supp. 505. Nicastro v. Clinton, D.C.D.C.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1128. Caliendo v. Bentsen, D.C.D.C.1995, 881 F.Supp. 44. Campbell-El v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1995, 881 F.Supp. 42. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, D.C.D.C.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1, affirmed C.A.1996, 76 F.3d 1232, 316 U.S.App.D.C. 179. Dominion Cogen, D.C., Inc. v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1995, 878 F.Supp. 258. Mills v. Home Equity Group, Inc., D.C.D.C.1994, 871 F.Supp. 1482. NVMercure Ltd. Partnership v. RTC, D.C.D.C.1994, 871 F.Supp. 488. Adams v. Richardson, D.C.D.C.1994, 871 F.Supp. 43. Shoreham Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Wilder, D.C.D.C.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1. U.S. v. Bouchey, D.C.D.C.1994, 860 F.Supp. 890. Guzel v. State of Kuwait, D.C.D.C.1993, 818 F.Supp. 6. Steffan v. Cheney, D.C.D.C.1989, 733 F.Supp. 115. Clouser v. Temporaries, Inc., D.C.D.C.1989, 730 F.Supp. 1127. Thayer v. Group Hospitalization & Medical Servs., D.C.D.C.1987, 674 F.Supp. 924, 926, citing Wright & Miller. Barr v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1962, 202 F.Supp. 260.

Federal Circuit Leider v. U.S., C.A.Fed., 2002, 301 F.3d 1290. Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Sys., Inc., C.A.Fed., 2000, 203 F.3d 790. New York Life Ins. Co. v. U.S., C.A.Fed., 1999, 190 F.3d 1372. Young v. AGB Corporation, C.A.Fed., 1998, 152 F.3d 1377. Southfork Sys., Inc. v. U.S., C.A.Fed., 1998, 141 F.3d 1124. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., C.A.Fed., 1993, 988 F.2d 1157.

Compare Sherman v. Jones, D.C.Va.2003, 258 F.Supp.2d 440 (standard for dismissal of prisoner complaints under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b) (1) is determined by standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motion; complaint should be dismissed only when “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations”), citing Hishon v. King & Spalding, 1984, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 467 U.S. 69, 81 L.Ed.2d 59.

But see J.D. Fields & Co., Inc. v. Nucor-Yamato Steel, 2013 WL 5467104, *4 (E.D. Ark. 2013) (Supreme Court in Twombly abrogated former "no set of facts" Conley standard). Degutis v. Financial Freedom, LLC, 2013 WL 5705438, *4 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (Conley principle has been retired by Twombly). "However, the Supreme Court has held that it did not quite mean its 'no set of facts' statement in Conley." Crooks v. Wal-Mart Stores of Texas, LLC, 2009 WL 2422330, *1 (N.D. Tex. 2009).

But compare The Conley standard never has been taken literally; obviously the “set of facts” has to be the plaintiff's, not a figment of someone else's imagination. Kyle v. Morton High School, C.A.7th, 1998, 144 F.3d 448.

See generally Miller, From Conley to Twombly to Iqbal: A Double Play on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 60 Duke L.J. 1 (2010). 46 Light most favorable to pleader

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Supreme Court Jenkins v. McKeithen, 1969, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 395 U.S. 411, 23 L.Ed.2d 404.

First Circuit Haag v. U.S., 736 F.3d 66, 69 (1st Cir. 2013). The court of appeals expressed concern that the district court did not read the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and failed to give the plaintiff the benefit of inferences that reasonably could be drawn. Conflicting allegations in a complaint do not undermine the sufficiency of a claim, as the plaintiff has the right to plead in the alternative, and the stronger of the conflicting allegations must be accepted as true. In re Stone & Webster, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.1st, 2005, 414 F.3d 187. Stinson v. SimplexGrinnell LP, C.A.1st, 2005, 152 Fed.Appx. 8. Cruz-Erazo v. Rivera-Montanez, C.A.1st, 2000, 212 F.3d 617. Rogan v. Menino, C.A.1st, 1999, 175 F.3d 75, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 616, 528 U.S. 1062, 145 L.Ed.2d 511. Camelio v. American Fed'n, C.A.1st, 1998, 137 F.3d 666. Harper v. Cserr, C.A.1st, 1976, 544 F.2d 1121.

Maine Levitt v. Sonardyne, Inc., 918 F. Supp. 2d 74, 83 (D. Me. 2013), citing San Geronimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Acevedo-Vila, 687 F.3d 465, 471 (1st Cir. 2012) (en banc). One and Ken Valley Housing Group v. Maine State Housing Authority, 2010 WL 4191488, *12 (D. Me. 2010). Reid v. Gruntal & Co., D.C.Me.1991, 760 F.Supp. 945, 948, citing Wright & Miller.

Massachusetts Horney v. Westfield Gage Co., D.C.Mass.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 29. Kiedos v. Apfel, D.C.Mass.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 80. Chilson v. Polo Ralph Lauren Retail Corp., D.C.Mass.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 153. Edwin v. Blenwood Associates, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 70. Danca v. Emerson Hosp., D.C.Mass.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 27, affirmed C.A.1st, 1999, 185 F.3d 1. Citicorp No. America, Inc. v. Ogden Martin Sys. of Haverhill, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 72. Day v. Massachusetts Air Nat. Guard, D.C.Mass.1998, 994 F.Supp. 72, vacated in part on other grounds D.C.Mass.1999, 37 F.Supp.2d 546. Andrews-Clarke v. Travelers Ins. Co., D.C.Mass.1997, 984 F.Supp. 49. Estate of Golas v. Paul Revere Ins. Group, D.C.Mass.1997, 175 F.R.D. 421. Flynn v. Raytheon Co., D.C.Mass.1994, 868 F.Supp. 383.

New Hampshire Bank of New Hampshire v. U.S., D.C.N.H.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 214. Guilbeault v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.R.I.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 263. Boots v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.H.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 211. Yates v. Cunningham, D.C.N.H.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 47. Salomon S.A. v. Alpina Sports Corp., D.C.N.H.1990, 737 F.Supp. 720.

Puerto Rico Miranda v. Deloitte LLP, 922 F. Supp. 2d 210, 217 (D.P.R. 2013), citing R.G. Financial Corp. v. Vergara-Nunez, 446 F.3d 178, 182 (1st Cir. 2006). Air Sunshine, Inc. v. Carl, 2010 WL 4861457, *5 (D.P.R. 2010). Rivera Borrero v. Rivera Correa, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 122. Santiago v. Garcia, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 84, quoting Wright & Miller. U.S. v. Pesquera, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 995 F.Supp. 235. Kmart Corp. v. Rivera-Alejandro Architects & Engineers, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 174 F.R.D. 242. International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Rhode Island Jefferson v. Gates, 2010 WL 2927529, *5 (D.R.I. 2010). Lawson v. Liburdi, D.C.R.I.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 31. Rhode Island Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.R.I.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 174. Theta Prods., Inc. v. Zippo Mfg. Co., D.C.R.I.1999, 81 F.Supp.2d 346. DM Research, Inc. v. College of American Pathologists, D.C.R.I.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 226, affirmed C.A.1st, 1999, 170 F.3d 53 (light most flattering to plaintiff). Moran v. GTech Corp., D.C.R.I.1997, 989 F.Supp. 84. Miller v. Arpin & Sons, Inc., D.C.R.I.1997, 949 F.Supp. 961. Roma Constr. Co. v. aRusso, D.C.R.I.1995, 906 F.Supp. 78, reversed on other grounds C.A.1st, 1996, 96 F.3d 566. Hart v. Mazur, D.C.R.I.1995, 903 F.Supp. 277, 279, citing Wright & Miller. Dowling v. Narragansett Capital Corp., D.C.R.I.1990, 735 F.Supp. 1105. Mendonsa v. Time, Inc., D.C.R.I.1988, 678 F.Supp. 967.

Second Circuit DeMuria v. Hawkes, C.A.2d, 2003, 328 F.3d 704. Tarshis v. Riese Organization, C.A.2d, 2000, 211 F.3d 30. Marcus v. AT&T Corporation, C.A.2d, 1998, 138 F.3d 46. Jaghory v. New York State Dep't of Educ., C.A.2d, 1997, 131 F.3d 326. Newman & Schwartz v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., C.A.2d, 1996, 102 F.3d 660, on remand D.C.N.Y.2000, 2000 WL 1364364. Harsco Corp. v. Segui, C.A.2d, 1996, 91 F.3d 337, 341, citing Wright & Miller.

Connecticut Lotto v. Hamden Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.2005, 400 F.Supp.2d 451. Yeomans v. Wallace, D.C.Conn.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 70 (court could not rule for defendant on qualified immunity issue without drawing inferences in his favor and thus Rule 12(b)(6) motion was improper). Kellman v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., D.C.Conn.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 35. Huff v. West Haven Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 117. Catalano v. Bedford Associates, Inc., D.C.Conn.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 133. Cornerstone Realty, Inc. v. Dresser Rand Co., D.C.Conn.1998, 993 F.Supp. 107. Worthington v. City of New Haven, D.C.Conn.1997, 994 F.Supp. 111. Sodexho USA, Inc. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 217, AFL-CIO, D.C.Conn.1997, 989 F.Supp. 169. Raybestos Prods. Co. v. Coni-Seal, Inc., D.C.Conn.1997, 989 F.Supp. 166. Titan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc., D.C.Conn.1997, 981 F.Supp. 65. Bernbach v. Timex Corp., D.C.Conn.1996, 989 F.Supp. 403. Meyers v. Arcudi, D.C.Conn.1996, 915 F.Supp. 522.

New York Kreinik v. Showbran Photo, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 22339268. Town & Country Adult Living, Inc. v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21219794 (when defendant's contentions rest on analyses of plaintiff's claims that draw inferences adverse to plaintiff, contentions are inappropriate for dismissal at pleading stage). Bodner v. Banque Paribas, D.C.N.Y.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 117. Kittay v. Giuliani, D.C.N.Y.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 342, affirmed C.A.2d, 2001, 252 F.3d 645. Bendel v. Westchester County Health Care Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 324. Berg v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, D.C.N.Y.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 121. Drug Emporium, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Western New York, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 104 F.Supp.2d 184. Burger v. Risk Management Alternatives, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 291. In re Ultrafem Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 678. Volunteers of America of Western New York v. Heinrich, D.C.N.Y.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 252. Evac, LLC v. Pataki, D.C.N.Y.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 250.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Thayer v. Dial Industrial Sales, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 263. Resource N.E. of Long Island, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, D.C.N.Y.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 52. Gregory v. Daly, D.C.N.Y.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 48, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 2001, 243 F.3d 687. Meachem v. Wing, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 431. In re Quintel Entertainment Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 283. Kirkpatrick v. Rays Group, D.C.N.Y.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 204. New York Islanders Hockey Club, LLP v. Comerica Bank—Texas, D.C.N.Y.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 108. Friedman v. Wheat First Secs. Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 338. Tufano v. One Toms Point Lane Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 119, affirmed C.A.2d, 2000, 229 F.3d 1136. Schnell v. Conseco, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 43 F.Supp.2d 438. Universal Marine Medical Supply, Inc. v. Lovecchio, D.C.N.Y.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 214. Omega Homes, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 187, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 171 F.3d 755. Ives v. Guilford Mills, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 191. Rodriguez v. McGinnis, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 244. De Jesus-Keolamphu v. Village of Pelham Manor, D.C.N.Y.1998, 999 F.Supp. 556, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 166 F.3d 1199. Mroz v. City of Tonawanda, D.C.N.Y.1998, 999 F.Supp. 436 (analyzing proposed amendment to complaint). Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 998 F.Supp. 204, vacated on other grounds C.A.2d, 1999, 198 F.3d 28. Novak v. Kasaks, D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 425, vacated on other grounds C.A.2d, 2000, 216 F.3d 300, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 567, 531 U.S. 1012, 148 L.Ed.2d 486. ESI, Incorporated v. Coastal Power Production Co., D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 419. Stordeur v. Computer Associates Int'l, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 94. McNight v. Dormitory Authority of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 70. Clifford v. Hughson, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 661. Phillips v. Merchants Ins. Group, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 99. Barth v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1998, 178 F.R.D. 371. Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Dep't Stores Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 26 F.Supp.2d 577, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 171 F.3d 754. Anonymous v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1997, 987 F.Supp. 131. Schoenhaut v. American Sensors, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 785. Casaburro v. Giuliani, D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 176. Jones v. Albany County Civil Serv. Comm'n, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 280. Harary v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 95. Hogan v. DC Comics, D.C.N.Y.1997, 983 F.Supp. 82. Laub v. Faessel, D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 870. China Trust Bank of New York v. Standard Chartered Bank, D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 282. Madanes v. Madanes, D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 241. Members for a Better Union v. Bevona, D.C.N.Y.1997, 972 F.Supp. 240, vacated on other grounds C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 58. Narvarte v. Chase Manhattan Bank, D.C.N.Y.1997, 969 F.Supp. 10. Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., D.C.N.Y.1997, 956 F.Supp. 509, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 136 F.3d 313. First Interregional Advisors Corp. v. Wolff, D.C.N.Y.1997, 956 F.Supp. 480. Ramirez v. Brooklyn Aids Task Force, D.C.N.Y.1997, 175 F.R.D. 423, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 164 F.3d 619. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Ligator, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 200. SMS Marketing & Telecommunications, Inc. v. H.G. Telecom, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 134. Quinones v. Howard, D.C.N.Y.1996, 948 F.Supp. 251. Daniels v. City of Binghamton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 590. Johns v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 942 F.Supp. 99. Kolbeck v. LIT America, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1996, 923 F.Supp. 557, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 198. RTC v. Coopers & Lybrand, D.C.N.Y.1996, 915 F.Supp. 584. Walker v. Mahoney, D.C.N.Y.1996, 915 F.Supp. 548. Ellis v. Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, D.C.N.Y.1996, 913 F.Supp. 684.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Gerzog v. London Fog Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 907 F.Supp. 590. Lacorte v. Hudacs, D.C.N.Y.1995, 884 F.Supp. 64. U.S. v. Moniaros Contracting Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1267. Romand v. Zimmerman, D.C.N.Y.1995, 881 F.Supp. 806. Doolittle v. Ruffo, D.C.N.Y.1994, 882 F.Supp. 1247. Moy v. Adelphi Institute, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 696. Tenorio v. Murphy, D.C.N.Y.1994, 866 F.Supp. 92. Kahn v. Inspector Gen. of U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., D.C.N.Y.1994, 848 F.Supp. 432. Gluckman v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1994, 844 F.Supp. 151. Connolly v. Havens, D.C.N.Y.1991, 763 F.Supp. 6. Thomas v. Beth Israel Hosp., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1989, 710 F.Supp. 935, citing Wright & Miller. Grossman v. Citrus Associates of New York Cotton Exchange, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1989, 706 F.Supp. 221. Frankel v. Slotkin, D.C.N.Y.1989, 705 F.Supp. 105. Richardson v. Shearson/American Express Co., D.C.N.Y.1983, 573 F.Supp. 133, 134, citing Wright & Miller. Heese v. DeMatteis Dev. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1976, 417 F.Supp. 864. FRA, S.p.A. v. Surg-O-Flex of America, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1976, 415 F.Supp. 421, 424, citing Wright & Miller. M & T Chemicals, Inc. v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1975, 403 F.Supp. 1145, 1146 n. 2, affirmed without opinion C.A.2d, 1976, 542 F.2d 1165, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 656, 429 U.S. 1030, 50 L.Ed.2d 637. Girard v. 94th St. & Fifth Ave. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1975, 396 F.Supp. 450. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Chandris America Lines, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1971, 321 F.Supp. 707. Mandel v. Highway & Local Motor Freight Drivers, Dockmen & Helpers, Local Union No. 707, D.C.N.Y.1964, 246 F.Supp. 805.

Vermont Esden v. Bank of Boston, D.C.Vt.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 214.

Third Circuit Mariotti v. Mariotti Bldg. Products, Inc., 714 F.3d 761, 764-765 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 437, 187 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2013). Munsif v. Cassel, 331 Fed. Appx. 954, 957 (3d Cir. 2009) ("In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court is required to 'accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.’”), quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). In re Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Secs. Litigation, C.A.3d, 2002, 311 F.3d 198. Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., C.A.3d, 2000, 232 F.3d 173, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 2000, 532 U.S. 1038, 149 L.Ed.2d 1003. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc., C.A.3d, 1998, 140 F.3d 478. Smith v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, C.A.3d, 1998, 139 F.3d 180, vacated on other grounds 1999, 119 S.Ct. 924, 525 U.S. 459, 142 L.Ed.2d 929. Weiner v. Quaker Oats Co., C.A.3d, 1997, 129 F.3d 310. Hayes v. Gross, C.A.3d, 1992, 982 F.2d 104. Leone v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., C.A.3d, 1979, 599 F.2d 566. Mortensen v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n, C.A.3d, 1977, 549 F.2d 884. Tunnell v. Wiley, C.A.3d, 1975, 514 F.2d 971, 975 n. 6, citing Wright & Miller. Miller v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., C.A.3d, 1974, 507 F.2d 759. Melo-Sonics Corp. v. Cropp, C.A.3d, 1965, 342 F.2d 856.

Delaware Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 297, 301 (D. Del. 2013). Zecca v. Williams, D.C.Del.2003, 2003 WL 1873833. Burgess v. Cahall, D.C.Del.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 319. Capano Management Co. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., D.C.Del.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 320. Parker v. Delaware, Dep't of Public Safety, D.C.Del.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 467.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Hurley v. Columbia Cas. Co., D.C.Del.1997, 976 F.Supp. 268. Trivits v. Wilmington Institute, D.C.Del.1974, 383 F.Supp. 457.

New Jersey Boyle v. D'Onofrio, D.C.N.J.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 541. Charlie H. v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 476. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 550. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. IVAX Corporation, D.C.N.J.2000, 77 F.Supp.2d 606. Kurdyla v. Pinkerton, Inc., D.C.N.J.2000, 197 F.R.D. 128. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 539. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 498. In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 645. Salovaara v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 593, affirmed C.A.3d, 2001, 246 F.3d. 289. Prevard v. Fauver, D.C.N.J.1999, 47 F.Supp.2d 539. In re Cendant Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 190 F.R.D. 331. Florian Greenhouse, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 521. Ramirez v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1998, 998 F.Supp. 425. Stehney v. Perry, D.C.N.J.1995, 907 F.Supp. 806, affirmed C.A.3d, 1996, 101 F.3d 925. Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, D.C.N.J.1994, 876 F.Supp. 625, affirmed C.A.3d, 1995, 70 F.3d 291. Fishbein Family Partnership v. PPG Industries, Inc., D.C.N.J.1994, 871 F.Supp. 764. Crawford v. West Jersey Health Sys. (Voorhees Div.), D.C.N.J.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1232. Connor v. U.S. EEOC, D.C.N.J.1990, 736 F.Supp. 570. Snyder v. Baumecker, D.C.N.J.1989, 708 F.Supp. 1451, 1462 n. 6.

Pennsylvania Anderson v. Macy's, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 531, 537 (W.D. Pa. 2013). Chambers v. Hathaway, 2010 WL 2804516, *2 (W.D. Pa. 2010), aff'd, 2011 WL 9811 (3d Cir. 2011). Mitchell v. Cellone, D.C.Pa.2003, 291 F.Supp.2d 368. Fortier v. U.S. Steel Corp., D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 1797796. Rogan v. Giant Eagle, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 777. Krisa v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., D.C.Pa.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 316. Kristi H. ex rel. Virginia H. v. Tri-Valley School Dist., D.C.Pa.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 628. McKnight v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 438. Inofast Mfg., Inc. v. Bardsley, D.C.Pa.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 847. Constar, Inc. v. National Distribution Centers, Inc., D.C.Pa.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 319. Parker v. Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Ins., D.C.Pa.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 820. Fanelle v. LoJack Corp., D.C.Pa.2000, 79 F.Supp.2d 558. Bar Technologies Inc. v. Conemaugh & Black Lick R.R. Co., D.C.Pa.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 512. Bellas v. CBS, Incorporated, D.C.Pa.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 493. FTC v. Commonwealth Marketing Group, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 530. Halstead v. Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 464. Woolf v. 1417 Spruce Associates, D.C.Pa.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 569. McGrath v. Johnson, D.C.Pa.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 499. In re Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Pa.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 622. Abrams v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 433. Sunquest Information Sys., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 644. Township of So. Fayette v. Allegheny County Housing Authority, D.C.Pa.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 582. Popovice v. Milides, D.C.Pa.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 638. Hughes v. Halbach & Braun Indus., Ltd., D.C.Pa.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 491. Johnson v. City of Chester, D.C.Pa.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 482. Aronson v. Creditrust Corp., D.C.Pa.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 589.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Duffy v. County of Bucks, D.C.Pa.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 569. Hill v. Borough of Swarthmore, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 395. Carter v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 386. Dill v. Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 583. Jean Anderson Hierarchy of Agents v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 688. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Trump, D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 489, affirmed C.A.3d, 1999, 182 F.3d 183. Stewart v. Associates Consumer Discount Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 469. Kuhns v. CoreStates Financial Corp., D.C.Pa.1998, 998 F.Supp. 573. Shaffer v. South State Machinery, Inc., D.C.Pa.1998, 995 F.Supp. 584. Tyler v. O'Neill, D.C.Pa.1998, 994 F.Supp. 603. Tolan v. U.S., D.C.Pa.1998, 176 F.R.D. 507. Avellino v. Herron, D.C.Pa.1997, 991 F.Supp. 722. Jeffery Y. v. St. Marys Area School Dist., D.C.Pa.1997, 967 F.Supp. 852. Homan v. City of Reading, D.C.Pa.1997, 963 F.Supp. 485. Rankin v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1997, 963 F.Supp. 463. Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, D.C.Pa.1997, 176 F.R.D. 132. Sarver v. Capital Recovery Associates, Inc., D.C.Pa.1996, 951 F.Supp. 550. Death Row Prisoners of Pennsylvania v. Ridge, D.C.Pa.1996, 948 F.Supp. 1258. Dinicola v. DiPaolo, D.C.Pa.1996, 945 F.Supp. 848. Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia v. Boyertown Area Times, D.C.Pa.1996, 945 F.Supp. 826. Stone v. Pennsylvania Merchant Group, Ltd., D.C.Pa.1996, 915 F.Supp. 727. Ezenwa v. Gallen, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 978. Shoemaker v. City of Lock Haven, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 230. Mulgrew v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 98. Lindsay v. Kvortek, D.C.Pa.1994, 865 F.Supp. 264. Kessler v. Monsour, D.C.Pa.1994, 865 F.Supp. 234. Children's Hosp. of Pittsburgh v. 84 Lumber Co. Medical Benefits Plan, D.C.Pa.1993, 834 F.Supp. 866. Tersco, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., D.C.Pa.1992, 879 F.Supp. 445. Cameron v. Graphic Management Associates, Inc., D.C.Pa.1992, 817 F.Supp. 19. U.S. v. Union Gas Co., D.C.Pa.1990, 743 F.Supp. 1144. Coffman v. Wilson Police Dep't, D.C.Pa.1990, 739 F.Supp. 257. Robinson v. Hyundai Motor America, D.C.Pa.1988, 683 F.Supp. 515. Boyce v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1978, 447 F.Supp. 357. U.S. v. Ohio Barge Lines, Inc., D.C.Pa.1977, 432 F.Supp. 1023. Bulkin v. Western Kraft East, Inc., D.C.Pa.1976, 422 F.Supp. 437. Cubas v. Rapid Am. Corp., D.C.Pa.1976, 420 F.Supp. 663. Kroungold v. Triester, D.C.Pa.1975, 407 F.Supp. 414. Hazo v. Geltz, D.C.Pa.1975, 395 F.Supp. 1331, dismissal vacated because factual averments were sufficient C.A.3d, 1976, 537 F.2d 747. Penn-Virginia Dev. Corp. v. Diversified Mortgage Investors, D.C.Pa.1975, 395 F.Supp. 195. County of Lancaster v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., D.C.Pa.1975, 386 F.Supp. 934. Thompson v. Montemuro, D.C.Pa.1974, 383 F.Supp. 1200. Mastandrea v. Gurrentz Int'l Corp., D.C.Pa.1974, 65 F.R.D. 52. Aamco Automatic Transmissions, Inc. v. Tayloe, D.C.Pa.1973, 368 F.Supp. 1283. Miller v. American Tel. & Tel. Corp., D.C.Pa.1973, 364 F.Supp. 648, reversed and complaint's sufficiency upheld C.A.3d, 1974, 507 F.2d 759. Allen Organ Co. v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., D.C.Pa.1973, 363 F.Supp. 1117. Evans Prods. Co. v. Swanger, D.C.Pa.1973, 363 F.Supp. 808. Framlau Corp. v. Dembling, D.C.Pa.1973, 360 F.Supp. 806. Berry v. Hamblin, D.C.Pa.1973, 356 F.Supp. 306.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Aberdeen Hills Second Corp. v. Biafore, D.C.Pa.1960, 24 F.R.D. 502.

Virgin Islands Government Guarantee Fund of the Republic of Finland v. Hyatt Corp., D.C.Virgin Islands 1997, 955 F.Supp. 441.

Fourth Circuit Doe v. Virginia Dept. of State Police, 713 F.3d 745, 752-753 (4th Cir. 2013). Franks v. Ross, C.A.4th, 2002, 313 F.3d 184, on remand D.C.N.C.2003, 293 F.Supp.2d 599. Eastern Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates Ltd. Partnership, C.A.4th, 2000, 213 F.3d 175. Anita's New Mexico Style Mexican Food, Inc. v. Anita's Mexican Foods Corp., C.A.4th, 2000, 201 F.3d 314. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, C.A.4th, 1999, 177 F.3d 245. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., C.A.4th, 1999, 176 F.3d 776. LeBlanc v. Cahill, C.A.4th, 1998, 153 F.3d 134, appeal after remand C.A.4th, 2001, 3 Fed.Appx. 98. Flood v. New Hanover County, C.A.4th, 1997, 125 F.3d 249. Suarez Corp. Indus. v. McGraw, C.A.4th, 1997, 125 F.3d 222, appeal after remand C.A.4th, 2000, 202 F.3d 676. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, C.A.4th, 1993, 7 F.3d 1130, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 1307, 510 U.S. 1197, 127 L.Ed.2d 658. Martin Marietta Corp. v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, C.A.4th, 1992, 991 F.2d 94. Battlefield Builders, Inc. v. Swango, C.A.4th, 1984, 743 F.2d 1060, 1062, citing Wright & Miller.

Maryland Adams v. Montgomery College, 2010 WL 2813346, *2 (D. Md. 2010). Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp., D.C.Md.2003, 249 F.Supp.2d 703. Svezzese v. Duratek, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 2002 WL 1012967, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.4th, 2003, 67 Fed.Appx. 169 Rhee Bros., Inc. v. Han Ah Reum Corp., D.C.Md.2001, 178 F.Supp.2d 525. Abadian v. Lee, D.C.Md.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 481. Recupito v. Prudential Secs., Inc., D.C.Md.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 449. U.S. ex rel. Ackley v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., D.C.Md.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 395. Sharafeldin v. Maryland Dep't of Public Safety, D.C.Md.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 680, citing Wright & Miller. In re Criimi Mae, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Md.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 652. Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., D.C.Md.2000, 193 F.R.D. 243. HQM, Limited v. Hatfield, D.C.Md.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 500. Greenspring Racquet Club, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Maryland, D.C.Md.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 598, affirmed in part, vacated in part per curiam on other grounds C.A.4th, 2000, 232 F.3d 887 (unpublished). Toucheque v. Price Bros. Co., D.C.Md.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 341. Parker v. Prince George's County, Maryland Police Dep't, D.C.Md.1998, 995 F.Supp. 604. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc., D.C.Md.1992, 808 F.Supp. 446. Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, D.C.Md.1985, 606 F.Supp. 1504, 1505, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.4th, 1986, 785 F.2d 523, reversed on other grounds 1980, 107 S.Ct. 2019, 481 U.S. 615, 95 L.Ed.2d 594. Westray v. Porthole, Inc., D.C.Md.1984, 586 F.Supp. 834, 836, citing Wright & Miller.

North Carolina Holman v. PK Management, LLC, 2010 WL 2813312, *1 (E.D. N.C. 2010). Pettiford v. City of Greensboro, 556 F. Supp. 2d 512 (M.D. N.C. 2008), citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007). Alston v. North Carolina A & T State Univ., D.C.N.C.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 774. Gottesman v. J.H. Batten, Inc., D.C.N.C.2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 604. Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Support Servs. of Carolina, Inc., D.C.N.C.2000, 123 F.Supp.2d 945. Hammel v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.N.C.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 478, affirmed C.A.4th, 2001, 6 Fed.Appx. 169. Simmons v. Justice, D.C.N.C.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 524. Frye v. City of Kannapolis, D.C.N.C.1999, 109 F.Supp.2d 436. Stevenson ex rel. Stevenson v. Martin County Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.C.1999, 93 F.Supp.2d 644, affirmed C.A.4th, 2001, 3 Fed.Appx. 25.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Bear v. Potter, D.C.N.C.1999, 89 F.Supp.2d 687. U.S. ex rel. Lindsey v. Trend Community Mental Health Servs., D.C.N.C.1999, 88 F.Supp.2d 475. Buser v. Southern Food Serv., Inc., D.C.N.C.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 556. Murphy v. Danzig, D.C.N.C.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 519. Krim v. Coastal Physician Group, Inc., D.C.N.C.1998, 81 F.Supp.2d 621, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 201 F.3d 436. Eirschele by & through Eirschele v. Craven County Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.C.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 655. Wysong & Miles Co. v. Employers of Wausau, D.C.N.C.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 421. Willis v. MCI Telecommunications, D.C.N.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 673, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 161 F.3d 5. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shulimson Bros. Co., D.C.N.C.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 553. Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.C.1998, 179 F.R.D. 177. Mullis v. Mechanics & Farmers Bank, D.C.N.C.1997, 994 F.Supp. 680. In re FAC Realty Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.C.1997, 990 F.Supp. 416. Clayton v. Stephens, D.C.N.C.1996, 6 F.Supp.2d 480, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 145 F.3d 1323. Cortes v. Mc Donald's Corp., D.C.N.C.1996, 955 F.Supp. 531. Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Dockery, D.C.N.C.1995, 907 F.Supp. 147. Liner v. DiCresce, D.C.N.C.1994, 905 F.Supp. 280. Environmental Defense Fund v. Tidwell, D.C.N.C.1992, 837 F.Supp. 1344. I R Construction Prods. Co. v. D.R. Allen & Son, Inc., D.C.N.C.1990, 737 F.Supp. 895. Combs v. Bakker, D.C.N.C.1988, 692 F.Supp. 596, vacated for misapplication of the rule C.A.4th, 1989, 886 F.2d 673. English v. General Elec. Co., D.C.N.C.1988, 683 F.Supp. 1006.

South Carolina Smith v. Cumulus Broadcasting, LLC, 2010 WL 2756999, *1 (D.S.C. 2010). Sadighi v. Daghighfekr, D.C.S.C.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 279. Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.S.C.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 487. Colleton Regional Hosp. v. MRS Medical Review Sys., D.C.S.C.1994, 866 F.Supp. 896. Colleton Regional Hosp. v. MRS Medical Review Sys., D.C.S.C.1994, 866 F.Supp. 891. Whitten v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., D.C.S.C.1977, 468 F.Supp. 470, affirmed without opinion C.A.4th, 1979, 594 F.2d 860. Long v. McGlon, D.C.S.C.1967, 263 F.Supp. 96. Felder v. Great Am. Ins. Co., D.C.S.C.1966, 260 F.Supp. 575. Bing v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., D.C.S.C.1965, 237 F.Supp. 911.

Virginia Davis v. Rao, 2013 WL 5999643, *3 (E.D. Va. 2013). Harris v. U.S., 2010 WL 2733448, *7 (E.D. Va. 2010). Lilienthal v. City of Suffolk, D.C.Va.2003, 275 F.Supp.2d 684. Ritinski v. McGarity, D.C.Va.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 509. Diaz v. Virginia Housing Dev. Authority, D.C.Va.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 415. Lytle v. Brewer, D.C.Va.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 730. Goldstein v. Malcolm G. Fries & Associates, Inc., D.C.Va.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 620. Volpone v. Caldera, D.C.Va.1999, 190 F.R.D. 177. Frontline Test Equip., Inc. v. Greenleaf Software, Inc., D.C.Va.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 583. Wise v. U.S., D.C.Va.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 535. Doe v. Irvine Scientific Sales Co., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 737. DeBauche v. Virginia Commonwealth Univ., D.C.Va.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 718, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 191 F.3d 499. Settle v. S.W. Rodgers, Co., D.C.Va.1998, 998 F.Supp. 657, affirmed C.A.4th, 1999, 182 F.3d 909. Moore v. Flagstar Bank, D.C.Va.1997, 6 F.Supp.2d 496. Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Rokke, D.C.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 982. Bartrug v. Rubin, D.C.Va.1997, 986 F.Supp. 332. White v. CMA Construction Co., D.C.Va.1996, 947 F.Supp. 231. Muhly v. Espy, D.C.Va.1995, 877 F.Supp. 294.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Blizzard v. Dalton, D.C.Va.1995, 876 F.Supp. 95. American Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Lominac, D.C.Va.1994, 158 F.R.D. 376.

West Virginia Valero Terrestrial v. McCoy, D.C.W.Va.1997, 36 F.Supp.2d 724, opinion vacated in part on denial of reconsideration on other grounds D.C.W.Va.1999, 50 F.Supp.2d 564, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.4th, 2000, 211 F.3d 112. Cromer v. Lounsbury Chiropractic Offices, Inc., D.C.W.Va.1994, 866 F.Supp. 960.

Fifth Circuit Kocurek v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc., 459 Fed. Appx. 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2012), citing Wright & Miller. Woodard v. Andrus, C.A.5th, 2005, 419 F.3d 348. Scanlan v. Texas A & M Univ., C.A.5th, 2003, 343 F.3d 533. U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Texas Inc., C.A.5th, 2003, 336 F.3d 375. McKinney v. Irving Independent School Dist., C.A.5th, 2002, 309 F.3d 308, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 1332, 537 U.S. 1194, 154 L.Ed.2d 1030. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 496, quoting Wright & Miller. Hart v. Bayer Corp., C.A.5th, 2000, 199 F.3d 239. Jones v. Greninger, C.A.5th, 1999, 188 F.3d 322. Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc., C.A.5th, 1999, 164 F.3d 258. Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., C.A.5th, 1998, 138 F.3d 602. McConathy v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Corp., C.A.5th, 1998, 131 F.3d 558. Spiller v. City of Texas City, Police Dep't, C.A.5th, 1997, 130 F.3d 162. Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys., C.A.5th, 1997, 117 F.3d 242, citing Wright & Miller, on remand D.C.Tex.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 895. Cinel v. Connick, C.A.5th, 1994, 15 F.3d 1338, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 189, 513 U.S. 868, 130 L.Ed.2d 122. Bruce v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan of Conroe, Inc., C.A.5th, 1988, 837 F.2d 712. Tugboat, Inc. v. Mobile Towing Co., C.A.5th, 1976, 534 F.2d 1172. Belt v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., C.A.5th, 1972, 458 F.2d 443. Ward v. Hudnell, C.A.5th, 1966, 366 F.2d 247.

Louisiana Hooker v. Roadway Express, Inc., D.C.La.2003, 2003 WL 21056826, citing Wright & Miller. Fields v. Stalder, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611597, citing Wright & Miller. Louisiana-Mississippi Carpenters Regional Council & Carpenters Local 1846 v. Shepard Exposition Servs., Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611587, citing Wright & Miller. Trevino v. Boomtown Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1363891, citing Wright & Miller (complaint liberally construed). Ingram v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1163613, citing Wright & Miller. See also Lacey v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058890, Lee v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058893. Watson v. Prudential Ins. Co., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1159703, citing Wright & Miller. Matthews v. Social Sec. of Louisiana, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022267, citing Wright & Miller. Searcy v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022158, citing Wright & Miller. Wicks v. Coffrey, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1000975, citing Wright & Miller. Perrilloux v. BP Oil Co./Amoco, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 746349, quoting Wright & Miller. Kane Enterprises v. MacGregor (U.S.A.), Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 523342, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 2003, 322 F.3d 371. Koerner v. Garden Dist. Ass'n, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 500815, citing Wright & Miller. Odlan Holdings, LLC v. City of New Orleans, D.C.La.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 503. Romero v. Witherspoon, D.C.La.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 808. Willis-Knighton Medical v. City of Bossier City, Louisiana, D.C.La.1997, 2 F.Supp.2d 842. Reyes v. Sazan, D.C.La.1997, 981 F.Supp. 973, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 1999, 168 F.3d 158. Beanal v. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., D.C.La.1997, 969 F.Supp. 362, affirmed C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 161.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Louisiana Acorn Fair Housing v. Quarter House, D.C.La.1997, 952 F.Supp. 352. Abramson v. Florida Gas Transmission Co., D.C.La.1995, 909 F.Supp. 410. Knight v. McKeithen, D.C.La.1995, 903 F.Supp. 999. Laspopoulos v. FBI, D.C.La.1995, 884 F.Supp. 214. Updike v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., D.C.La.1992, 808 F.Supp. 538, quoting Wright & Miller.

Mississippi Faulkner Literary Rights, LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics Inc., 953 F. Supp. 2d 701, 706 (N.D. Miss. 2013), citing Guidry v. American Public Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007). Kermode v. University of Miss. Medical Center, 2010 WL 2683095, *2 (S.D. Miss. 2010). Dale v. Ala Acquisitions, Inc., D.C.Miss.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 694, citing Wright & Miller. Gardner v. Clark, D.C.Miss.2000, 101 F.Supp.2d 468. Horne v. Time Warner Operations, Inc., D.C.Miss.1999, 119 F.Supp.2d 624. Baldwin v. Laurel Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 894, quoting Wright & Miller. Killebrew v. City of Greenwood, Mississippi, D.C.Miss.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1010. MacKenzie v. Local 624, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, D.C.Miss.1979, 472 F.Supp. 1025.

Texas Gallentine v. Housing Authority of City of Port Arthur, Tex., 919 F. Supp. 2d 787, 795 (E.D. Tex. 2013), quoting Wright & Miller. Regus Management Group, LLC, v. Intern. Business Machine Corp., 2008 WL 2434245 (N.D. Tex. 2008). Gulf Petro Trading Co. v. Nigerian Nat. Petroleum Corp., D.C.Tex.2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 783. In re Capstead Mortgage Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Tex.2003, 258 F.Supp.2d 533. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698, citing Wright & Miller. Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196, citing Wright & Miller. Meghani v. Shell Oil Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 747. Torres de Maquera v. Yacu Runa Naviera, S.A., D.C.Tex.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 770. Henrise v. Horvath, D.C.Tex.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 768. Marabella v. Autonation U.S.A. Corp., D.C.Tex.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 750. Office Outfitters, Inc. v. A.B. Dick Co., D.C.Tex.2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 772. Rodriguez v. Laredo Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 679. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Niro, Inc., D.C.Tex.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 712. St. Clair v. Johnny's Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., D.C.Tex.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 773. Coghlan III v. Aquasport Marine Corp., D.C.Tex.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 769, affirmed C.A.5th, 2001, 240 F.3d 449. Nebout v. City of Hitchcock, D.C.Tex.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 702. Piraino v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tex.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 889. Connor v. WTI, D.C.Tex.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 690. Santerre v. Agip Petroleum Co., D.C.Tex.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 558. Alexander v. Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, D.C.Tex.1999, 43 F.Supp.2d 704. J & J Manufacturing, Inc. v. Logan, D.C.Tex.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 692. Maricle v. Biggerstaff, D.C.Tex.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 705. Young v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., D.C.Tex.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 914. Quintanilla v. K-Bin, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 993 F.Supp. 560. Miller v. Stonehenge/Fasa-Texas, JDC, L.P., D.C.Tex.1998, 993 F.Supp. 461. Matthews v. High Island Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1998, 991 F.Supp. 840. K.U. by & through Michael U. v. Alvin Independent School Dist., D.C.Tex.1998, 991 F.Supp. 599. Guilbeaux v. 3927 Foundation, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 177 F.R.D. 387. Stewart v. Potts, D.C.Tex.1997, 983 F.Supp. 678. Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247. Drain v. Galveston County, D.C.Tex.1997, 979 F.Supp. 1101. Roventini v. Pasadena Ind. School Dist., D.C.Tex.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1013, opinion vacated on other grounds D.C.Tex.1998, 183 F.R.D. 500.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Washington v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., D.C.Tex.1996, 953 F.Supp. 762. Crawford v. City of Houston, Texas, D.C.Tex.1974, 386 F.Supp. 187.

Sixth Circuit Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., 719 F.3d 498, 502 (6th Cir. 2013). Evans–Marshall v. Board of Educ. of the Tipp City Exempted Village School Dist., C.A.6th, 2005, 428 F.3d 223. Montgomery v. Huntington Bank & Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc., C.A.6th, 2003, 346 F.3d 693. In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, C.A.6th, 2003, 332 F.3d 896 (when allegation is capable of more than one inference, it must be construed in pleader's favor). Gean v. Hattaway, C.A.6th, 2003, 330 F.3d 758. Schlenk v. Ford Motor Credit Co., C.A.6th, 2002, 308 F.3d 619, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 288, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 141. Fitts v. Monroe, C.A.6th, 2002, 47 Fed.Appx. 361 (unpublished). Gregory v. Shelby County, Tennessee, C.A.6th, 2000, 220 F.3d 433. Moore v. City of Harriman, C.A.6th, 2000, 218 F.3d 551, rehearing en banc granted, opinion vacated on other grounds C.A.6th, 2000, 218 F.3d 555. Perry v. McGinnis, C.A.6th, 2000, 209 F.3d 597. Pik-Coal Co. v. Big Rivers Elec. Corp., C.A.6th, 2000, 200 F.3d 884. Prince v. Hicks, C.A.6th, 1999, 198 F.3d 607. Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., C.A.6th, 1999, 196 F.3d 617. Lawrence v. Chancery Ct. of Tennessee, C.A.6th, 1999, 188 F.3d 687. DePiero v. City of Macedonia, C.A.6th, 1999, 180 F.3d 770, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 844, 528 U.S. 1105, 145 L.Ed.2d 713. Advocacy Organization for Patients & Providers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, C.A.6th, 1999, 176 F.3d 315, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 172, 528 U.S. 871, 145 L.Ed.2d 145. Southwest Williamson County Community Ass'n v. Slater, C.A.6th, 1999, 173 F.3d 1033. Nelson v. Miller, C.A.6th, 1999, 170 F.3d 641. Williams v. WCI Steel Co., C.A.6th, 1999, 170 F.3d 598. Wellons v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., C.A.6th, 1999, 165 F.3d 493, appeal after remand C.A.6th, 2001, 25 Fed.Appx. 215. Turker v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Corrections, C.A.6th, 1998, 157 F.3d 453. Bloch v. Ribar, C.A.6th, 1998, 156 F.3d 673. Coger v. Board of Regents of State of Tennessee, C.A.6th, 1998, 154 F.3d 296, vacated on other grounds C.A.6th, 2000, 209 F.3d 485. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., C.A.6th, 1998, 151 F.3d 559. Mattei v. Mattei, C.A.6th, 1997, 126 F.3d 794, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 1799, 523 U.S. 1120, 140 L.Ed.2d 939. Ludwig v. Board of Trustees of Ferris State Univ., C.A.6th, 1997, 123 F.3d 404. Barnes v. Winchell, C.A.6th, 1997, 105 F.3d 1111. Bower v. Federal Express Corp., C.A.6th, 1996, 96 F.3d 200. Brock v. McWherter, C.A.6th, 1996, 94 F.3d 242. LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority, C.A.6th, 1995, 55 F.3d 1097. In re DeLorean Motor Co., C.A.6th, 1993, 991 F.2d 1236. Mayer v. Mylod, C.A.6th, 1993, 988 F.2d 635. Mertik v. Blalock, C.A.6th, 1993, 983 F.2d 1353. Ott v. Midland-Ross Corp., C.A.6th, 1975, 523 F.2d 1367. Fitzke v. Shappell, C.A.6th, 1972, 468 F.2d 1072, 1076 n. 6.

Kentucky Gibson v. American Bankers Ins. Co., D.C.Ky.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 1037, affirmed C.A.6th, 2002, 289 F.3d 943. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., D.C.Ky.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 766. Barmet Aluminum Corp. v. Doug Brantley & Sons, Inc., D.C.Ky.1995, 914 F.Supp. 159.

Michigan DirectTV, Inc. v. Zink, D.C.Mich.2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 873.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Jersevic v. Kuhl, D.C.Mich.2002, 2002 WL 84624 (unpublished). Blakely v. First Fed. Savs. Bank & Trust, D.C.Mich.2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 799, affirmed C.A.6th, 2002, 276 F.3d 853. Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., D.C.Mich.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 1087. Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, D.C.Mich.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 711. Zolman v. IRS, D.C.Mich.1999, 87 F.Supp.2d 763. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Strand, D.C.Mich.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 993. Organic Chems. Site PRP Group v. Total Petroleum, Inc., D.C.Mich.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 660. Lanni v. Engler, D.C.Mich.1998, 994 F.Supp. 849. MacKay v. Grumman Allied Indus., Inc., D.C.Mich.1997, 993 F.Supp. 1068. Gao v. Jenifer, D.C.Mich.1997, 991 F.Supp. 887, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 1999, 185 F.3d 548. Fox v. Van Oosterum, D.C.Mich.1997, 987 F.Supp. 597, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 176 F.3d 342. General Motors Corp. v. Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua, D.C.Mich.1996, 948 F.Supp. 684. Pittiglio v. Michigan Nat. Corp., D.C.Mich.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1145. McCready v. Michigan State Bar, D.C.Mich.1995, 881 F.Supp. 300. Harrison v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S., D.C.Mich.1977, 435 F.Supp. 281, 285, citing Wright & Miller. Financial House, Inc. v. Otten, D.C.Mich.1973, 369 F.Supp. 105.

Ohio Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 918 F. Supp. 2d 708, 717 (S.D. Ohio 2013), quoting Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009). Friedman v. Intervet Inc., 2010 WL 2817257, *1 (N.D. Ohio 2010). Lawrence v. Dixon Ticonderoga Co., D.C.Ohio 2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 806. DeNune v. Consolidated Capital of No. America, Inc., D.C.Ohio 2003, 288 F.Supp.2d 844. Ste. Marie v. City of Dayton, D.C.Ohio 2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 846. Barrett v. Wallace, D.C.Ohio 2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 949. White v. Smith & Wesson Corp., D.C.Ohio 2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 816. Baseball at Trotwood, LLC v. Dayton Professional Baseball Club, LLC, D.C.Ohio 1999, 113 F.Supp.2d 1164. Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark County Solid Waste Management Dist., D.C.Ohio 1999, 110 F.Supp.2d 627. Parrish v. HBO & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 85 F.Supp.2d 792. Downie v. City of Middleburg Heights, D.C.Ohio 1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 794, affirmed C.A.6th, 2002, 301 F.3d 688. Kingman v. U.S., D.C.Ohio 1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 753. Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 815, affirmed on other grounds C.A.6th, 2003, 317 F.3d 646. Benson v. O'Brien, D.C.Ohio 1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 825. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 35 F.Supp.2d 597. Harris v. City of Cleveland, D.C.Ohio 1999, 190 F.R.D. 215, affirmed C.A.6th, 2001, 7 Fed.Appx. 452. Ashiegbu v. Purviance, D.C.Ohio 1998, 76 F.Supp.2d 824, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 1311. Jackson v. City of Columbus, D.C.Ohio 1998, 67 F.Supp.2d 839, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 737. Hollar v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ohio 1998, 43 F.Supp.2d 794. Gupta v. Terra Nitrogen Corp., D.C.Ohio 1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 879. Spivey v. Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1998, 999 F.Supp. 987. Stein v. Kent State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, D.C.Ohio 1998, 994 F.Supp. 898, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 181 F.3d 103. Petrone v. Cleveland State Univ., D.C.Ohio 1998, 993 F.Supp. 1119. City of Painesville, Ohio v. First Montauk Financial Corp., D.C.Ohio 1998, 178 F.R.D. 180. Berridge v. Heiser, D.C.Ohio 1997, 993 F.Supp. 1136. Yanacos v. Lake County, Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1996, 953 F.Supp. 187. Dicks v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1996, 933 F.Supp. 694. Pickens v. Kanawha River Towing, D.C.Ohio 1996, 916 F.Supp. 702. Czupih v. Card Pak Inc., D.C.Ohio 1996, 916 F.Supp. 687. Wilkins ex rel. U.S. v. Ohio, D.C.Ohio 1995, 885 F.Supp. 1055. Martinez v. Western Ohio Health Care Corp., D.C.Ohio 1994, 872 F.Supp. 469.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Johnson v. University Surgical Group Associates of Cincinnati, D.C.Ohio 1994, 871 F.Supp. 979. Federspiel v. Ohio Republican Party State Cent. Committee, D.C.Ohio 1994, 867 F.Supp. 617, affirmed C.A.6th, 1996, 85 F.3d 628. Pappas v. Bethesda Hosp. Ass'n, D.C.Ohio 1994, 861 F.Supp. 616, citing Wright & Miller. Ohio ex rel. Fisher v. Louis Trauth Dairy, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1994, 856 F.Supp. 1229. Davis v. Avco Corporation, D.C.Ohio 1974, 371 F.Supp. 782.

Tennessee Moran Industries, Inc. v. Mr. Transmission of Chattanooga, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 712, 716 (E.D. Tenn. 2010). Crawford v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc., 2010 WL 2901740, *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). Aldridge v. U.S., D.C.Tenn.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 802. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 807. Greene v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.C.Tenn.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 882. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 943. Tennessee Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of Putnam County, Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 808. Lawson v. Shelby County, Tennessee, D.C.Tenn.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 985, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 2000, 211 F.3d 331. Holley v. Deal, D.C.Tenn.1996, 948 F.Supp. 711. Grindstaff v. Green, D.C.Tenn.1996, 946 F.Supp. 540, affirmed C.A.6th, 1998, 133 F.3d 416. Ketron v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Authority, D.C.Tenn.1996, 919 F.Supp. 280. Smith v. Grumman-Olsen Corp., D.C.Tenn.1995, 913 F.Supp. 1077. Cash v. Brooks, D.C.Tenn.1995, 906 F.Supp. 450. Frizzell v. Southwest Motor Freight, Inc., D.C.Tenn.1995, 906 F.Supp. 441. Easterly v. Advance Stores Co., D.C.Tenn.1976, 432 F.Supp. 7.

Seventh Circuit Burke v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, LLC, 714 F.3d 501, 504 (7th Cir. 2013). Cler v. Illinois Educ. Ass'n, C.A.7th, 2005, 423 F.3d 726. Zimmerman v. Tribble, C.A.7th, 2000, 226 F.3d 568. Harrell v. Cook, C.A.7th, 1999, 169 F.3d 428. Hentosh v. Herman M. Finch Univ. of Health Sciences / The Chicago Medical School, C.A.7th, 1999, 167 F.3d 1170. Herdrich v. Pegram, C.A.7th, 1998, 154 F.3d 362. Fries v. Helsper, C.A.7th, 1998, 146 F.3d 452, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 337, 525 U.S. 930, 142 L.Ed.2d 278. Autry v. Northwest Premium Servs., Inc., C.A.7th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1037. Doe v. University of Illinois, C.A.7th, 1998, 138 F.3d 653. Stevens v. Umsted, C.A.7th, 1997, 131 F.3d 697. Wudtke v. Davel, C.A.7th, 1997, 128 F.3d 1057. Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., C.A.7th, 1995, 52 F.3d 640. Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., C.A.7th, 1994, 29 F.3d 280. “Complaints are construed favorably to their drafters.” Hrubec v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., C.A.7th, 1992, 981 F.2d 962, on remand D.C.Ill.1993, 829 F.Supp. 1502 (Easterbrook, J.). Gomez v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., C.A.7th, 1987, 811 F.2d 1030. Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., C.A.7th, 1984, 745 F.2d 1101, certiorari denied 105 S.Ct. 1758, 470 U.S. 1054, 84 L.Ed.2d 821. Lloyd v. Regional Transp. Authority, C.A.7th, 1977, 548 F.2d 1277. Illinois Migrant Council v. Campbell Soup Co., C.A.7th, 1975, 519 F.2d 391. Robinson v. Mammoth Life & Acc. Ins. Co., C.A.7th, 1971, 454 F.2d 698, certiorari denied 93 S.Ct. 202, 409 U.S. 872, 34 L.Ed.2d 123. Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., C.A.7th, 1958, 260 F.2d 607.

Illinois Hutton v. C.B. Accounts, Inc., 2010 WL 3021904, *2 (C.D. Ill. 2010) ("The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party * * *."). Davis v. Potter, D.C.Ill.2004, 301 F.Supp.2d 850.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Syscon, Inc. v. Vehicle Valuation Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.2003, 274 F.Supp.2d 975. Czapla v. Commerz Futures, LLC, D.C.Ill.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 715. Verser v. Elyea, D.C.Ill.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 1211. Demick v. City of Joliet, D.C.Ill.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 1022. Chu v. Sabratek Corp., D.C.Ill.2000, 100 F.Supp.2d 815. U.S. SEC v. Park, D.C.Ill.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 889. Hamilton v. Summers, D.C.Ill.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 908. Daley v. Provena Hosps., D.C.Ill.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 881. Christakos v. Intercounty Title Co., D.C.Ill.2000, 196 F.R.D. 496. Koenig v. Waste Management, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 908. Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 903. Guzell v. Hiller, D.C.Ill.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 797, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 2000, 223 F.3d 518. Burton v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 974. Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 741. Rapier v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Ill.1999, 49 F.Supp.2d 1078. Roe v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., D.C.Ill.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 1099. Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., D.C.Ill.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 974. International Bhd. of Teamsters Local 734 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Phillip Morris Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 34 F.Supp.2d 656, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 196 F.3d 818. Jones v. Detella, D.C.Ill.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 824. NIM Plastics Corp. v. Standex Int'l Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1003. Neuma, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 952. Singer v. Bulk Petroleum Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 916. Majchrowski v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 946. Love v. City of Chicago Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ill.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 611. Native American Arts, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Co., D.C.Ill.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 599. Jones v. Edgar, D.C.Ill.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 979. Vakharia v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care Centers, D.C.Ill.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1028. Howard v. Local 152 of Int'l Constr. & Gen. Laborers' Union of America, D.C.Ill.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1213. Payne v. Abbott Labs., D.C.Ill.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1145. Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Tang Indus., Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 889. Glutzer v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Ill.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1070. Freeman v. Godinez, D.C.Ill.1998, 996 F.Supp. 822. Fremont Financial Corp. v. IPC/Levy, Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 994 F.Supp. 988. Watters v. Harrah's Illinois Corp., D.C.Ill.1998, 993 F.Supp. 667. McLaughlin v. Cook County Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ill.1998, 993 F.Supp. 661. Smith v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1998, 992 F.Supp. 1027. Meek v. Springfield Police Dep't, D.C.Ill.1998, 990 F.Supp. 598. McKay v. Town & Country Cadillac, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 991 F.Supp. 966. Naguib v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 1082. Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 985 F.Supp. 827. Copeland v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1182. Hastings v. Fidelity Mortgage Decisions Corp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 600. Sterling v. Kazmierczak, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1186. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Peters, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 787. Martinez v. Gonzalez, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 768, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 148 F.3d 856. Ozkaya v. Telecheck Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 578. Valle v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 560. Berens v. Ludwig, D.C.Ill.1997, 953 F.Supp. 249, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 160 F.3d 1144. Recreation Servs., Inc. v. Odyssey Fun World, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 952 F.Supp. 594.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Kastel v. Winnetka Bd. of Educ., Dist. 36, D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1329. Blumenthal v. Murray, D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 623. In re Discovery Zone Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ill.1996, 943 F.Supp. 924. Vitello v. Liturgy Training Publications, D.C.Ill.1996, 932 F.Supp. 1093. Levine v. Kling, D.C.Ill.1996, 922 F.Supp. 127, affirmed C.A.7th, 1997, 123 F.3d 580. Cobb v. Monarch Fin. Corp., D.C.Ill.1995, 913 F.Supp. 1164. To-Am Equip. Co. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, D.C.Ill.1995, 913 F.Supp. 1148. Dertz v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1995, 912 F.Supp. 319. Lindgren v. Moore, D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1183. Management Servs. of Illinois, Inc. v. Health Management Sys., Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 289. Williams v. Sabin, D.C.Ill.1995, 884 F.Supp. 294. EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 883 F.Supp. 211. Fernando v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 119. Arenson v. Whitehall Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1202. Wilson v. Cook County Bd. of Comm'rs, D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1163. Damato v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1156. James v. Professionals' Detective Agency, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 876 F.Supp. 1013. Matthews v. Rollins Hudig Hall Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 874 F.Supp. 192, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1995, 72 F.3d 50. Battye v. Child Support Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 873 F.Supp. 103. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Area Pension Fund v. Feldman, D.C.Ill.1994, 872 F.Supp. 493. Esmail v. Macrane, D.C.Ill.1994, 862 F.Supp. 217, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1995, 53 F.3d 176. Bonilla v. City Council of the City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1992, 809 F.Supp. 590. Grieger v. Sheets, D.C.Ill.1988, 689 F.Supp. 835. Lovelace v. Whitney, D.C.Ill.1988, 684 F.Supp. 1438. Cochran v. Rowe, D.C.Ill.1977, 438 F.Supp. 566. Hobby v. Bradley, D.C.Ill.1975, 388 F.Supp. 1338. Scoma v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ill.1974, 391 F.Supp. 452.

Indiana Forest River, Inc. v. Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC, 2010 WL 2674540, *1 (N.D. Ind. 2010). RTC v. O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer, D.C.Ind.1993, 840 F.Supp. 1270. “On a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true the allegations of fact in [the plaintiff's] complaint ….” Dryden v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, D.C.Ind.1989, 737 F.Supp. 1058, 1066, affirmed C.A.7th, 1990, 909 F.2d 1486.

Wisconsin Raddatz v. Bax Global, Inc., 2008 WL 2435582 (E.D. Wis. 2008) (mem. op.). Northgate Motors, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Wis.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1071. Balcerzak v. City of Milwaukee, D.C.Wis.1997, 980 F.Supp. 983. Nunley v. Kloehn, D.C.Wis.1994, 158 F.R.D. 614. Nanez v. Ritger, D.C.Wis.1969, 304 F.Supp. 354.

Eighth Circuit Holden Farms, Inc. v. Hog Slat, Inc., C.A.8th, 2003, 347 F.3d 1055. Farm Credit Servs. of America v. American State Bank, C.A.8th, 2003, 339 F.3d 764. Hanten v. School Dist. of Riverview Gardens, C.A.8th, 1999, 183 F.3d 799. De Llano v. Berglund, C.A.8th, 1999, 183 F.3d 780, on remand D.C.N.D.2001, 142 F.Supp.2d 1165. Briehl v. General Motors Corp., C.A.8th, 1999, 172 F.3d 623. Gordon v. Hansen, C.A.8th, 1999, 168 F.3d 1109. Riley v. St. Louis County of Missouri, C.A.8th, 1998, 153 F.3d 627, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1113, 525 U.S. 1178, 143 L.Ed.2d 109. Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, C.A.8th, 1998, 152 F.3d 859, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1035, 525 U.S. 1142, 143 L.Ed.2d 43. Enowmbitang v. Seagate Technology, Inc., C.A.8th, 1998, 148 F.3d 970.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Double D Spotting Serv., Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc., C.A.8th, 1998, 136 F.3d 554. Doe v. Hartz, C.A.8th, 1998, 134 F.3d 1339. Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale School Dist., C.A.8th, 1998, 133 F.3d 649. Parnes v. Gateway 2000, Inc., C.A.8th, 1997, 122 F.3d 539. McMorrow v. Little, C.A.8th, 1997, 103 F.3d 704, vacated on other grounds C.A.8th, 1997, 109 F.3d 432. Weaver v. Clarke, C.A.8th, 1995, 45 F.3d 1253. Frey v. City of Herculaneum, C.A.8th, 1995, 44 F.3d 667. Reeve v. Oliver, C.A.8th, 1994, 41 F.3d 381. Coleman v. Watt, C.A.8th, 1994, 40 F.3d 255. Alexander v. Peffer, C.A.8th, 1993, 993 F.2d 1348. Davis v. Hall, C.A.8th, 1993, 992 F.2d 151 (per curiam). Palmer v. Tracor, Inc., C.A.8th, 1988, 856 F.2d 1131. Baxley-DeLamar Monuments, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass'n, C.A.8th, 1988, 843 F.2d 1154, appeal after remand C.A.8th, 1991, 938 F.2d 846. Loge v. U.S., C.A.8th, 1981, 662 F.2d 1268, 1274, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 102 S.Ct. 2009, 456 U.S. 944, 72 L.Ed.2d 466. Wilson v. Lincoln Redevelopment Corp., C.A.8th, 1973, 488 F.2d 339. Park View Heights Corp. v. City of Black Jack, C.A.8th, 1972, 467 F.2d 1208. Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., C.A.8th, 1940, 108 F.2d 302.

Arkansas Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Watson, D.C.Ark.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 1027. Smith v. Southern Starr of Arkansas, Inc., D.C.Ark.1988, 700 F.Supp. 1026. Delgadillo v. Elledge, D.C.Ark.1972, 337 F.Supp. 827.

Iowa McFarland v. McFarland, 2010 WL 746878, *4 (N.D. Iowa 2010) ("The court must also still 'construe the complaint liberally in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.'"), quoting Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2008) (decided post-Twombly). Phillips Kiln Servs., Ltd. v. International Paper Co., D.C.Iowa 2002, 2002 WL 1712870. Iowa Health Sys. v. Trinity Health Corp., D.C.Iowa 2001, 177 F.Supp.2d 897. Davies v. Genesis Medical Center, D.C.Iowa 1998, 994 F.Supp. 1078. DeWit v. Firstar Corp., D.C.Iowa 1995, 879 F.Supp. 947. Woodke v. Dahm, D.C.Iowa 1995, 873 F.Supp. 179, affirmed C.A.8th, 1995, 70 F.3d 983.

Minnesota Egge v. Healthspan Servs. Co., D.C.Minn.2000, 115 F.Supp.2d 1126. Force v. ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., D.C.Minn.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 843. Editek, Inc. v. Morgan Capital, LLC, D.C.Minn.1997, 974 F.Supp. 1229, vacated on other grounds C.A.8th, 1998, 150 F.3d 830. Moubry v. Independent School Dist. No. 696, D.C.Minn.1996, 951 F.Supp. 867. Upsher-Smith Lab., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., D.C.Minn.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1411. Bebo v. Minntech Corp., D.C.Minn.1995, 909 F.Supp. 662. In re Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Minn.1993, 159 F.R.D. 513. Sixel v. Transportation Communications, D.C.Minn.1989, 708 F.Supp. 240. A counterclaim that when read in the light most favorable to the pleader, stated a cause of action for wrongful interference with contractual rights rather than malicious prosecution or abuse of process was not prematurely asserted. Vernon J. Rockler & Co. v. Minneapolis Shareholders Co., D.C.Minn.1975, 69 F.R.D. 1. Scarrella v. Spannaus, D.C.Minn.1974, 376 F.Supp. 857.

Missouri Guarantee Co. of North America, USA v. Middleton Bros., Inc., 2010 WL 2801879, *2 (E.D. Mo. 2010). Price v. Harrah's Maryland Heights Operating Co., D.C.Mo.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 919. Clark v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, D.C.Mo.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 1064.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Medlock v. City of St. Charles, D.C.Mo.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 1079. In re BankAmerica Corp. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Mo.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 976. Gralike v. Cook, D.C.Mo.1998, 996 F.Supp. 901, affirmed C.A.8th, 1999, 191 F.3d 911. Gralike v. Cook, D.C.Mo.1998, 996 F.Supp. 889. Doan v. INS, D.C.Mo.1997, 990 F.Supp. 744, affirmed C.A.8th, 1998, 160 F.3d 508. Spinks v. City of St. Louis Water Div., D.C.Mo.1997, 176 F.R.D. 572. Walker Management, Inc. v. Affordable Communities of Missouri, D.C.Mo.1996, 912 F.Supp. 455. Hartman v. Smith & Davis Mfg. Co., D.C.Mo.1995, 904 F.Supp. 983. Klein v. Victor, D.C.Mo.1995, 903 F.Supp. 1327. Mauzy v. Mexico School Dist. No. 59, D.C.Mo.1995, 878 F.Supp. 153. Schwartz v. Pridy, D.C.Mo.1995, 874 F.Supp. 256, affirmed C.A.8th, 1996, 94 F.3d 453. Mathis v. American Group Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mo.1994, 873 F.Supp. 1348. RTC v. Fiala, D.C.Mo.1994, 870 F.Supp. 962. Wittmann v. U.S., D.C.Mo.1994, 869 F.Supp. 726. Russell v. City of Overland Police Dep't, D.C.Mo.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1350. Travis v. Frank, D.C.Mo.1992, 804 F.Supp. 1160. Schlafke v. Van Dorin, D.C.Mo.1970, 313 F.Supp. 190. U.S. v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n, D.C.Mo.1966, 263 F.Supp. 340, reversed per curiam on other grounds 1967, 88 S.Ct. 106, 389 U.S. 27, 19 L.Ed.2d 28.

Nebraska Whaley v. U.S., D.C.Neb.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 1060. Christianson v. Clarke, D.C.Neb.1996, 932 F.Supp. 1178. Ronwin v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., D.C.Neb.1992, 807 F.Supp. 87, affirmed C.A.8th, 1993, 996 F.2d 1221. J.W. Terteling & Sons v. Central Nebraska Pub. Power & Irrigation Dist., D.C.Neb.1948, 8 F.R.D. 210.

South Dakota Schumaker v. Sommer, D.C.S.D.1974, 386 F.Supp. 618.

Ninth Circuit Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., 713 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 2013). Diaz v. Gates, C.A.9th, 2004, 354 F.3d 1169. Geraci v. Homestreet Bank, C.A.9th, 2003, 347 F.3d 749. Karam v. City of Burbank, C.A.9th, 2003, 340 F.3d 884, rehearing granted, opinion withdrawn C.A.9th, 2003, 346 F.3d 1189. Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, C.A.9th, 2003, 319 F.3d 465, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 64, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 28. Shwarz v. U.S., C.A.9th, 2000, 234 F.3d 428. Lapidus v. Hecht, C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 679. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, C.A.9th, 2000, 231 F.3d 520. Desaigoudar v. Meyercord, C.A.9th, 2000, 223 F.3d 1020, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 1962, 532 U.S. 1021, 149 L.Ed.2d 757. Pacheco v. U.S., C.A.9th, 2000, 220 F.3d 1126. LSO, Limited v. Stroh, C.A.9th, 2000, 205 F.3d 1146. Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, C.A.9th, 2000, 200 F.3d 661. Resnick v. Hayes, C.A.9th, 2000, 200 F.3d 641. Estate of Brooks ex rel. Brooks v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1999, 197 F.3d 1245. WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, C.A.9th, 1999, 197 F.3d 367. Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California, C.A.9th, 1998, 159 F.3d 1178. Schneider v. California Dep't of Corrections, C.A.9th, 1998, 151 F.3d 1194. Enesco Corp. v. Price/Costco Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 146 F.3d 1083. Jensen v. City of Oxnard, C.A.9th, 1998, 145 F.3d 1078, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 540, 525 U.S. 1016, 142 L.Ed.2d 449. Butler v. Apfel, C.A.9th, 1998, 144 F.3d 622. Abboud v. INS, C.A.9th, 1998, 140 F.3d 843.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Pareto v. FDIC, C.A.9th, 1998, 139 F.3d 696. Tyler v. Cisneros, C.A.9th, 1998, 136 F.3d 603, appeal after remand C.A.9th, 2000, 236 F.3d 1124. Wyler Summit Partnership v. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc., C.A.9th, 1998, 135 F.3d 658, appeal after remand C.A.9th, 2000, 231 F.3d 546. Cooper v. Pickett, C.A.9th, 1997, 137 F.3d 616. In re Rogstad, C.A.9th, 1997, 126 F.3d 1224. In re American Continental Corp., C.A.9th, 1996, 102 F.3d 1524, reversed on other grounds sub nom. Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 1998, 118 S.Ct. 956, 523 U.S. 26, 140 L.Ed.2d 62. Campanelli v. Bockrath, C.A.9th, 1996, 100 F.3d 1476, on remand D.C.Cal.1997, 1997 WL 325422. Pack v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1993, 992 F.2d 955. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., C.A.9th, 1993, 992 F.2d 932, appeal after remand Cal.App.1995, 39 Cal.App.4th 1194, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 151 (failure to read complaint in light most favorable to plaintiff is reversible error). ACTWU, AFL-CIO v. Murdock, C.A.9th, 1988, 861 F.2d 1406. Nieto v. Ecker, C.A.9th, 1988, 845 F.2d 868. Bryant v. California Brewers Ass'n, C.A.9th, 1978, 585 F.2d 421, 425, citing Wright & Miller, vacated on other grounds 1980, 100 S.Ct. 814, 444 U.S. 598, 63 L.Ed.2d 55. Amfac Mortgage Corp. v. Arizona Mall of Tempe, Inc., C.A.9th, 1978, 583 F.2d 426. De La Cruz v. Tormey, C.A.9th, 1978, 582 F.2d 45, 48, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 2416, 441 U.S. 965, 60 L.Ed.2d 1072. Sherman v. Yakahi, C.A.9th, 1977, 549 F.2d 1287. McKinney v. De Bord, C.A.9th, 1974, 507 F.2d 501, 503, citing Wright & Miller. DeWitt v. Pail, C.A.9th, 1966, 366 F.2d 682. Walker Distrib. Co. v. Lucky Lager Brewing Co., C.A.9th, 1963, 323 F.2d 1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 507, 385 U.S. 976, 17 L.Ed.2d 438.

Arizona Baca ex rel. Nominal Defendant Insight Enterprises, Inc. v. Crown, 2010 WL 2812712, *3 (D. Ariz. 2010). Recreational Devs. of Phoenix, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, D.C.Ariz.1999, 83 F.Supp.2d 1072. Bailey v. IRS, D.C.Ariz.1999, 188 F.R.D. 346, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 893. Crawford v. American Institute of Professional Careers, D.C.Ariz.1996, 934 F.Supp. 335. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc.—Servs., D.C.Ariz.1994, 869 F.Supp. 778. J.K. by & through R.K. v. Dillenberg, D.C.Ariz.1993, 836 F.Supp. 694. Boudette v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., D.C.Ariz.1988, 685 F.Supp. 210.

California Kingsburg Apple Packers, Inc. v. Ballantine Produce Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2817056, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."). Laster v. T–Mobile USA, Inc., D.C.Cal.2005, 407 F.Supp.2d 1181. Van Winkle v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 1158. Doe v. Mann, D.C.Cal.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 1229. In re Sagent Technology, Inc., Derivative Litigation, D.C.Cal.2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 1079. Medimatch, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 120 F.Supp.2d 842. Scherz v. South Carolina Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 1000. Guerrero v. Gates, D.C.Cal.2000, 110 F.Supp.2d 1287. Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino, D.C.Cal.2000, 107 F.Supp.2d 1239. Icasiano v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 1187. Wyatt v. Liljenquist, D.C.Cal.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1062. Selby v. New Line Cinema Corp., D.C.Cal.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1053. Smeltzer v. Slater, D.C.Cal.2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 1095. Roe v. Unocal Corp., D.C.Cal.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1073.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, D.C.Cal.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 1083. Nuno v. County of San Bernardino, D.C.Cal.1999, 58 F.Supp.2d 1127. Pegasus Holdings v. Veterinary Centers of America, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 38 F.Supp.2d 1158. Silva v. M/V First Lady, D.C.Cal.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 581. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., D.C.Cal.1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 1013. Chavez v. INS, D.C.Cal.1998, 17 F.Supp.2d 1141. Botosan v. Fitzhugh, D.C.Cal.1998, 13 F.Supp.2d 1047. Films of Distinction, Inc. v. Allegro Film Productions, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1068. Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1035. Gutierrez v. Givens, D.C.Cal.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 1077. Allison v. Brooktree Corp., D.C.Cal.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1342. City of Merced v. Fields, D.C.Cal.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1326. Dunlap v. Association of Bay Area Govs., D.C.Cal.1998, 996 F.Supp. 962. Utility Reform Network v. California Public Utils. Comm'n, D.C.Cal.1997, 26 F.Supp.2d 1208. Diaz v. Carlson, D.C.Cal.1997, 5 F.Supp.2d 809, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 142 F.3d 443. Gutierrez v. Givens, D.C.Cal.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1033. Barry v. Ratelle, D.C.Cal.1997, 985 F.Supp. 1235. National Coalition Gov. of Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 176 F.R.D. 329. Don King Productions/Kingvision v. Lovato, D.C.Cal.1995, 911 F.Supp. 419. SEC v. Cross Financial Servs., Inc., D.C.Cal.1995, 908 F.Supp. 718. Wood v. County of Alameda, D.C.Cal.1995, 875 F.Supp. 659. Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 874 F.Supp. 1072. Allman v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.Cal.1994, 865 F.Supp. 665. Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., D.C.Cal.1994, 856 F.Supp. 561, reversed on other grounds C.A.9th, 1996, 74 F.3d 955. Gen-Probe Inc. v. Center for Neurologic Study, D.C.Cal.1993, 853 F.Supp. 1215. Diem v. San Francisco, D.C.Cal.1988, 686 F.Supp. 806. Zatkin v. Primuth, D.C.Cal.1982, 551 F.Supp. 39, 43, citing Wright & Miller. Keker v. Procunier, D.C.Cal.1975, 398 F.Supp. 756. Taylor v. Breed, D.C.Cal.1973, 58 F.R.D. 101. Hagan v. California, D.C.Cal.1967, 265 F.Supp. 174.

Hawaii Herschelman v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 2010 WL 4448224, *2 (D. Haw. 2010). Williams v. Rickard, 2010 WL 2640102, *3 (D. Haw. 2010). Deck v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., D.C.Haw.2000, 121 F.Supp.2d 1292. Kenney v. Hawaii, D.C.Haw.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 1271. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Andraea Partners, D.C.Haw.2000, 197 F.R.D. 424. State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, D.C.Haw.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 1111. In re Li, D.C.Haw.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1052. Coulter v. Bronster, D.C.Haw.1999, 57 F.Supp.2d 1028, affirmed C.A.9th, 2001, 13 Fed.Appx. 661. Burns-Vidlak by Burns v. Chandler, D.C.Haw.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1144, appeal dismissed C.A.9th, 1999, 165 F.3d 1257. Sloan v. West, D.C.Haw.1996, 8 F.Supp.2d 1207.

Idaho Edwards v. Ellsworth, May, Sudweeks, Stubbs, Ibsen & Perry, D.C.Idaho 1997, 10 F.Supp.2d 1131, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 152 F.3d 924. Santana v. Zilog, Inc., D.C.Idaho 1995, 878 F.Supp. 1373, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 95 F.3d 780. Rockholt v. United Van Lines, Inc., D.C.Idaho 1988, 697 F.Supp. 383.

Montana Engebretson v. Mahoney, 2010 WL 2683202, *2 (D. Mont. 2010).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Nevada In re Anchor Gaming Secs. Litigation, D.C.Nev.1999, 33 F.Supp.2d 889. Atilano v. U.S., D.C.Nev.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 1276.

Oregon Comfort v. Jackson County, 2010 WL 1278866, *2 (D. Or. 2010). U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. TCG Oregon, D.C.Ore.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 1237. U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. MFS Intelenet, Inc., D.C.Ore.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 1221. Zimmerman v. Oregon Dep't of Justice, D.C.Ore.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1327, affirmed C.A.9th, 1999, 170 F.3d 1169. Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, D.C.Ore.1996, 945 F.Supp. 1355. Snead v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co., D.C.Ore.1996, 909 F.Supp. 775. Rowley v. American Airlines, D.C.Ore.1995, 875 F.Supp. 708. Mittendorf v. Stone Lumber Co., D.C.Ore.1994, 874 F.Supp. 292. Pincetich v. Jeanfreau, D.C.Ore.1988, 699 F.Supp. 1469. Bredehoeft v. Cornell, D.C.Ore.1966, 260 F.Supp. 557.

Washington National City Bank, N.A. v. Prime Lending, Inc., 2010 WL 2854247, *2 (E.D. Wash. 2010). Sayers v. Bam Margera, Inc., D.C.Wash.2005, 2005 WL 2789051. Association of Washington Public Hosp. Dists. v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Wash.1999, 79 F.Supp.2d 1219, affirmed C.A.9th, 2001, 241 F.3d 696. In re Boeing Secs. Litigation, D.C.Wash.1998, 40 F.Supp.2d 1160 (standard not changed by application of Rule 9(b)). Ziegler v. Ziegler, D.C.Wash.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 601. Epstein v. Itron, Inc., D.C.Wash.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1314. Farrakhan v. Locke, D.C.Wash.1997, 987 F.Supp. 1304.

Tenth Circuit Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corp., C.A.10th, 2005, 425 F.3d 1249. Pirraglia v. Novell, Inc., C.A.10th, 2003, 339 F.3d 1182. Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, C.A.10th, 2002, 307 F.3d 1258. Robbins v. Wilkie, C.A.10th, 2002, 300 F.3d 1208. Ford v. West, C.A.10th, 2000, 222 F.3d 767. Scott v. Hern, C.A.10th, 2000, 216 F.3d 897. Davis-Warren Auctioneers, J.V. v. FDIC, C.A.10th, 2000, 215 F.3d 1159. Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep't, C.A.10th, 1999, 195 F.3d 553, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 2001, 13 Fed.Appx. 767. Calderon v. Kansas Dep't of Social & Rehabilitation Servs., C.A.10th, 1999, 181 F.3d 1180. Prager v. LaFaver, C.A.10th, 1999, 180 F.3d 1185, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 405, 528 U.S. 967, 145 L.Ed.2d 315. Sutton v. Utah State School for the Deaf & Blind, C.A.10th, 1999, 173 F.3d 1226. Southern Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste Management, C.A.10th, 1998, 161 F.3d 1259. Shaffer v. Saffle, C.A.10th, 1998, 148 F.3d 1180, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 520, 525 U.S. 1005, 142 L.Ed.2d 431. Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc., C.A.10th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1302. Witt v. Roadway Express, C.A.10th, 1998, 136 F.3d 1424, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 188, 525 U.S. 881, 142 L.Ed.2d 153, on remand D.C.Kan.2001, 164 F.Supp.2d 1232. Lee v. Gallup Auto Sales, Inc., C.A.10th, 1998, 135 F.3d 1359. Bauchman for Bauchman v. West High School, C.A.10th, 1997, 132 F.3d 542, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 2370, 524 U.S. 953, 141 L.Ed.2d 738. GFF Corporation v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., C.A.10th, 1997, 130 F.3d 1381. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., C.A.10th, 1997, 130 F.3d 893. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., C.A.10th, 1995, 46 F.3d 1491. Smith v. Colorado Dep't Of Corrections, C.A.10th, 1994, 23 F.3d 339. Meade v. Grubbs, C.A.10th, 1988, 841 F.2d 1512.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Parkinson v. California Co., C.A.10th, 1956, 233 F.2d 432.

Colorado Savard v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 2802543, *3 (D. Colo. 2010). O'Hayre v. Board of Educ. for Jefferson County School Dist. R-1, D.C.Colo.2000, 109 F.Supp.2d 1284. Leprino Foods Co. v. U.S., D.C.Colo.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 1161. Angres v. Smallworldwide PLC, D.C.Colo.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 1167. Shepherd v. U.S. Olympic Committee, D.C.Colo.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 1136. Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy, D.C.Colo.2000, 81 F.Supp.2d 1090. Walker v. Board of Trustees, Regional Transportation Dist., D.C.Colo.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1105. Harris v. Morales, D.C.Colo.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1319. Klover v. Antero Healthplans, D.C.Colo.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 1003. Hurtado v. Reno, D.C.Colo.1999, 34 F.Supp.2d 1261. Amoco Production Co. v. Aspen Group, D.C.Colo.1999, 189 F.R.D. 614. Amoco Production Co. v. Aspen Group, D.C.Colo.1998, 25 F.Supp.2d 1162. Reeves v. Queen City Transportation, D.C.Colo.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 1181. Queen Uno Ltd. Partnership v. Coeur D'Alene Mines Corp., D.C.Colo.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1345. Brunetti v. Rubin, D.C.Colo.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1408. Mein v. Pool Co. Disabled Int'l Employee Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, Pool Co., D.C.Colo.1998, 989 F.Supp. 1337. Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., D.C.Colo.1998, 178 F.R.D. 545. Jefferson County School Dist. No. R1 v. Moody's Investor's Servs., Inc., D.C.Colo.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1341, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 175 F.3d 848. Sportsmen's Wildlife Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of the Interior, D.C.Colo.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1510. Bowe v. SMC Electrical Prods., Inc., D.C.Colo.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1066. Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., D.C.Colo.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1191, reversed on other grounds C.A.10th, 1997, 124 F.3d 1246. T.V. Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Incorporated, D.C.Colo.1991, 767 F.Supp. 1062, affirmed C.A.10th, 1992, 964 F.2d 1022, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 601, 506 U.S. 999, 121 L.Ed.2d 537.

Kansas Executive Risk Indem. Inc. v. Sprint Corp., D.C.Kan.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 1196. Cooper v. Caldera, D.C.Kan.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1160. Sipes ex rel. Slaughter v. Russell, D.C.Kan.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 1199. Brooks v. Sauceda, D.C.Kan.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1115, affirmed C.A.10th, 2000, 242 F.3d 387. Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1999, 80 F.Supp.2d 1175. Cameron v. Navarre Farmers Union Coop. Ass'n, D.C.Kan.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1178. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. Cargill, Inc., D.C.Kan.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1155. Marrie v. Nickels, D.C.Kan.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1252. Scott v. Topeka Performing Arts Center, D.C.Kan.1999, 69 F.Supp.2d 1325. Sellens v. Telephone Credit Union, D.C.Kan.1999, 189 F.R.D. 461. Ramada Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Tresprop, Ltd., D.C.Kan.1999, 188 F.R.D. 610. Graham v. Prudential Home Mortgage Co., D.C.Kan.1999, 186 F.R.D. 651. IMC Chemicals, Inc. v. Niro, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 1328. Blackwell v. Harris Chem. No. America, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1302. Hall v. Doering, D.C.Kan.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1445. Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Dymon, Inc., D.C.Kan.1997, 988 F.Supp. 1394. Whayne v. Kansas, D.C.Kan.1997, 980 F.Supp. 387. Classic Communications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., D.C.Kan.1997, 956 F.Supp. 910. Boyer v. Board of County Comm'rs of the County of Johnson County, D.C.Kan.1996, 922 F.Supp. 476, affirmed C.A.10th, 1997, 108 F.3d 1388. Gudenkauf v. Stauffer Communications, Inc., D.C.Kan.1996, 922 F.Supp. 461. Butler v. Capitol Fed. Savs., D.C.Kan.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1230.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Olds v. Alamo Group (KS), Inc., D.C.Kan.1995, 889 F.Supp. 447. Moten v. American Linen Supply Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 155 F.R.D. 202.

New Mexico Overton v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 1034, affirmed C.A.10th, 2000, 202 F.3d 282. Lopez v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1239. Benavidez v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1997, 998 F.Supp. 1225, reversed on other grounds C.A.10th, 1999, 177 F.3d 927. City of Las Cruces v. El Paso Elec. Co., D.C.N.M.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1238. Schwartzman, Inc. v. General Elec. Co., D.C.N.M.1993, 848 F.Supp. 942. Warren v. Bokum Resources Corp., D.C.N.M.1977, 433 F.Supp. 1360.

Oklahoma Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1212 (W.D. Okla. 2013), citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991). Yuan v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc., D.C.Okl.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 1259 (opinion withdrawn). Brannon v. Boatmen's Bancshares, Inc., D.C.Okl.1997, 952 F.Supp. 1478, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 153 F.3d 1144. Gaines-Tabb v. ICI Explosives USA, Inc., D.C.Okl.1996, 995 F.Supp. 1304, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 160 F.3d 613. U.S. ex rel. Aranda v. Community Psychiatric Centers of Oklahoma, D.C.Okl.1996, 945 F.Supp. 1485. Carter v. State Ins. Fund, D.C.Okl.1995, 877 F.Supp. 575. Hatridge v. Seaboard Sur., D.C.Okl.1976, 74 F.R.D. 6. Dobbs v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., D.C.Okl.1975, 416 F.Supp. 5. Epic Enterprises, Inc. v. Brothers, D.C.Okl.1975, 395 F.Supp. 773. Casey v. Purser, D.C.Okl.1974, 385 F.Supp. 621.

Utah Jensen v. Reeves, D.C.Utah 1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 1265, affirmed C.A.10th, 2001, 3 Fed.Appx. 905. Ankers v. Rodman, D.C.Utah 1997, 995 F.Supp. 1329. Geneva Steel Co. v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp., D.C.Utah 1997, 980 F.Supp. 1209. Seolas v. Bilzerian, D.C.Utah 1997, 951 F.Supp. 978. In re Commercial Explosives Litigation, D.C.Utah 1996, 945 F.Supp. 1489. Grossman v. Novell, Inc., D.C.Utah 1995, 909 F.Supp. 845, affirmed C.A.10th, 1997, 120 F.3d 1112. Baird v. Cutler, D.C.Utah 1995, 883 F.Supp. 591.

Wyoming Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hunt, D.C.Wyo.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 1261. Coalition for Sustainable Resources v. U.S. Forest Serv., D.C.Wyo.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 1303, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.10th, 2001, 259 F.3d 1244.

Eleventh Circuit Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 704 F.3d 882, 887 (11th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 61, 187 L. Ed. 2d 26 (2013). Baker v. Rexroad, C.A.11th, 2005, 159 Fed.Appx. 61 (not to be cited per Eleventh Circuit Rule 36–2). La Grasta v. First Union Secs., Inc., C.A.11th, 2004, 358 F.3d 840. O'Halloran v. First Union Nat. Bank of Florida, C.A.11th, 2003, 350 F.3d 1197. Flint v. ABB, Incorporated, C.A.11th, 2003, 337 F.3d 1326, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 1507, __ U.S. __, 158 L.Ed.2d 153. Cottone v. Jenne, C.A.11th, 2003, 326 F.3d 1352. Maggio v. Sipple, C.A.11th, 2000, 211 F.3d 1346. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., C.A.11th, 2000, 208 F.3d 1308. White v. Lemacks, C.A.11th, 1999, 183 F.3d 1253. Hall v. Coram Healthcare Corp., C.A.11th, 1998, 157 F.3d 1286. Roberts v. Florida Power & Light Co., C.A.11th, 1998, 146 F.3d 1305, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 1027, 525 U.S. 1139, 143 L.Ed.2d 38. Beck v. Deloitte & Touche, C.A.11th, 1998, 144 F.3d 732.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Brouwer v. Metropolitan Dade County, C.A.11th, 1998, 139 F.3d 817. Everett v. Cobb County School Dist., C.A.11th, 1998, 138 F.3d 1407. Stone v. Wall, C.A.11th, 1998, 135 F.3d 1438. Fortner v. Thomas, C.A.11th, 1993, 983 F.2d 1024.

Alabama Love v. City of Mobile, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1210 (S.D. Ala. 2010). Golthy v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.2003, 287 F.Supp.2d 1259. Romero v. City of Clanton, D.C.Ala.2002, 220 F.Supp.2d 1313. A.N.R. ex rel. Reed v. Caldwell, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1294. Adams v. Franklin, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1255. Moss v. W & A Cleaners, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1181. Taylor v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 1297. Herman v. Continental Grain Co., D.C.Ala.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 1290. Sims ex rel. Sims v. Glover, D.C.Ala.1999, 84 F.Supp.2d 1273. Hughes v. Cooper Tire Co., D.C.Ala.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 1312. Skilstaf, Inc. v. Adminitron, Inc., D.C.Ala.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d. 1210. Blalock v. Dale County Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ala.1998, 33 F.Supp.2d 995. Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. James, D.C.Ala.1998, 984 F.Supp. 1404. U.S. ex rel. Sanders v. East Alabama Healthcare Authority, D.C.Ala.1996, 953 F.Supp. 1404. Moore v. Alabama State Univ., D.C.Ala.1996, 945 F.Supp. 235. Lynn v. United Technologies Corp., D.C.Ala.1996, 916 F.Supp. 1217. Vaughan Regional Medical Center v. Smith, D.C.Ala.1995, 916 F.Supp. 1142. Arrington v. Dickerson, D.C.Ala.1995, 915 F.Supp. 1503. Gorman v. Roberts, D.C.Ala.1995, 909 F.Supp. 1493. Missildine v. City of Montgomery, D.C.Ala.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1501. Estate of Scott v. Scott, D.C.Ala.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1495. James by & through Singleton v. Tallassee High School, D.C.Ala.1995, 907 F.Supp. 364. Zellars v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ala.1995, 907 F.Supp. 355. Johnston v. Foster-Wheeler Constructors, Inc., D.C.Ala.1994, 158 F.R.D. 496.

Florida Crim v. Manalich, 2010 WL 2757223, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2010). Danielle v. Adriazola, D.C.Fla.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 1368. Eye Care Int'l, Inc. v. Underhill, D.C.Fla.2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 1310. Medalie v. FSC Securities Corp., D.C.Fla.2000, 87 F.Supp.2d 1295. In re Sunbeam Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1999, 89 F.Supp.2d 1326. U.S. ex rel. Butler v. Magellan Health Servs., Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 1201. SEC v. Physicians Guardian Unit Inv. Trust, D.C.Fla.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1342. Kim v. Keenan, D.C.Fla.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1228. Otworth v. The Florida Bar, D.C.Fla.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1209. Kissimmee River Valley Sportsmans Ass'n v. City of Lakeland, D.C.Fla.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 1289, affirmed C.A.11th, 2001, 250 F.3d 1324. In re Physician Corp. of America Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1999, 50 F.Supp.2d 1304. Hare v. Citrus World Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 1365. Rhodes v. Omega Research, Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 1353. SEC v. Lambert, D.C.Fla.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 1348. Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P. v. E & A Beepers Corp., D.C.Fla.1999, 188 F.R.D. 662. Burns v. Rice, D.C.Fla.1998, 39 F.Supp.2d 1350. Digiro v. Pall Aeropower Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 19 F.Supp.2d 1304. Stapleton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1344.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Weld v. Southeastern Cos., D.C.Fla.1998, 10 F.Supp.2d 1318. Harris v. District Bd. of Trustees of Polk Community College, D.C.Fla.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1319. Woods v. Commissioner, IRS, D.C.Fla.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 1357. Henniger v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1334. Elger v. Martin Memorial Health Sys., Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1351. Nautica Int'l, Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P., D.C.Fla.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 1333. Wasserman v. Three Seasons Ass'n No. 1, Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1445. American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1481. Haskin v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1437. Farabee v. Rider, D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1398. DiGiro v. Pall Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1471. Smith Barney, Inc. v. Scanlon, D.C.Fla.1998, 180 F.R.D. 444. Aruvision Holding & Exploitation, B.V. v. Disney/ABC Television Int'l, Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 992 F.Supp. 1370. Nelson v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 991 F.Supp. 1452. U.S. v. One (1) 1980 Cessna 441 Conquest II Aircraft, D.C.Fla.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1465. Florida College of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 982 F.Supp. 862. Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Florida, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1455. Saunders v. Hunter, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1236. Seibel v. Society Lease, Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 969 F.Supp. 713. ThunderWave, Inc. v. Carnival Corp., D.C.Fla.1997, 954 F.Supp. 1562. Dr. Fred Hatfield's Sportstrength Training Equip. Co. v. Balik, D.C.Fla.1997, 174 F.R.D. 496. Elliott v. Sherwood Manor Mobile Home Park, D.C.Fla.1996, 947 F.Supp. 1574. Hollingsworth v. Iwerks Entertainment, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 947 F.Supp. 473. Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1538. Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 876. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1995, 910 F.Supp. 609. Howry v. Nisus, Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 910 F.Supp. 576. Harding v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., D.C.Fla.1995, 907 F.Supp. 386. Hicks v. Lewis, D.C.Fla.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1368. Dominican Energy Ltd. v. Dominican Republic, D.C.Fla.1995, 903 F.Supp. 1507. Canon v. Clark, D.C.Fla.1995, 883 F.Supp. 718. Ware v. Barr, D.C.Fla.1995, 883 F.Supp. 654. Albert v. National Cash Register Co., D.C.Fla.1994, 874 F.Supp. 1328. Sawinski v. Bill Currie Ford, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1383. Patterson v. Downtown Medical & Diagnostic Center, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1379. In re Checkers Secs. Litigation, D.C.Fla.1994, 858 F.Supp. 1168. Fletcher v. Florida, D.C.Fla.1994, 858 F.Supp. 169. Cherry v. Crow, D.C.Fla.1994, 845 F.Supp. 1520. Consolidated American Ins. Co. v. Hinton, D.C.Fla.1994, 845 F.Supp. 1515. NCR Credit Corp. v. Reptron Electronics, Inc., D.C.Fla.1994, 155 F.R.D. 690. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1994, 155 F.R.D. 215. DiDomenico v. New York Life Ins. Co., D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1203. Searer v. Wells, D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1198. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1158. Campbell v. Miller, D.C.Fla.1993, 836 F.Supp. 827. Underwood v. City of Fort Myers, D.C.Fla.1993, 836 F.Supp. 823. Nierenberg v. Heart Center of Southwest Florida, P.A., D.C.Fla.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1404. Jacobs v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Iowa, D.C.Fla.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1381. L.S.T. Incorporated v. Crow, D.C.Fla.1993, 834 F.Supp. 1355, reversed on other grounds C.A.11th, 1995, 49 F.3d 679. Olsen v. Lane, D.C.Fla.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1525.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Morris v. Crow, D.C.Fla.1993, 825 F.Supp. 295. Golden v. Complete Holdings, Inc., D.C.Fla.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1495. Hercules, Inc. v. Pages, D.C.Fla.1993, 814 F.Supp. 79. Ali v. City of Clearwater, D.C.Fla.1992, 807 F.Supp. 701. Azevedo v. Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota, D.C.Fla.1992, 805 F.Supp. 938, vacated in part on other grounds on rehearing D.C.Fla.1993, 147 F.R.D. 255.

Georgia Rosen v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 2014657, *4 (N.D. Ga. 2010). FTC v. Citigroup Inc., D.C.Ga.2001, 2001 WL 1763439 (unpublished). Prince Heaton Enterprises, Inc. v. Buffalo's Franchise Concepts, Inc., D.C.Ga.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 1357. Pedraza v. United Guar. Corp., D.C.Ga.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 1347. Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., D.C.Ga.2000, 85 F.Supp.2d 1356. Henkin v. AT & T Corporation, D.C.Ga.1999, 80 F.Supp.2d 1357. Banco Surinvest, S.A. v. SunTrust Bank, Atlanta, D.C.Ga.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 1366. Williams v. Lear Operations Corp., D.C.Ga.1999, 73 F.Supp.2d 1377. Jersawitz v. People TV, D.C.Ga.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1330. Mitchell v. Ford Motor Credit Co., D.C.Ga.1998, 68 F.Supp.2d 1315. Agricredit Acceptance, LLC v. Hendrix, D.C.Ga.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 1361. Sturm v. Marriott Marquis Corp., D.C.Ga.1998, 26 F.Supp.2d 1358. In re Miller Indus., Inc. Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ga.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1323. In re ValuJet, Inc., Secs. Litigation, D.C.Ga.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1472. Olson v. Loy, D.C.Ga.1996, 951 F.Supp. 225. Parisie v. Morris, D.C.Ga.1995, 873 F.Supp. 1560. Buffington v. General Time Corp., D.C.Ga.1988, 677 F.Supp. 1186. U.S. v. R.M. Wells Co., D.C.Ga.1980, 497 F.Supp. 541, 545, quoting Wright & Miller.

D.C. Circuit Baker v. District of Columbia, C.A.2003, 326 F.3d 1302, 356 U.S.App.D.C. 47. Americable Int'l, Inc. v. Department of Navy, C.A.1997, 129 F.3d 1271, 327 U.S.App.D.C. 159. Hollis v. U.S. Department of the Army, C.A.1988, 856 F.2d 1541, 272 U.S.App.D.C. 379. Schuler v. U.S., C.A.1979, 617 F.2d 605, 606 n. 3, 199 U.S.App.D.C. 23, citing Wright & Miller. Herron v. Veneman, D.C.D.C.2004, 305 F.Supp.2d 64. Lindblom v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies Corp., D.C.D.C.1997, 985 F.Supp. 161. Boyer v. Conaboy, D.C.D.C.1997, 983 F.Supp. 4. Ki Young Chung v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1997, 982 F.Supp. 20. Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. & Training, Inc., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 53. Moore v. Aspin, D.C.D.C.1996, 916 F.Supp. 32. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Swimmer, D.C.D.C.1990, 740 F.Supp. 9.

Federal Circuit Polymer Industrial Prods. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., C.A.Fed., 2003, 347 F.3d 935. Bradley v. Chiron Corp., C.A.Fed., 1998, 136 F.3d 1317.

But compare For an argument that the effects of the Supreme Court 1986 trilogy concerning summary judgment seem to be moving dismissals earlier on the litigation timeline and are resulting in fact-finding against plaintiffs at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, see Miller, The Pretrial Rush to Judgment: Are the “Litigation Explosion,” “Liability Crisis,” and Efficiency Clichés Eroding Our Day in Court and Jury Trial Commitments?, 2003, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 982, 1073–1074. 47 Doubts resolved in pleader's favor

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

First Circuit Amcel Corp. v. International Executive Sales, Inc., C.A.1st, 1999, 170 F.3d 32. Goodrich v. CML Fiberoptics, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 990 F.Supp. 48 (court must draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor). Kmart Corp. v. Rivera-Alejandro Architects & Engineers, D.C.Puerto Rico 1997, 174 F.R.D. 242. Roma Constr. Co. v. aRusso, D.C.R.I.1995, 906 F.Supp. 78, reversed on other grounds C.A.1st, 1996, 96 F.3d 566. Hart v. Mazur, D.C.R.I.1995, 903 F.Supp. 277, 279, citing Wright & Miller. Powderly v. Metrabyte Corp., D.C.Mass.1994, 866 F.Supp. 39. Caribe BMW, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, D.C.Puerto Rico 1993, 821 F.Supp. 802, 813. International Bank of Miami v. Banco de Economias y Prestamos, D.C.Puerto Rico 1972, 55 F.R.D. 180. Klimas v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., D.C.R.I.1969, 297 F.Supp. 937.

Second Circuit DeMuria v. Hawkes, C.A.2d, 2003, 328 F.3d 704. Still v. DeBuono, C.A.2d, 1996, 101 F.3d 888. R.B. ex rel. L.B. v. Board of Educ. of the City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 99 F.Supp.2d 411. Intimate Bookshop, Inc. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., D.C.N.Y.2000, 88 F.Supp.2d 133. Clifford v. Hughson, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 661. National Ass'n of College Bookstores, Inc. v. Cambridge Univ. Press, D.C.N.Y.1997, 990 F.Supp. 245. US Airways Group, Inc. v. British Airways PLC, D.C.N.Y.1997, 989 F.Supp. 482 (reasonable inferences). Kampfer v. Scullin, D.C.N.Y.1997, 989 F.Supp. 194. Madison Restoration Corp. v. Smithsonian Institute, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 434. Wiener v. Napoli, D.C.N.Y.1991, 760 F.Supp. 278. Todaro v. Orbit Int'l Travel, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1991, 755 F.Supp. 1229. Thomas v. Beth Israel Hosp. Inc., D.C.N.Y.1989, 710 F.Supp. 935. Reaemco, Inc. v. Allegheny Airlines, D.C.N.Y.1980, 496 F.Supp. 546, 549, quoting Wright & Miller. Bowman v. Hartig, D.C.N.Y.1971, 334 F.Supp. 1323.

Third Circuit Tunnell v. Wiley, C.A.3d, 1975, 514 F.2d 971, 975 n. 6, citing Wright & Miller. Zecca v. Williams, D.C.Del.2003, 2003 WL 1873833. Andrea L. by Judith B. v. Children & Youth Servs. of Lawrence County, D.C.Pa.1997, 987 F.Supp. 418. RTC Mortgage Trust 1994 N1 v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1997, 981 F.Supp. 334. Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank v. San Clemente Financial Group Secs., Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 174 F.R.D. 572. Rhoades v. U.S., D.C.Del.1996, 950 F.Supp. 623. Ezenwa v. Gallen, D.C.Pa.1995, 906 F.Supp. 978. Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Agway Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.1994, 845 F.Supp. 252. Pawlak v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers of America, Local Union No. 764, D.C.Pa.1977, 444 F.Supp. 807. United Mine Workers of America v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., D.C.Pa.1974, 378 F.Supp. 1206. Mastandrea v. Gurrentz Int'l Corp., D.C.Pa.1974, 65 F.R.D. 52, 54, citing Wright & Miller. U.S. ex rel. Smith v. Heil (PBP.), D.C.Pa.1970, 308 F.Supp. 1063. U.S. ex rel. Brzozowski v. Randall, D.C.Pa.1968, 281 F.Supp. 306. Sinchak v. Parente, D.C.Pa.1966, 262 F.Supp. 79.

Fourth Circuit Svezzese v. Duratek, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 2002 WL 1012967, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.4th, 2003, 67 Fed.Appx. 169. Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.S.C.1998, 35 F.Supp.2d 487. Jones v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc., D.C.Va.1997, 980 F.Supp. 842, order affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 161 F.2d 2. Taliaferro v. State Council of Higher Educ., D.C.Va.1974, 372 F.Supp. 1378.

Fifth Circuit

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Gallentine v. Housing Authority of City of Port Arthur, Tex., 919 F. Supp. 2d 787, 795 (E.D. Tex. 2013), quoting Wright & Miller. Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., C.A.5th, 2003, 339 F.3d 359, certiorari denied 124 S.Ct. 1173, __ U.S. __, 157 L.Ed.2d 1206. Shipp v. McMahon, C.A.5th, 2000, 234 F.3d 907, quoting Wright & Miller. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 496, quoting Wright & Miller. Stephenson v. Gaskins, C.A.5th, 1976, 539 F.2d 1066. Hooker v. Roadway Express, Inc., D.C.La.2003, 2003 WL 21056826, citing Wright & Miller. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698, citing Wright & Miller. Dale v. Ala Acquisitions, Inc., D.C.Miss.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 694, citing Wright & Miller. Fields v. Stalder, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611597, citing Wright & Miller. Louisiana-Mississippi Carpenters Regional Council & Carpenters Local 1846 v. Shepard Exposition Servs., Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611587, citing Wright & Miller. Trevino v. Boomtown Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1363891, citing Wright & Miller. Ingram v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1163613, citing Wright & Miller. See also Lacey v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058890, Lee v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058893. Watson v. Prudential Ins. Co., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1159703, citing Wright & Miller. Matthews v. Social Sec. of Louisiana, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022267, citing Wright & Miller. Searcy v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022158, citing Wright & Miller. Wicks v. Coffrey, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1000975, citing Wright & Miller. Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196, citing Wright & Miller. Perrilloux v. BP Oil Co./Amoco, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 746349, quoting Wright & Miller. Kane Enterprises v. MacGregor (U.S.A.), Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 523342, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 2003, 322 F.3d 371. Koerner v. Garden Dist. Ass'n, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 500815, citing Wright & Miller. Henrise v. Horvath, D.C.Tex.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 768. Baldwin v. Laurel Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 894, quoting Wright & Miller. Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., D.C.La.1996, 930 F.Supp. 241, affirmed C.A.5th, 1997, 106 F.3d 1245. Todd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.C.La.1996, 924 F.Supp. 59. Hassan v. Louisiana Dep't of Transp. & Dev., D.C.La.1996, 923 F.Supp. 890. Updike v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., D.C.La.1992, 808 F.Supp. 538, quoting Wright & Miller.

Sixth Circuit Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. v. Tatum, C.A.6th, 1995, 58 F.3d 1101, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 1041, 516 U.S. 1158, 134 L.Ed.2d 189. George Fischer Foundry Sys., Inc. v. Adolph H. Hottinger Maschinenbau, C.A.6th, 1995, 55 F.3d 1206. Carter by Carter v. Cornwell, C.A.6th, 1993, 983 F.2d 52 (resolve ambiguities in plaintiff's favor). Davis H. Elliot Co. v. Caribbean Utils. Co., Ltd., C.A.6th, 1975, 513 F.2d 1176. Hoon K. Jeung v. McKrow, D.C.Mich.2003, 264 F.Supp.2d 557 (judge may not grant motion based on disbelief of complaint's factual allegations). Amway Distributors Benefits Ass'n v. Federal Ins. Co., D.C.Mich.1997, 990 F.Supp. 936. Pittiglio v. Michigan Nat. Corp., D.C.Mich.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1145. People First of Tennessee v. Arlington Developmental Center, D.C.Tenn.1992, 878 F.Supp. 97. Hardy v. First American Bank, N.A., D.C.Tenn.1991, 774 F.Supp. 1078.

Seventh Circuit Gastineau v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., C.A.7th, 1998, 137 F.3d 490 (reasonable inferences). Kelley v. Crosfield Catalysts, C.A.7th, 1998, 135 F.3d 1202. Burns v. Paddock, C.A.7th, 1974, 503 F.2d 18. Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., C.A.7th, 1958, 260 F.2d 607. Bixby's Food Sys., Inc. v. McKay, D.C.Ill.1997, 985 F.Supp. 802. Stengel v. Callahan, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1154. Anisimov v. Lake, D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 531.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Varner v. Illinois State Univ., D.C.Ill.1996, 986 F.Supp. 1107, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 150 F.3d 706, affirmed after remand on other grounds C.A.7th, 2000, 226 F.3d 927. Kastel v. Winnetka Bd. of Educ., Dist. 36, D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1329. Pyka v. Village of Orland Park, D.C.Ill.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1196. U.S. v. Brickman, D.C.Ill.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1164. Egan v. Palos Community Hosp., D.C.Ill.1995, 889 F.Supp. 331. Seber v. Unger, D.C.Ill.1995, 881 F.Supp. 323. Estate of Cassara by Cassara v. Illinois, D.C.Ill.1994, 853 F.Supp. 273. Heller Int'l Corp. v. Sharp, D.C.Ill.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1297. Wallace Computer Servs., Inc. v. Adams Bus. Forms, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1413. Belmont Community Hosp. v. Local Union No. 9, I.B.E.W. & Outside Contractors Health & Welfare Fund, D.C.Ill.1990, 737 F.Supp. 1034. Muka v. Nicolet Paper Co., D.C.Wis.1978, 452 F.Supp. 491. U.S. v. Interlake, Inc., D.C.Ill.1977, 429 F.Supp. 193. Pointer v. American Oil Co., D.C.Ind.1968, 295 F.Supp. 573.

Eighth Circuit Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., C.A.8th, 1940, 108 F.2d 302. James v. Ford Motor Credit Co., D.C.Minn.1994, 842 F.Supp. 1202, affirmed C.A.8th, 1995, 47 F.3d 961. Dou Yee Enterprises (S) PTE, Ltd. v. Advantek, Inc., D.C.Minn.1993, 149 F.R.D. 185. Albers v. Wilson & Co., D.C.Minn.1960, 184 F.Supp. 812. J.W. Terteling & Sons v. Central Nebraska Pub. Power & Irrigation Dist., D.C.Neb.1948, 8 F.R.D. 210

Ninth Circuit Newhouse v. Aurora Bank FSB, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1165 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Durning v. First Boston Corp., C.A.9th, 1987, 815 F.2d 1265, certiorari denied 108 S.Ct. 330, 484 U.S. 944, 98 L.Ed.2d 358. Williams v. Gorton, C.A.9th, 1976, 529 F.2d 668, 672, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed without opinion C.A.9th, 1977, 566 F.2d 1186. McKinney v. De Bord, C.A.9th, 1974, 507 F.2d 501, 503, citing Wright & Miller. Simson v. U.S., D.C.Ore.1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 1193. Diaz v. Carlson, D.C.Cal.1997, 5 F.Supp.2d 809, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 142 F.3d 443. Brenizer v. Ray, D.C.Cal.1996, 915 F.Supp. 176. Cevallos v. City of Los Angeles, D.C.Cal.1996, 914 F.Supp. 379. Bredehoeft v. Cornell, D.C.Ore.1966, 260 F.Supp. 557.

Tenth Circuit David v. City of Denver, C.A.10th, 1996, 101 F.3d 1344, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 157, 522 U.S. 858, 139 L.Ed.2d 102. Parkinson v. California Co., C.A.10th, 1956, 233 F.2d 432. S.A.I., Incorporated v. General Elec. Railcar Servs. Corp., D.C.Kan.1996, 935 F.Supp. 1150.

Eleventh Circuit U.S. ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante, P.A. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., D.C.Ga.1990, 755 F.Supp. 1040.

D.C. Circuit De Arellano v. Weinberger, C.A.1984, 745 F.2d 1500, 240 U.S.App.D.C. 363, vacated on other grounds 1985, 105 S.Ct. 2353, 471 U.S. 1113, 86 L.Ed.2d 255. Croskey v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, D.C.D.C.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 8, affirmed C.A.D.C.1999, 1999 WL 58614. Mittleman v. U.S., D.C.D.C.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1, affirmed per curiam C.A.D.C.1998, 1998 WL 796300. Boyer v. Conaboy, D.C.D.C.1997, 983 F.Supp. 4. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, D.C.D.C.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1, affirmed C.A.1996, 76 F.3d 1232, 316 U.S.App.D.C. 179. Dominion Cogen, D.C., Inc. v. District of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1995, 878 F.Supp. 258. Underwood v. Archer Management Servs., Inc., D.C.D.C.1994, 857 F.Supp. 96.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Federal Circuit Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., C.A.Fed., 1993, 988 F.2d 1157 (disputed matters are construed favorably to complainant). 48 Any legally cognizable claim

First Circuit Rivera v. Centro Medico de Turabo, Inc., 575 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2009). Eastridge v. Rhode Island College, D.C.R.I.1998, 996 F.Supp. 161. Goodrich v. CML Fiberoptics, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 990 F.Supp. 48. Iacampo v. Hasbro, Inc., D.C.R.I.1996, 929 F.Supp. 562. Hart v. Mazur, D.C.R.I.1995, 903 F.Supp. 277, 279, citing Wright & Miller. National Educ. Ass'n—Rhode Island v. Retirement Bd. of Rhode Island Employees' Retirement Sys., D.C.R.I.1995, 890 F.Supp. 1143, citing Wright & Miller. Carlson v. Rice, D.C.Me.1993, 832 F.Supp. 17. Dempsey v. National Enquirer, D.C.Me.1988, 702 F.Supp. 927, 934, citing Wright & Miller.

Second Circuit F.T.C. v. LeanSpa, LLC, 920 F. Supp. 2d 270, 274 (D. Conn. 2013). Tufts v. Corporation of Lloyd's, D.C.N.Y.1996, 981 F.Supp. 808, affirmed C.A.2d, 1997, 128 F.3d 793. Greene v. Hawes, D.C.N.Y.1996, 913 F.Supp. 136. Brown v. City of Oneonta, D.C.N.Y.1996, 911 F.Supp. 580. Schmelzer v. Norfleet, D.C.N.Y.1995, 903 F.Supp. 632. Audell Petroleum Corp. v. Suburban Paraco Corp., D.C.N.Y.1995, 903 F.Supp. 364. A. Aiudi & Sons v. Town of Plainville, D.C.Conn.1994, 862 F.Supp. 737. Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Albany, D.C.N.Y.1994, 155 F.R.D. 409. A complaint need not state the governing statute under which relief is sought. Bramesco v. Drug Computer Consultants, D.C.N.Y.1993, 834 F.Supp. 120. Kent v. AVCO Corporation, D.C.Conn.1992, 815 F.Supp. 67. Wilder v. Bernstein, D.C.N.Y.1980, 499 F.Supp. 980, 989, citing Wright & Miller. Karlen v. New York Univ., D.C.N.Y.1979, 464 F.Supp. 704. Niederhoffer, Cross & Zeckhauser, Inc. v. Telstat Sys. Inc., D.C.N.Y.1977, 436 F.Supp. 180. French & Polyclinic Medical School & Health Center, Inc. v. Associated Hosp. Serv. of New York, D.C.N.Y.1973, 387 F.Supp. 1359. Richardson v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of the State of New York, D.C.N.Y.1973, 387 F.Supp. 1267. U.S. v. Van Raalte Co., D.C.N.Y.1971, 328 F.Supp. 827. Katz v. Connecticut, D.C.Conn.1969, 307 F.Supp. 480, affirmed per curiam C.A.2d, 1970, 433 F.2d 878.

Third Circuit Menkowitz v. Pottstown Memorial Medical Center, C.A.3d, 1998, 154 F.3d 113. Tri Star Farms Ltd. v. Marconi, PLC, D.C.Pa.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 567, citing Wright & Miller. In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation, D.C.N.J.1999, 189 F.R.D. 117. Stewart v. Associates Consumer Discount Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 469. RTC Mortgage Trust 1994 N1 v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1997, 981 F.Supp. 334. If no cause of action can be identified, dismissal is proper. L.C. Renninger Co. v. VIK Brothers Ins., Inc., D.C.Pa.1997, 180 F.R.D. 272. Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank v. San Clemente Financial Group Secs., Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 174 F.R.D. 572. King v. M.R. Brown, Inc., D.C.Pa.1995, 911 F.Supp. 161. Burks v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1995, 904 F.Supp. 421. Clark v. Sears Roebuck & Co., D.C.Pa.1993, 816 F.Supp. 1064. General Acc. Ins. Co. of America v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, D.C.Pa.1984, 598 F.Supp. 1223, 1228, quoting Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Mastandrea v. Gurrentz Int'l Corp., D.C.Pa.1974, 65 F.R.D. 52, 54, citing Wright & Miller. When there is at least one ground upon which the plaintiff is entitled to relief, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will be denied. Asphaltic Enterprises, Inc. v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., D.C.Pa.1966, 39 F.R.D. 574.

Fourth Circuit Svezzese v. Duratek, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 2002 WL 1012967, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.4th, 2003, 67 Fed.Appx. 169. Petty v. Freightliner Corp., D.C.N.C.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 808. Lafayette Fed. Credit Union v. U.S., D.C.Md.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 645, quoting Wright & Miller. Tischler v. Baltimore Bancorp, D.C.Md.1992, 801 F.Supp. 1493, 1500, quoting Wright & Miller.

Fifth Circuit Wilson v. Birnberg, 667 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 32, 183 L. Ed. 2d 678 (2012), citing Wright & Miller. Shipp v. McMahon, C.A.5th, 2000, 234 F.3d 907, quoting Wright & Miller. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, C.A.5th, 2000, 224 F.3d 496, quoting Wright & Miller. Shipp v. McMahon, C.A.5th, 2000, 199 F.3d 256, quoting Wright & Miller, opinion vacated and superseded on rehearing on other grounds C.A.5th, 2000, 234 F.3d 907 Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., C.A.5th, 1999, 197 F.3d 161, quoting Wright & Miller. Spiller v. City of Texas City, Police Dep't, C.A.5th, 1997, 130 F.3d 162. Khurana v. Innovative Health Care Sys., Inc., C.A.5th, 1997, 130 F.3d 143, certiorari granted, judgment vacated with instructions to dismiss as moot 1998, 119 S.Ct. 442, 525 U.S. 979, 142 L.Ed.2d 397. Keating v. Shell Chem. Co., C.A.5th, 1980, 610 F.2d 328. Mannings v. Board of Pub. Instruction of Hillsborough County, Florida, C.A.5th, 1960, 277 F.2d 370. Gallentine v. Housing Authority of City of Port Arthur, Tex., 919 F. Supp. 2d 787, 795 (E.D. Tex. 2013), quoting Wright & Miller. Clark v. Huntleigh Corp., D.C.La.2004, 2004 WL 1713888, quoting Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys., C.A.5th, 1997, 117 F.3d 242, 247, citing Wright & Miller. Norris v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., D.C.La.2004, 2004 WL 1615498, quoting Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys., C.A.5th, 1997, 117 F.3d 242, 247, citing Wright & Miller. Hooker v. Roadway Express, Inc., D.C.La.2003, 2003 WL 21056826, citing Wright & Miller. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion is proper if the complaint lacks an allegation regarding a required element necessary to obtain relief. Loofbourrow v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 208 F.Supp.2d 698. Dale v. Ala Acquisitions, Inc., D.C.Miss.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 694, citing Wright & Miller. Fields v. Stalder, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611597, citing Wright & Miller. Louisiana-Mississippi Carpenters Regional Council & Carpenters Local 1846 v. Shepard Exposition Servs., Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1611587, citing Wright & Miller. Trevino v. Boomtown Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1363891, citing Wright & Miller. Ingram v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1163613, citing Wright & Miller. See also Lacey v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058890, Lee v. Bayer Corp., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1058893. Watson v. Prudential Ins. Co., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1159703, citing Wright & Miller. Matthews v. Social Sec. of Louisiana, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022267, citing Wright & Miller. Searcy v. American Airlines, Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1022158, citing Wright & Miller. Wicks v. Coffrey, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 1000975, citing Wright & Miller. Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196, citing Wright & Miller. Perrilloux v. BP Oil Co./Amoco, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 746349, quoting Wright & Miller. Kane Enterprises v. MacGregor (U.S.A.), Inc., D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 523342, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 2003, 322 F.3d 371. Koerner v. Garden Dist. Ass'n, D.C.La.2002, 2002 WL 500815, citing Wright & Miller. Campbell v. Baldwin, D.C.Tex.2000, 90 F.Supp.2d 754, quoting Wright & Miller. Andrade v. Chojnacki, D.C.Tex.1999, 65 F.Supp.2d 431, quoting Wright & Miller. Baldwin v. Laurel Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 32 F.Supp.2d 894, quoting Wright & Miller. Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., D.C.Tex.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 618. Timmons v. Special Ins. Servs., D.C.Tex.1997, 984 F.Supp. 997.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247. IHP Industrial, Inc. v. PermAlert, ESP., D.C.Miss.1996, 947 F.Supp. 257. Hunt v. Steve Dement Bail Bonds, Inc., D.C.La.1996, 914 F.Supp. 1390. Bowers v. Baylor Univ., D.C.Tex.1994, 862 F.Supp. 142, quoting Wright & Miller. Capital Parks, Inc. v. Southeastern Advertising & Sales Sys., Inc., D.C.Tex.1993, 864 F.Supp. 14, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 1994, 30 F.3d 627. Hirras v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., D.C.Tex.1992, 826 F.Supp. 1062, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 1994, 10 F.3d 1142. Updike v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., D.C.La.1992, 808 F.Supp. 538, quoting Wright & Miller. Escamilla v. Mosher Steel Co., D.C.Tex.1975, 386 F.Supp. 101.

Sixth Circuit "It is not our place to weigh the evidence, 'but rather to examine the complaint and determine whether the plaintiff has pleaded a cognizable claim.'" Haviland v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 730 F.3d 563, 574-575 (6th Cir. 2013), quoting Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 452 (6th Cir. 2003). Pittiglio v. Michigan Nat. Corp., D.C.Mich.1995, 906 F.Supp. 1145.

Seventh Circuit Looper Maintenance Serv. Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, C.A.7th, 1999, 197 F.3d 908. Pleva v. Norquist, C.A.7th, 1999, 195 F.3d 905. Martinez v. Hooper, C.A.7th, 1998, 148 F.3d 856. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich), C.A.7th, 1992, 953 F.2d 1073. Mistretta v. Babb, D.C.Ill.2003, 2003 WL 1868717 (it is sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to allege that dunning letter is confusing; that is enough to state legal claim for relief), citing Walker v. National Recovery, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 200 F.3d 500. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 994. Smith v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1998, 992 F.Supp. 1027. Sterling v. Kazmierczak, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1186. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Peters, D.C.Ill.1997, 983 F.Supp. 787. Mere vagueness does not constitute sufficient grounds for a motion to dismiss. Cemail v. Viking Dodge, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1296. Balcerzak v. City of Milwaukee, D.C.Wis.1997, 980 F.Supp. 983. Williams v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 980 F.Supp. 938. Cannella v. Cordell Enterprises, D.C.Ill.1997, 980 F.Supp. 272. Varner v. Illinois State Univ., D.C.Ill.1996, 986 F.Supp. 1107, affirmed C.A.7th, 1998, 150 F.3d 706, affirmed after remand on other grounds C.A.7th, 2000, 226 F.3d 927. Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach., Ltd., D.C.Ill.1996, 946 F.Supp. 1358. Fernando v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, D.C.Ill.1995, 882 F.Supp. 119. Travis v. Boulevard Bank N.A., D.C.Ill.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1226. Ziemack v. Centel Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 856 F.Supp. 430, citing Wright & Miller. Clorox Co. v. Chromium Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 158 F.R.D. 120 (complaint need not specify correct legal theory or point to right statute to survive motion to dismiss). A complaint must set forth by direct or inferential allegations all the requisite elements of a claim, but it need not identify a legal theory. Heller Int'l Corp. v. Sharp, D.C.Ill.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1297. Greenley v. Meersman, D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 381, citing Wright & Miller.. Barnett v. Daley, D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 1063, citing Wright & Miller, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1994, 32 F.3d 1196. St. Paul Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Great Lakes Turnings, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1993, 829 F.Supp. 982, citing Wright & Miller. Bercoon, Weiner, Glick & Brook v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1152, citing Wright & Miller. Barnett v. Daley, D.C.Ill.1992, 809 F.Supp. 1323, citing Wright & Miller. Bonilla v. City Council of the City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1992, 809 F.Supp. 590, citing Wright & Miller. McConnell v. U.S. Attorney Gen., D.C.Ill.1976, 420 F.Supp. 217.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Grillo v. Sielaff, D.C.Ill.1976, 414 F.Supp. 272.

Eighth Circuit Ailshire v. Darnell, C.A.8th, 1974, 508 F.2d 526. Remmers v. Brewer, C.A.8th, 1973, 475 F.2d 52, 53 n. 2, citing Wright & Miller. Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., C.A.8th, 1940, 108 F.2d 302. Ramos v. Crosby, D.C.Neb.2006, 2006 WL 1134909. Schultzen v. Woodbury Cent. Community School Dist., D.C.Iowa 2002, 187 F.Supp.2d 1099. Leiberkneckt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., D.C.Iowa 1997, 980 F.Supp. 300. Lilley v. Missouri, D.C.Mo.1996, 920 F.Supp. 1035, affirmed C.A.8th, 1997, 111 F.3d 135. SEC v. Thunderbird Valley, Inc., D.C.S.D.1973, 356 F.Supp. 184, 186, quoting Wright & Miller.

Ninth Circuit The inquiry under Rule 12(b)(6) is a limited one and only to check if the plaintiff has stated any claim for which relief can be granted. Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 579 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2009). Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., C.A.9th, 1987, 817 F.2d 510, 516, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 108 S.Ct. 451, 484 U.S. 963, 98 L.Ed.2d 391. Newhouse v. Aurora Bank FSB, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (court may dismiss complaint based on lack of cognizable legal theory or absence of sufficient facts alleged under cognizable legal theory), quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Levy v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 WL 2493055 (D. Haw. 2011) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal appropriate if complaint fails to state legally cognizable theory or fails to state sufficient facts under such theory). Hernandez v. McClanahan, D.C.Cal.1998, 996 F.Supp. 975. Ramage v. Forbes Int'l Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 987 F.Supp. 810. Meek v. County of Riverside, D.C.Cal.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1410, affirmed in part, dismissed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 183 F.3d 962. Burns-Vidlak by Burns v. Chandler, D.C.Haw.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1144, appeal dismissed C.A.9th, 1999, 165 F.3d 1257. Ultrapure Sys., Inc. v. Ham-Let Group, D.C.Cal.1996, 921 F.Supp. 659. Rockholt v. United Van Lines, Inc., D.C.Idaho 1988, 697 F.Supp. 383.

Tenth Circuit Lopez v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1239. Robertson v. Board of County Comm'rs of County of Morgan, D.C.Colo.1997, 985 F.Supp. 980, affirmed C.A.10th, 1999, 166 F.3d 1222. Warren v. Bokum Resources Corp., D.C.N.M.1977, 433 F.Supp. 1360, 1368, citing Wright & Miller.

Eleventh Circuit Beck v. Deloitte & Touche, C.A.11th, 1998, 144 F.3d 732. Marshall County Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall County Gas Dist., C.A.11th, 1993, 992 F.2d 1171. Campbell v. Grady's Bar, Inc., 2010 WL 2754328, *1 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Muhammad v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 2010 WL 2712250, *3 (S.D. Ala. 2010). Huntley v. Carnival Corp., D.C.Fla.2004, 307 F.Supp.2d 1372. Chumbley v. Gashinski, D.C.Fla.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1406 (plaintiff must allege sufficient facts in “four corners” of complaint to allow court to discern colorable claim). Majors v. Green Meadows Apartments, Ltd., D.C.Ga.1980, 546 F.Supp. 895, 899, citing Wright & Miller. Barton v. City of Eustis, Florida, D.C.Fla.1976, 415 F.Supp. 1355.

D.C. Circuit Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. & Training, Inc., D.C.D.C.1997, 980 F.Supp. 53, affirmed C.A.1999, 168 F.3d 1362, 335 U.S.App.D.C. 62. Edison Elec. Institute v. Henwood, D.C.D.C.1993, 832 F.Supp. 413.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

See also “In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must decide whether there are sufficient facts pled to determine that the complaint is not frivolous, and to provide the defendants with adequate notice to frame an answer.” Fortier v. U.S. Steel Corp., D.C.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 1797796, 2 (Ambrose, J.). Environmental Ass'n of St. Thomas & St. John v. Department of Planning & Natural Resources, Terr. Virgin Islands 2002, 2002 WL 655506 (plaintiff must set forth sufficient information to outline elements of claim or permit inferences to be drawn that elements exist).

But see A district court may not infer claims other than those that plainly appear on the face of the complaint to defeat a defense of qualified immunity. GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Florida, C.A.11th, 1998, 132 F.3d 1359. Indianapolis Hotel Investors, Ltd. v. Aircoa Equity Interests, Inc., D.C.Colo.1990, 733 F.Supp. 1406. 49 Any legal theory

Supreme Court Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 2849, 478 U.S. 186, 202, 92 L.Ed.2d 140, citing Wright & Miller.

First Circuit Metts v. Murphy, C.A.1st, 2003, 347 F.3d 346. Cogan v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 2002, 310 F.3d 238. Young v. Lepone, C.A.1st, 2002, 305 F.3d 1. TAG/ICIB Services, Inc. v. Pan American Grain Co., C.A.1st, 2000, 215 F.3d 172. Cruz v. Melecio, C.A.1st, 2000, 204 F.3d 14. Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New England, Inc., C.A.1st, 2000, 203 F.3d 90. Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc., C.A.1st, 2000, 199 F.3d 68, appeal after remand C.A.1st, 2002, 48 Fed.Appx. 4. Figueroa v. Rivera, C.A.1st, 1998, 147 F.3d 77. LaChapelle v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 142 F.3d 507. Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., C.A.1st, 1998, 137 F.3d 12. Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., C.A.1st, 1994, 14 F.3d 697. Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., C.A.1st, 1988, 851 F.2d 513. Colon-Rodriguez v. Astra/Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, 831 F. Supp. 2d 545, 549 (D.P.R. 2011). Vargas-Caban v. Carribbean Transportation Servs., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 279 F.Supp.2d 107. Hinkley v. Baker, D.C.Me.2000, 122 F.Supp.2d 48. Goya de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Munoz, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 61. Horney v. Westfield Gage Co., D.C.Mass.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 29. Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Warehouse, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 83 F.Supp.2d 256. Bloom v. Crook, D.C.Me.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 1. United Paperworkers Int'l Union Local 1468 v. Imperial Home Decor Group, D.C.R.I.1999, 76 F.Supp.2d 179. Yates v. Cunningham, D.C.N.H.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 47. Belanger v. Healthsource of Maine, D.C.Me.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 70. Cooper v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., D.C.N.H.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 109. Integrated Technologies Ltd. v. Biochem Immunosystems, (U.S.) Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 97. Paredes v. Princess Cruises, Inc., D.C.Mass.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 87. Barron v. U.S., D.C.N.H.1998, 998 F.Supp. 117. Honeywell Consumer Prods., Inc. v. Windmere Corp., D.C.Mass.1998, 993 F.Supp. 22. Granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is proper only if there is no viable theory under which a plaintiff can recover. MacFarlane v. Smith, D.C.N.H.1996, 947 F.Supp. 572, affirmed C.A.1st, 1997, 129 F.3d 1252. Bushey v. Derboven, D.C.Me.1996, 946 F.Supp. 96. Milford Power Ltd. Partnership v. New England Power Co., D.C.Mass.1996, 918 F.Supp. 471. Day v. Fallon Community Health Plan, Inc., D.C.Mass.1996, 917 F.Supp. 72.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Socha v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, Branch No. 57 (Merged), D.C.R.I.1995, 883 F.Supp. 790. Scully Signal Co. v. Joyal, D.C.R.I.1995, 881 F.Supp. 727. Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., D.C.Mass.1995, 880 F.Supp. 63. Rodowicz v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mass.1994, 857 F.Supp. 992. Pierce v. Runyon, D.C.Mass.1994, 857 F.Supp. 129. Inhabitants of the City of Saco v. General Elec. Co., D.C.Me.1991, 779 F.Supp. 186, 198. Patriarca v. FBI, D.C.R.I.1986, 639 F.Supp. 1193, 1197, citing Wright & Miller.

Second Circuit Magee v. Nassau County Medical Center, D.C.N.Y.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 154. Vorvis v. Southern New England Telephone Co., D.C.Conn.1993, 821 F.Supp. 851. Raine v. Lorimar Productions, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1987, 71 B.R. 450, 453. Heese v. DeMatteis Dev. Corp., D.C.N.Y.1976, 417 F.Supp. 864. Plum Tree, Inc. v. N.K. Winston Corp., D.C.N.Y.1972, 351 F.Supp. 80. Goldstein v. North Jersey Trust Co., D.C.N.Y.1966, 39 F.R.D. 363.

Third Circuit Mills v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union 66, D.C.Pa.2003, 252 F.Supp.2d 210, citing Wright & Miller. Tri Star Farms Ltd. v. Marconi, PLC, D.C.Pa.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 567, citing Wright & Miller. Calkins v. Dollarland, Inc., D.C.N.J.2000, 117 F.Supp.2d 421, citing Wright & Miller. Johnson v. Resources for Human Dev., Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 843 F.Supp. 974. Unix Sys. Labs., Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc., D.C.N.J.1993, 832 F.Supp. 790, quoting Wright & Miller. Advanced Power Sys., Inc. v. Hi-Tech Sys., Inc., D.C.Pa.1992, 801 F.Supp. 1450, citing Wright & Miller. U.S. v. Gigante, D.C.N.J.1990, 737 F.Supp. 292. American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Construcciones Werl, Inc., D.C.Virgin Islands 1975, 407 F.Supp. 164. American East India Corp. v. Ideal Shoe Co., D.C.Pa.1975, 400 F.Supp. 141, affirmed without opinion C.A.3d, 1978, 568 F.2d 768.

Fourth Circuit Harrison v. U.S. Postal Serv., C.A.4th, 1988, 840 F.2d 1149. Leggat v. Equifax Information Services, Inc., 2009 WL 2432371 (E.D. Va. 2009). Jennings v. University of No. Carolina at Chapel Hill, D.C.N.C.2002, 240 F.Supp.2d 492, quoting Wright & Miller. Mansoor v. County of Albemarle, D.C.Va.2000, 124 F.Supp.2d 367. Browning v. Vecellio & Grogan, Inc., D.C.Va.1996, 945 F.Supp. 930. Pinder v. Commissioners of Cambridge in the City of Cambridge, D.C.Md.1993, 821 F.Supp. 376, reversed on other grounds C.A.4th, 1995, 54 F.3d 1169. Shaw v. Barr, D.C.N.C.1992, 808 F.Supp. 461. Oliver v. Bostetter, D.C.Md.1977, 426 F.Supp. 1082.

Fifth Circuit Cinel v. Connick, C.A.5th, 1994, 15 F.3d 1338, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 189, 513 U.S. 868, 130 L.Ed.2d 122. Walther v. National Tea Co., C.A.5th, 1988, 848 F.2d 518. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the complaint need not correctly categorize legal theories giving rise to the claims; it merely must allege facts upon which relief can be granted. Rathborne v. Rathborne, C.A.5th, 1982, 683 F.2d 914. Quinonez v. National Ass'n of Secs. Dealers, Inc., C.A.5th, 1976, 540 F.2d 824. When the plaintiff fails to rely on the proper section of the Civil Rights Act, the court should examine the complaint in light of the proper section. Robertson v. Johnston, C.A.5th, 1967, 376 F.2d 43. Millennium Travel & Promotions, Inc. v. Classic Promotions & Premiums, Inc., 2008 WL 2275555 (M.D. Fla. 2008). Timmons v. Special Ins. Servs., D.C.Tex.1997, 984 F.Supp. 997. Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247. Robertson v. Burger King, Inc., D.C.La.1994, 848 F.Supp. 78, citing Wright & Miller. Bartley v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.Tex.1992, 824 F.Supp. 624.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Updike v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., D.C.La.1992, 808 F.Supp. 538, quoting Wright & Miller.

Sixth Circuit "To state a valid claim, a complaint must contain direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements under some viable legal theory." Crawford v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 425 Fed. Appx. 445, 447 (6th Cir. 2011), quoting Commercial Money Center, Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 336-337 (6th Cir. 2007) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Hebron v. Shelby County Government, 406 Fed. Appx. 28, 30 (6th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Hunter v. Secretary of U.S. Army, 565 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2009). Glassner v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., C.A.6th, 2000, 223 F.3d 343. In re DeLorean Motor Co., C.A.6th, 1993, 991 F.2d 1236. Zolman v. IRS, D.C.Mich.1999, 87 F.Supp.2d 763. A motion to dismiss may not be granted on the ground that the relief prayed for is improper, so long as the plaintiffs may be entitled to some relief if they are able to prove their claims. Braun v. Northern Ohio Bank, D.C.Ohio 1977, 430 F.Supp. 367.

Seventh Circuit Fischer v. First Chicago Capital Markets, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 195 F.3d 279. Veazey v. Communications & Cable of Chicago, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 194 F.3d 850. Sidney S. Arst Co. v. Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund, C.A.7th, 1994, 25 F.3d 417, citing Wright & Miller. Dawson v. General Motors Corp., C.A.7th, 1992, 977 F.2d 369. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich), C.A.7th, 1992, 953 F.2d 1073 (complaint does not have to state legal theory and specification of incorrect theory is not fatal). It is unnecessary to identify specifically the legal basis for a claim as long as the facts alleged would support relief. Madsen v. Park City, D.C.Ill.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 938. Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc., D.C.Ill.1997, 985 F.Supp. 827. Thomas v. Chicago Housing Authority, D.C.Ill.1997, 981 F.Supp. 558. Vakharia v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care Centers, D.C.Ill.1996, 917 F.Supp. 1282. Gupta v. Freixenet USA, Inc., D.C.Ill.1995, 908 F.Supp. 557. Taahira W. by McCord-Salley v. Travis, D.C.Ill.1995, 908 F.Supp. 533. Moran v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 1228. Little v. Illinois Dep't of Revenue, Bureau of Criminal Investigation, D.C.Ill.1995, 907 F.Supp. 280. Graves v. Tru-Link Fence Co., D.C.Ill.1995, 905 F.Supp. 515. Moore v. Fidelity Financial Servs., Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 869 F.Supp. 557. Worthington v. Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc., D.C.Ind.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1067. National Serv. Ass'n, Inc. v. Capitol Bankers Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 227. American Needle & Novelty, Inc. v. Drew Pearson Marketing, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 1072. Havey v. County of DuPage, D.C.Ill.1993, 820 F.Supp. 359. Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc. v. CJR Processing, Inc., D.C.Ill.1992, 808 F.Supp. 652. Illinois Constructors Corp. v. Morency & Associates, Inc., D.C.Ill.1992, 802 F.Supp. 185. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Devon Bank, D.C.Ill.1988, 702 F.Supp. 652, 660, quoting Wright & Miller. Grove School v. Guardianship & Advocacy Comm'n, D.C.Ill.1984, 596 F.Supp. 1361, 1366, citing Wright & Miller. International Administrators, Inc. v. Life Ins. Co. of No. America, D.C.Ill.1982, 553 F.Supp. 82. Knapp v. McCoy, D.C.Ill.1982, 548 F.Supp. 1115, 1116, citing Wright & Miller. Craft v. Board of Trustees, D.C.Ill.1981, 516 F.Supp. 1317, 1323, citing Wright & Miller. Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1976, 424 F.Supp. 830, affirmed without opinion C.A.7th, 1978, 571 F.2d 586. Nihiser v. Sendak, D.C.Ind.1974, 405 F.Supp. 482, vacated on other grounds 1975, 96 S.Ct. 378, 423 U.S. 976, 46 L.Ed.2d 291, affirmed without opinion 1977, 97 S.Ct. 2914, 431 U.S. 961, 53 L.Ed.2d 1057. Scoma v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ill.1974, 391 F.Supp. 452. Garza v. Chicago Health Clubs, Inc., D.C.Ill.1972, 347 F.Supp. 955. Huey v. Barloga, D.C.Ill.1967, 277 F.Supp. 864. In re Smurzynski, Bkrtcy.D.C.Ill.1987, 72 B.R. 368, 371.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Eighth Circuit Bonner v. Circuit Ct. of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, C.A.8th, 1975, 526 F.2d 1331, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 1418, 424 U.S. 946, 47 L.Ed.2d 353. Christian Children's Fund Inc. v. Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Ct., D.C.S.D.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 1161. Vizenor v. Babbitt, D.C.Minn.1996, 927 F.Supp. 1193. Tyler v. Ryan, D.C.Mo.1976, 419 F.Supp. 905. Battle v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., D.C.Minn.1975, 399 F.Supp. 900. U.S. v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n, D.C.Mo.1966, 263 F.Supp. 340, reversed per curiam on other grounds 1967, 88 S.Ct. 106, 389 U.S. 27, 19 L.Ed.2d 28. In re Hollis & Co., Bkrtcy.D.C.Ark.1988, 86 B.R. 152.

Ninth Circuit Pruitt v. Cheney, C.A.9th, 1991, 963 F.2d 1160, 1164, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 655, 506 U.S. 1020, 121 L.Ed.2d 581. U.S. v. Howell, C.A.9th, 1963, 318 F.2d 162. "A cause of action may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) either when it asserts a legal theory that is not cognizable as a matter of law, or if it fails to allege sufficient facts to support an otherwise cognizable legal claim." Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library, 2011 WL 4499043, *2 (D. Mont. 2011). Kapu v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2010 WL 2943339, *2 (D. Haw. 2010) ("A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for one of two reasons: "(1) lack of a cognizable legal theory, or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.""). Knievel v. ESPN, Incorporated, D.C.Mont.2002, 223 F.Supp.2d 1173. Kerr v. Wanderer & Wanderer, D.C.Nev.2002, 211 F.R.D. 625. Migliori v. Boeing No. American, Inc., D.C.Cal.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 1001. A court will dismiss the complaint only when it lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Allison v. Brooktree Corp., D.C.Cal.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1342. Ramage v. Forbes Int'l Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 987 F.Supp. 810. Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1303. Meek v. County of Riverside, D.C.Cal.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1410, affirmed in part, dismissed in part on other grounds C.A.9th, 1999, 183 F.3d 962. Bureerong v. Uvawas, D.C.Cal.1996, 922 F.Supp. 1450. SEC v. Cross Financial Servs., Inc., D.C.Cal.1995, 908 F.Supp. 718. In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, D.C.Wash.1991, 780 F.Supp. 1551, 1561 n. 14, citing Wright & Miller. Espinoza v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc., D.C.Ariz.1990, 806 F.Supp. 855.

Tenth Circuit Barrett v. Tallon, C.A.10th, 1994, 30 F.3d 1296, citing Wright & Miller (district court erred in dismissing complaint without considering whether it gave rise to other claims for relief). Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corp., C.A.10th, 1979, 631 F.2d 1369, 1375 n. 5, citing Wright & Miller, on remand D.C.Colo.1982, 554 F.Supp. 708. FDIC v. Frates, D.C.Okl.1999, 44 F.Supp.2d 1176. Martin v. Stites, D.C.Kan.1998, 31 F.Supp.2d 926 (courts should not dismiss claims when prayer for relief appears to ask for unwarranted remedy, but only when allegations of complaint fail to show that pleader is entitled to some relief). Morrison v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C., D.C.Colo.1997, 983 F.Supp. 937. Cotton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., D.C.Okl.1988, 699 F.Supp. 251. In re Longhorn Secs. Litigation, D.C.Okl.1983, 573 F.Supp. 255, 265, citing Wright & Miller.

Eleventh Circuit Mack v. City of High Springs, 486 Fed. Appx. 3 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) ("To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6), the plaintiff must plead 'either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.'"), quoting Financial Sec. Assur., Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1282-1283 (11th Cir. 2007)

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

“‘[W]hile notice pleading may not require that the pleader allege a specific fact to cover every element or allege 'with precision' each element of a claim, it is still necessary that a complaint contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.’” Davis v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp., 2011 WL 3489886 (N.D. Ala. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Roe v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001). Fraginals v. Postmaster Gen., D.C.Fla.2003, 265 F.Supp.2d 1309. Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd., D.C.Fla.1996, 944 F.Supp. 1538. Vernon v. Medical Management Associates of Margate, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 912 F.Supp. 1549. Trustees of the Hotel Indus. Pension Fund v. Carol Management Corp., D.C.Fla.1995, 880 F.Supp. 1548. Bunger v. Hartman, D.C.Fla.1994, 851 F.Supp. 461. Scarfato v. National Cash Register Corp., D.C.Fla.1993, 830 F.Supp. 1441. Bender v. CenTrust Mortgage Corp., D.C.Fla.1992, 833 F.Supp. 1525, appeal dismissed C.A.11th, 1995, 51 F.3d 1027. Bunger v. Hartman, D.C.Fla.1992, 797 F.Supp. 968. Landmark Tower Associates v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, D.C.Fla.1977, 439 F.Supp. 195. Hutson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Ga.1970, 50 F.R.D. 406.

D.C. Circuit The plaintiff did not waive the right to assert two unargued theories when the argued theory was dismissed, because the complaint clearly supported the others. Edmond v. U.S. Postal Serv. Gen. Counsel, C.A.1991, 949 F.2d 415, 431, 292 U.S.App.D.C. 240, rehearing denied C.A.1992, 953 F.2d 1398, 293 U.S. App.D.C. 298, citing Wright & Miller. Adams v. Bell, C.A.1983, 711 F.2d 161, 187, n. 89, 228 U.S.App.D.C. 375, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 104 S.Ct. 1272, 465 U.S. 1021, 79 L.Ed.2d 678. Church of Scientology of California v. Foley, C.A.1981, 640 F.2d 1335, 1338 n. 18, 205 U.S.App.D.C. 364, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 3110, 452 U.S. 961, 69 L.Ed.2d 972.

Federal Circuit C & F Packing Co. v. IBP, Incorporated, C.A.Fed., 2000, 224 F.3d 1296. Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Sys., Inc., C.A.Fed., 2000, 203 F.3d 790.

See also "A complaint need not identify legal theories, and specifying an incorrect theory is not a fatal error." Rabe v. United Air Lines, Inc., 636 F.3d 866, 872 (7th Cir. 2011). McLaughlin v. Chicago Transit Authority, D.C.Ill.2003, 243 F.Supp.2d 778 (plaintiff need not cite case law at Rule 12(b)(6) stage). Savage v. Hatcher, D.C.Ohio 2002, 2002 WL 484986. City of New Orleans v. Board of Comm'rs of Orleans Levee Dist., La.1994, 640 So.2d 237, 253, citing Wright & Miller, appeal after remand La.App.4th Cir.1996, 694 So.2d 975. Monroe v. Darr, 1974, 520 P.2d 1197, 1201, 214 Kan. 426, quoting Wright & Miller. Orwick v. City of Seattle, 1984, 692 P.2d 793, 797, 103 Wash.2d 249, citing Wright & Miller. See also vol. 5, § 1219.

But see Stubblefield v. CIR, D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 850196. To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must state sufficient allegations to establish the necessary elements for recovery under whatever legal theory the plaintiff has chosen. Thomas v. L'Eggs Prods., Inc., D.C.Ill.1998, 13 F.Supp.2d 806.

But compare "A complaint containing a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action is insufficient." Bishop v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 520 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008) (McKeague, J.), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 550, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). For further discussion of the Twombly case, see the Pocket Part for § 1216. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare System, LP, 516 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2008). In re American Funds Secs. Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (C.D. Cal. 2008).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

“Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Hawkins v. San Mateo County Law Library, D.C.Cal.2007, 2007 WL 1795749, *3, citing Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, C.A.9th, 1990, 901 F.2d 696, 699. “When opposing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, ‘a plaintiff cannot expect a trial court to do his homework for him.’ Plaintiff is responsible for putting his best foot forward in an effort to present a legal theory that will support his claim.” The plaintiff must set forth factual allegations with respect to each material element of some actionable theory. Viera-Marcano v. Ramirez-Sanchez, D.C.Puerto Rico 2002, 224 F.Supp.2d 397 (Garcia-Gregory, J.), quoting McCoy v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, C.A.1st, 1991, 950 F.2d 13, 22, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 1939, 504 U.S. 910, 118 L.Ed.2d 545. 50 Relief may be granted Neitzke v. Williams, 1989, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 490 U.S. 319, 104 L.Ed.2d 338. “ ‘Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance * * * dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations. * * * A court ruling on * * * a [Rule 12(b)(6) ] motion may not properly dismiss a complaint that states a plausible version of the events merely because the court finds a different version more plausible.' In fact, 'a well-pleaded complaint may proceed if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of the facts alleged is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.'" Evergreen Partnering Group, Inc. v. Pactiv Corp., 720 F.3d 33, 45 (1st Cir. 2013), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007); Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162, 185 (2d Cir. 2012). Boyle v. U.S., C.A.Fed., 2000, 200 F.3d 1369. Indest v. Freeman Decorating, Inc., C.A.5th, 1999, 164 F.3d 258 (dismissal appropriate because plaintiff failed to set forth any facts upon which relief could be granted). “ ‘I was turned down for a job because of my race’ is all a complaint has to say.” Bennett v. Schmidt, C.A.7th, 1998, 153 F.3d 516, 518, on remand D.C.Ill.2000, 2000 WL 1161073 (Easterbrook, J.). Webb v. Lawrence County, C.A.8th, 1998, 144 F.3d 1131. Pack v. U.S., C.A.9th, 1993, 992 F.2d 955. Edmond v. U.S. Postal Serv. Gen. Counsel, C.A.1991, 949 F.2d 415, 292 U.S.App.D.C. 240, rehearing denied C.A.1992, 953 F.2d 1398, 293 U.S.App.D.C. 298. Doe v. U.S. Department of Justice, C.A.1985, 753 F.2d 1092, 1104, 243 U.S.App.D.C. 354, quoting Wright & Miller. Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, C.A.2d, 1968, 395 F.2d 920. U.S. v. Howell, C.A.9th, 1963, 318 F.2d 162. Although part of the relief demanded by the plaintiffs could not possibly be granted, the complaint should not have been dismissed, since the question was not whether all of the relief asked for could be granted, but whether the plaintiffs could be accorded any relief. Lada v. Wilkie, C.A.8th, 1957, 250 F.2d 211. Kerr v. Wanderer & Wanderer, D.C.Nev.2002, 211 F.R.D. 625. Popovice v. Milides, D.C.Pa.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 638. Florian Greenhouse, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 521. Wise v. U.S., D.C.Va.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 535. Eirschele by & through Eirschele v. Craven County Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.C.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 655. Duffy v. County of Bucks, D.C.Pa.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 569. Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., D.C.Tex.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 618. Cable v. New York State Thruway Authority, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 120. Dill v. Pennsylvania, D.C.Pa.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 583. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shulimson Bros. Co., D.C.N.C.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 553. Stewart v. Associates Consumer Discount Co., D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 469. Bermudez Zenon v. Restaurant Compostela, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 1992, 790 F.Supp. 41, 44 n. 4, citing Wright & Miller. Afanador v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Puerto Rico 1991, 787 F.Supp. 261, 270 n. 17, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.1st, 1992, 976 F.2d 724. Margetson v. United Van Lines, Inc., D.C.N.M.1991, 785 F.Supp. 917, 922, quoting Wright & Miller. Lumbard v. Maglia, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1985, 621 F.Supp. 1529, 1537, citing Wright & Miller. Yakin v. University of Illinois, Chicago Circle Campus, D.C.Ill.1981, 508 F.Supp. 848, 854, citing Wright & Miller. Trivits v. Wilmington Institute, D.C.Del.1974, 383 F.Supp. 457. Lewis v. Dansker, D.C.N.Y.1974, 68 F.R.D. 184.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Even if the punitive, consequential, and mental suffering damages prayed for by an insured suing an insurer for breach of contract were impermissible forms of recovery, a motion to dismiss the complaint would have to be denied because some form of relief, such as compensatory damages, certainly would be available to remedy a breach of contract. Asher v. Reliance Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1970, 308 F.Supp. 847. Asphaltic Enterprises, Inc. v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., D.C.Pa.1966, 39 F.R.D. 574. A court will not dismiss the entire action because the plaintiff has asked for more than that to which he may be entitled. McHugh v. Reserve Mining Co., D.C.Ohio 1961, 27 F.R.D. 505. Westheimer v. Bennett, D.C.N.Y.1959, 172 F.Supp. 294. Dudley v. Zappa, D.C.N.Y.1959, 24 F.R.D. 427.

See also State ex rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 1983, 667 P.2d 1304, 1309, 136 Ariz. 589, citing Wright & Miller. 50.1 Bano case C.A.2d, 2004, 361 F.3d 696. 51 Discussion elsewhere See vol. 5, § 1216. Some illustrative cases are: Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 2007, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 550 U.S. 544, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (Court's most recent clarification of Rule 8 pleading standards). For further discussion of the Twombly case, see the Pocket Part for vol. 5, § 1216. Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. U.S., 671 F.3d 1284, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when the facts asserted do not give rise to a legal remedy * * *."). Bazan v. White, 275 Fed. Appx. 312 (5th Cir. 2008) (dismissal is proper if complaint fails to allege required element of offense). Wittstock v. Mark A. Van Sile, Inc., C.A.6th, 2003, 330 F.3d 899. Tahfs v. Proctor, C.A.6th, 2003, 316 F.3d 584. Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., C.A.1st, 2002, 310 F.3d 13 (court cannot uphold complaint that fails to establish essential nexus between underlying events and theory of relief). General Star Indem. Co. v. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp., C.A.5th, 1999, 173 F.3d 946. Lepelletier v. FDIC, C.A.1999, 164 F.3d 37, 334 U.S.App.D.C. 37, appeal after remand C.A.D.C.2001, 23 Fed.Appx. 4 (dismissal appropriate because plaintiff failed to set forth any facts upon which relief could be granted). Penn v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, C.A.8th, 1993, 999 F.2d 305. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, C.A.3d, 1993, 1 F.3d 176, quoting Wright & Miller. In re DeLorean Motor Co., C.A.6th, 1993, 991 F.2d 1236. Hill v. Nigro, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 436133, quoting Wright & Miller. El–Bey v. Peer, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 231627. Rinald (Neifert) v. Komar, D.C.N.J.2006, 2006 WL 166449. Keane v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., D.C.Tex.2004, 297 F.Supp.2d 921, citing Wright & Miller. Leopoldo Fontanillas, Inc. v. Luis Ayala Colon Sucesores, Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 579. Rivera de Leon v. Maxon Engineering Servs., Inc., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 550. Torres Ocasio v. Melendez, D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 505. Kell v. American Capital Strategies, Ltd., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 278 F.Supp.2d 156. Acevedo Vargas v. Colon, D.C.Puerto Rico 2002, 236 F.Supp.2d 195. To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege facts that if proved would result in the requested relief. The complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory. Jersevic v. Kuhl, D.C.Mich.2002, 2002 WL 84624 (unpublished). Rhee Bros., Inc. v. Han Ah Reum Corp., D.C.Md.2001, 178 F.Supp.2d 525, quoting Wright & Miller. FTC v. Citigroup Inc., D.C.Ga.2001, 2001 WL 1763439, quoting Wright & Miller (unpublished). “In practice, a complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Edwards v. Physician's Credit Bureau, D.C.Ohio 2001, 2001 WL 1678783, 2 (unpublished) (Smith, J.).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Heinrich ex rel. Heinrich v. Sweet, D.C.Mass.1999, 62 F.Supp.2d 282. Klavan v. Crozer-Chester Medical Center, D.C.Pa.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 436. Llewellyn-Waters v. University of Puerto Rico, D.C.Puerto Rico 1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 159. Santerre v. Agip Petroleum Co., D.C.Tex.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 558. Federal Express Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.Tenn.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 943. Holder v. Ivanjack, A.D.S., D.C.Ill.1999, 39 F.Supp.2d 965. Feighery v. York Hosp., D.C.Me.1999, 38 F.Supp.2d 142. York v. Huerta-Garcia, D.C.Cal.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 1231 (complaint that is vague, conclusory, and fails to set forth material facts in support of allegations is subject to dismissal). Hurtado v. Reno, D.C.Colo.1999, 34 F.Supp.2d 1261 (complaint failing to allege involvement of named defendants is insufficient). Hollar v. Philip Morris Inc., D.C.Ohio 1998, 43 F.Supp.2d 794. Pegasus Holdings v. Veterinary Centers of America, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 38 F.Supp.2d 1158 (dismissal appropriate if complaint does not contain sufficient facts to support legal theory). Atilano v. U.S., D.C.Nev.1998, 30 F.Supp.2d 1276 (dismissal appropriate when pleading lacks cognizable legal theory or facts sufficient to support theory). Bricker v. Federal-Mogul Corp., D.C.Ind.1998, 29 F.Supp.2d 508. U.S. ex rel. Roby v. Boeing Co., D.C.Ohio 1998, 184 F.R.D. 107 (complaint must contain direct or inferential allegations for all material elements of some theory). Nappi v. Meridian Leasing Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1177. Estate of Cassara by Cassara v. Illinois, D.C.Ill.1994, 853 F.Supp. 273. McCulley v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, D.C.Wis.1994, 851 F.Supp. 1271. Adams v. Cavanagh Communities Corp., D.C.Ill.1994, 847 F.Supp. 1390. A.I. Credit Corp. v. Hartford Computer Group, Inc., D.C.Ill.1994, 847 F.Supp. 588. Hicks v. Arthur, D.C.Pa.1994, 843 F.Supp. 949. Moten v. American Linen Supply Co., D.C.Kan.1994, 155 F.R.D. 202. Budget Rent A Car of Westchester, Inc. v. Rental Car Resources, Inc., D.C.Conn.1993, 842 F.Supp. 614. Heller Int'l Corp. v. Sharp, D.C.Ill.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1297. Greenley v. Meersman, D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 381. Wilson v. Formigoni, D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 1152, reversed on other grounds C.A.7th, 1994, 42 F.3d 1060. Matter v. Williams, D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 244. National Serv. Ass'n, Inc. v. Capitol Bankers Life Ins. Co., D.C.Ill.1993, 832 F.Supp. 227. Scarfato v. The National Cash Register Corp., D.C.Fla.1993, 830 F.Supp. 1441. Neal v. Honeywell, Inc., D.C.Ill.1993, 826 F.Supp. 266, affirmed C.A.11th, 1994, 33 F.3d 860. Gruben v. Famous-Barr Co., D.C.Mo.1993, 823 F.Supp. 664. Smith v. Lyles, D.C.Ill.1993, 822 F.Supp. 541 (complaint must allege all elements necessary for recovery). Vorvis v. Southern New England Telephone Co., D.C.Conn.1993, 821 F.Supp. 851. Toner v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Del.1993, 821 F.Supp. 276, citing Wright & Miller. Tracy v. Bittles, D.C.Ind.1993, 820 F.Supp. 396. Computer Leasco, Inc. v. Volvo White Truck Corp., D.C.Mich.1993, 820 F.Supp. 326. Greenan v. Romeo Village Police Dep't, D.C.Mich.1993, 819 F.Supp. 658. Petersen v. University of Wisconsin Bd. of Regents, D.C.Wis.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1276. 52 Doubtful case

Supreme Court Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 2007, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 550 U.S. 544, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (“Of course, a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable”). Rule 8(a) establishes a pleading standard without regard to whether a claim will succeed on the merits. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 152 L.Ed.2d 1. Neitzke v. Williams, 1989, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 490 U.S. 319, 104 L.Ed.2d 338.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

First Circuit Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12-13 (1st Cir. 2011) (reasonableness of inference of liability should be focus of court, not likelihood of claim's ultimate success). Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Waste Management, Inc., C.A.1st, 1993, 998 F.2d 1073, on remand D.C.Me.1993, 838 F.Supp. 17. Developmental Disabilities Advocacy Center, Inc. v. Melton, C.A.1st, 1982, 689 F.2d 281, quoting Wright & Miller. Miranda v. Deloitte LLP, 922 F. Supp. 2d 210, 217 (D.P.R. 2013) (non-conclusory factual allegations must be taken as true even if "seemingly incredible"), quoting R.G. Financial Corp. v. Vergara-Nunez, 446 F.3d 178, 182 (1st Cir. 2006). Rios-DaSilva v. One, Inc., 2013 WL 5912573, *4 (D.P.R. 2013).

Second Circuit Phelps v. Kapnolas, C.A.2d, 2002, 308 F.3d 180. Chance v. Armstrong, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 698, appeal after remand C.A.2d, 1998, 159 F.3d 1345. Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Ass'n, Inc., 2013 WL 5960748, *4 (E.D. N.Y. 2013) ("The issue on a motion to dismiss is 'not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.'"), quoting Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir. 2001). Palkimas v. Bella, 2010 WL 2712192, *2 (D. Conn. 2010). Allstate Ins. Co. v. Seigel, D.C.Conn.2004, 312 F.Supp.2d 260. Johnson v. Bryco Arms, D.C.N.Y.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 383. Sharp v. Bivona, D.C.N.Y.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 357. Copeland v. Home & Community Health Servs., D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 144. Longmoor v. Nilsen, D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 132. Shenandoah v. Halbritter, D.C.N.Y.2003, 275 F.Supp.2d 279. Kato v. Ishihara, D.C.N.Y.2002, 239 F.Supp.2d 359, affirmed C.A.2d, 2004, 360 F.3d 106. Berg v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, D.C.N.Y.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 121. Gregory v. Daly, D.C.N.Y.1999, 78 F.Supp.2d 48, affirmed in part, vacated in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 2001, 243 F.3d 687. Asdourian v. Konstantin, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 349. Arizona Premium Fin., Inc. v. Bielli, D.C.N.Y.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 341. Gaynor v. Martin, D.C.Conn.1999, 77 F.Supp.2d 272. East Hampton Airport Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Town Bd. of the Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 139. Kirkpatrick v. Rays Group, D.C.N.Y.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 204. Coddington v. Adelphi Univ., D.C.N.Y.1999, 45 F.Supp.2d 211. Ziemba v. Slater, D.C.Conn.1999, 36 F.Supp.2d 81 (test is not whether plaintiff is likely to prevail). Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1999, 190 F.R.D. 134. Thanning v. Nassau County Medical Examiners Office, D.C.N.Y.1999, 187 F.R.D. 69. Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 277, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.2d, 1999, 191 F.3d 229. Alba v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.1998, 999 F.Supp. 687. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1998, 997 F.Supp. 340. Parisi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 298, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 38. Tucker v. Kenney, D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 412. Continental Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, D.C.N.Y.1998, 994 F.Supp. 133. Proctor v. Vadlamudi, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 156. Harrison v. NBD Incorporated, D.C.N.Y.1998, 990 F.Supp. 179. National Ass'n of College Bookstores, Inc. v. Cambridge Univ. Press, D.C.N.Y.1997, 990 F.Supp. 245. Rogers v. New York City Bd. of Elections, D.C.N.Y.1997, 988 F.Supp. 409. Michael Coppel Promotions Pty. Ltd. v. Bolton, D.C.N.Y.1997, 982 F.Supp. 950. Rohrer v. FSI Futures, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1997, 981 F.Supp. 270. Bernbach v. Timex Corp., D.C.Conn.1996, 989 F.Supp. 403. Aramony v. United Way of America, D.C.N.Y.1996, 949 F.Supp. 1080. Naso v. Park, D.C.N.Y.1994, 850 F.Supp. 264.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Lawrence v. Cade & Saunders, P.C., D.C.N.Y.1993, 149 F.R.D. 14. Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York City, Inc. v. Dinkins, D.C.N.Y.1992, 805 F.Supp. 159, affirmed C.A.2d, 1993, 5 F.3d 591. Schieffelin & Co. v. Jack Co. of Boca, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1989, 725 F.Supp. 1314. The issue to be decided on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was not whether plaintiff ultimately would prevail in the action, but whether it was entitled to proceed with discovery and offer evidence in support of its claim. Speed Auto Sales, Inc. v. American Motors Corp., D.C.N.Y.1979, 477 F.Supp. 1193. In re State St. Associates, L.P., Bkrtcy.D.C.N.Y.2005, 323 B.R. 544.

Third Circuit Baldwin v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 636 F.3d 69, 74 (3d Cir. 2011). Renfro v. Unisys Corp., Pens. Plan Guide P 24009R, 2011 WL 3630121, *3 (3d Cir. 2011) (determination is not whether plaintiff ultimately will prevail but whether complaint is sufficient to pass court's threshold). Nami v. Fauver, C.A.3d, 1996, 82 F.3d 63. No matter how likely it may seem that the pleader will be unable to prove his case, he is entitled, upon averring a claim, to an opportunity to attempt to prove it. Melo-Sonics Corp. v. Cropp, C.A.3d, 1965, 342 F.2d 856. Continental Collieries, Inc. v. Shober, C.A.3d, 1942, 130 F.2d 631. Raul v. Rynd, 929 F. Supp. 2d 333, 341 (D. Del. 2013), quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997). Logue v. West Penn Multi-List, Inc., 2010 WL 2720787, *1 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Tatsch-Corbin v. Feathers, 561 F. Supp. 2d 538 (W.D. Pa. 2008). Matheson v. Virgin Islands Community Bank, Corp., D.C.Virgin Islands 2003, 297 F.Supp.2d 819. Tri Star Farms Ltd. v. Marconi, PLC, D.C.Pa.2002, 225 F.Supp.2d 567. Township of So. Fayette v. Allegheny County Housing Authority, D.C.Pa.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 582. Florian Greenhouse, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Corp., D.C.N.J.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 521. Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, D.C.N.J.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 460. Township of West Orange v. Whitman, D.C.N.J.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 408. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Trump, D.C.Pa.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 489, affirmed C.A.3d, 1999, 182 F.3d 183. Ramirez v. U.S., D.C.N.J.1998, 998 F.Supp. 425. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Arcadian Corp., D.C.N.J.1997, 991 F.Supp. 390, affirmed C.A.3d, 1999, 189 F.3d 305. Pagano v. Bell Atl. New Jersey, Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 988 F.Supp. 841. Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank v. San Clemente Financial Group Secs., Inc., D.C.N.J.1997, 174 F.R.D. 572. SEC v. Bennett, D.C.Pa.1995, 904 F.Supp. 435. Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., D.C.N.J.1992, 820 F.Supp. 834. Fuller v. Highway Truck Drivers & Helpers Local 107, D.C.Pa.1964, 233 F.Supp. 115. Aberdeen Hills Second Corp. v. Biafore, D.C.Pa.1960, 24 F.R.D. 502.

Fourth Circuit McLean v. U.S., 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2009). Moore v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 278 Fed. Appx. 238 (4th Cir. 2008) (dismissal motion does not resolve contests surrounding facts or merits of claim). Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson, C.A.4th, 1994, 15 F.3d 333 (court expressed skepticism that plaintiff ultimately could prevail on claim but reversed lower court's grant of Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Revene v. Charles County Comm'rs, C.A.4th, 1989, 882 F.2d 870 (dismissal improper even if factual assertions are equally consistent with conclusion contrary to plaintiff's). Adams v. Bain, C.A.4th, 1982, 697 F.2d 1213, 1216, citing Wright & Miller. Alston v. North Carolina A & T State Univ., D.C.N.C.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 774. Rhee Bros., Inc. v. Han Ah Reum Corp., D.C.Md.2001, 178 F.Supp.2d 525, quoting Wright & Miller. Bryant v. Clevelands, Inc., D.C.Va.2000, 193 F.R.D. 486. Brandsasse v. City of Suffolk, Virginia, D.C.Va.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 608. Bobbitt by Bobbitt v. Rage Inc., D.C.N.C.1998, 19 F.Supp.2d 512, citing Wright & Miller. Wise v. U.S., D.C.Va.1998, 8 F.Supp.2d 535.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion cannot be granted simply because recovery is unlikely. White v. CMA Construction Co., D.C.Va.1996, 947 F.Supp. 231. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, S.S. Clerks Local 1624, AFL-CIO v. Virginia Int'l Terminals, Inc., D.C.Va.1996, 914 F.Supp. 1335. Materson v. Stokes, D.C.Va.1996, 166 F.R.D. 368. Fratus v. U.S., D.C.Va.1994, 859 F.Supp. 991. Chisolm v. Charlie Falk Auto Wholesalers, Inc., D.C.Va.1994, 851 F.Supp. 739. Higgins v. Medical College of Hampton Roads, D.C.Va.1994, 849 F.Supp. 1113. B.M.H. by C.B. v. School Bd. of City of Chesapeake, Virginia, D.C.Va.1993, 833 F.Supp. 560.

Fifth Circuit The court must accept all the factual allegations as true even if they are doubtful in fact. Lexington Ins. Co. v. S.H.R.M. Catering Services, Inc., 567 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2009). U.S. ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., C.A.5th, 2004, 355 F.3d 370. Even when it appears almost a certainty to the court that the facts alleged cannot be proved to support a legal claim, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must be overruled. Boudeloche v. Grow Chem. Coatings Corp., C.A.5th, 1984, 728 F.2d 759. Mann v. Adams Realty Co., C.A.5th, 1977, 556 F.2d 288. Due v. Tallahassee Theatres, Inc., C.A.5th, 1964, 333 F.2d 630. Guidry v. Copes, D.C.La.2007, 2007 WL 316978 (court took care not to offer opinion on merits of pro se inmate's complaint, but found it would be inequitable to dismiss with prejudice). Graves v. Tubb, D.C.Miss.2003, 281 F.Supp.2d 886. Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 423, transferred to D.C.Miss.2001, 2001 WL 1543890. Lowery v. Carrier Corp., D.C.Tex.1997, 953 F.Supp. 151. In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Miss.1993, 826 F.Supp. 1019.

Sixth Circuit Mediacom Southeast LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 672 F.3d 396, 399 (6th Cir. 2012) ("This very well may be the proper question of law on a motion for summary judgment-assuming there are no genuine issues of material fact-but it is not the proper inquiry for a motion to dismiss. At this stage, the single question is whether plaintiff's complaint includes 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1973, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Montesi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 4522905, *2 (W.D. Tenn. 2013) ("While plausibility requires relief to be more than speculative, it need not be probable; rather, “ ‘a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that recovery is very remote and unlikely.'"), quoting Erie County, Ohio v. Morton Salt, Inc., 702 F.3d 860, 867 (6th Cir. 2012). Brainard v. Vassar, 561 F. Supp. 2d 922 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). Brown v. Voorhies, 2008 WL 2397692 (S.D. Ohio 2008). Weston & Co., Inc. v. Vanamatic Co., 2008 WL 2266319 (E.D. Mich. 2008). Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Sai Baba, Inc., D.C.Ohio 2004, 300 F.Supp.2d 583. Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Tenn.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 832, appeal dismissed C.A.6th, 2001, 2 Fed.Appx. 470. Baseball at Trotwood, LLC, v. Dayton Professional Baseball Club, LLC D.C.Ohio 1999, 113 F.Supp.2d 1164. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 35 F.Supp.2d 597. A judge should not grant a motion to dismiss merely because he does not believe the plaintiff's allegations. Grindstaff v. Green, D.C.Tenn.1996, 946 F.Supp. 540, affirmed C.A.6th, 1998, 133 F.3d 416. Ketron v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Authority, D.C.Tenn.1996, 919 F.Supp. 280. Sharp v. Rainey, D.C.Tenn.1996, 910 F.Supp. 394. Smith v. Grumman-Olsen Corp., D.C.Tenn.1995, 913 F.Supp. 1077. Easterly v. Advance Stores Co., D.C.Tenn.1976, 432 F.Supp. 7.

Compare Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1099, 129 S. Ct. 909, 173 L.Ed.2d 109 (2009).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Seventh Circuit Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 752 (7th Cir. 2011). Walker v. National Recovery, Inc., C.A.7th, 1999, 200 F.3d 500. “Pressure from the flux of cases makes early disposition of weak claims attractive, freeing judicial time for others that appear to have superior prospects. Matters that formerly were tried now are resolved by summary judgment. But the next time-saving step— resolving under Rule 12(b)(6) matters that formerly were handled by summary judgment—is incompatible with the Rules of Civil Procedure.” Bennett v. Schmidt, C.A.7th, 1998, 153 F.3d 516, 518, on remand D.C.Ill.2000, 2000 WL 1161073 (Easterbrook, J.). Moriarty v. Larry G. Lewis Funeral Directors Ltd., C.A.7th, 1998, 150 F.3d 773. Peterson Steels, Inc. v. Seidmon, C.A.7th, 1951, 188 F.2d 193. Kirke v. Texas Co., C.A.7th, 1951, 186 F.2d 643. “Although it appears highly unlikely that plaintiff will be able prove his claim against defendants …, that is not the standard for determining a motion to dismiss.” Williams v. Doyle, D.C.Wis.2007, 494 F.Supp.2d 1019, 1029, citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 1974, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 40 L.Ed.2d 90. Ryan v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., D.C.Ind.2007, 2007 WL 2316474 (for citation rules see Seventh Circuit Rule 53). Navarro v. FDIC, D.C.Ill.2003, 254 F.Supp.2d 1013. Deloughery v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.2002, 2002 WL 31654942 (although court was skeptical of plaintiffs' ability to prove delegation they claimed, amended complaint entitled them to opportunity to try). Williams v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Ill.1997, 980 F.Supp. 938. “Ultimately plaintiffs may not be able to prove the Complaint's allegations. Ultimately the Class may not be entitled to exactly the type of relief the Complaint seeks. But such ultimate possibilities are not the stuff of which a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is fashioned.” Quinones v. Coler, D.C.Ill.1987, 651 F.Supp. 1028, 1034 (Shadur, J.). Pointer v. American Oil Co., D.C.Ind.1968, 295 F.Supp. 573.

Eighth Circuit Ring v. First Interstate Mortgage, Inc., C.A.8th, 1993, 984 F.2d 924. Bramlet v. Wilson, C.A.8th, 1974, 495 F.2d 714. Thomason v. Hospital T.V. Rentals, Inc., C.A.8th, 1959, 272 F.2d 263. Grover-Tsimi v. Minnesota, 2010 WL 2732508, *4 (D. Minn. 2010). Hart v. U.S., 2010 WL 2720819, *2 (E.D. Mo. 2010). Hawkins v. County of Lincoln, 2010 WL 2039656, *2 (D. Neb. 2010). Motley v. Homecomings Financial, LLC, 557 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (D. Minn. 2008). Greer v. St. Louis City Justice Center, D.C.Mo.2007, 2007 WL 2735644. Doe v. Hartz, D.C.Iowa 1999, 52 F.Supp.2d 1027. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stockdale Agency, D.C.Iowa 1999, 50 F.Supp.2d 871 (courts should not dismiss claims because they disbelieve plaintiff's factual allegations). Dethmers Mfg. Co. v. Automatic Equip. Mfg. Co., D.C.Iowa 1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 974. Force v. ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., D.C.Minn.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 843. Leiberkneckt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., D.C.Iowa 1997, 980 F.Supp. 300. Powell v. Tordoff, D.C.Iowa 1995, 911 F.Supp. 1184. James v. Ford Motor Credit Co., D.C.Minn.1994, 842 F.Supp. 1202, affirmed C.A.8th, 1995, 47 F.3d 961. Wiltgen v. U.S., D.C.Iowa 1992, 813 F.Supp. 1387, 1388 n. 1. Geir v. Educational Serv. Unit No. 16, D.C.Neb.1992, 144 F.R.D. 680 (Mem. Order & Recommendation) (Peister, M.J.).

Ninth Circuit Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1215 (9th Cir. 2011). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not inquire into whether or not the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits. Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 579 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2009). Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 523 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008). Although the court was highly incredulous, the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act. Allison v. California Adult Authority, C.A.9th, 1969, 419 F.2d 822.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Although allegations in the complaint “could be said to tax a reader's credulity,” the court reversed a dismissal for failure to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act. Brown v. Brown, C.A.9th, 1966, 368 F.2d 992, 993, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 133, 385 U.S. 868, 17 L.Ed.2d 95. Walker Distrib. Co. v. Lucky Lager Brewing Co., C.A.9th, 1963, 323 F.2d 1, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 507, 385 U.S. 976, 17 L.Ed.2d 438. Baca ex rel. Nominal Defendant Insight Enterprises, Inc. v. Crown, 2010 WL 2812712, *3 (D. Ariz. 2010). Buick v. World Savs. Bank, 2008 WL 2413172 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (mem. op.), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Keough v. City of San Francisco, D.C.Cal.2007, 2007 WL 1655630. NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, D.C.Cal.2005, 355 F.Supp.2d 1061 (case should be tried on proofs rather than on pleadings). 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., D.C.Cal.2004, 307 F.Supp.2d 1085. Petty v. Petty, D.C.Cal.2003, 2003 WL 21262369. Ziegler v. Ziegler, D.C.Wash.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 601 (if complaint is legally sufficient, it is irrelevant that claim seems unlikely to prevail). City of Merced v. Fields, D.C.Cal.1998, 997 F.Supp. 1326. Burns-Vidlak by Burns v. Chandler, D.C.Haw.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1144, appeal dismissed C.A.9th, 1999, 165 F.3d 1257. Forsyth v. Eli Lilly & Co., D.C.Haw.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1153. Independent Cellular Telephone, Inc. v. Daniels & Associates, D.C.Cal.1994, 863 F.Supp. 1109. Ramos v. California Committee of Bar Examiners of State Bar of California, D.C.Cal.1994, 857 F.Supp. 702. Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n, Inc., D.C.Nev.1993, 818 F.Supp. 1366. Van Dyke v. Regents of Univ. of California, D.C.Cal.1993, 815 F.Supp. 1341. Cabo Distributing Co. v. Brady, D.C.Cal.1992, 821 F.Supp. 601.

Tenth Circuit Tyler v. Tsurumi (America), Inc., 425 Fed. Appx. 702 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). MacArthur v. San Juan County, C.A.10th, 2002, 309 F.3d 1216, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct. 2252, 539 U.S. 902, 156 L.Ed.2d 110. Lymon v. Aramark Corp., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1215 (D.N.M. 2010) ("A motion to dismiss is a request to dismiss a case before discovery has taken place and thus permits only an assessment whether a complaint is sufficient on its face. In adjudicating a motion to dismiss, a court may neither grant the motion because it believes it is unlikely the plaintiff can prove the allegations, nor may it 'weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial' in assessing the motion's merit.") (internal citations omitted), quoting Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268, 1270 (10th Cir. 2001). Braintree Labs. v. Nephro-Tech, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 31 F.Supp.2d 921 (if motion rests on issues of fact, dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is not appropriate). Queen Uno Ltd. Partnership v. Coeur D'Alene Mines Corp., D.C.Colo.1998, 2 F.Supp.2d 1345. Geneva Steel Co. v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp., D.C.Utah 1997, 980 F.Supp. 1209. Turner & Boisseau, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 944 F.Supp. 842. Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., D.C.Colo.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1191, reversed on other grounds C.A.10th, 1997, 124 F.3d 1246.

Eleventh Circuit Jackam v. Hospital Corp. of America Mideast, Ltd., C.A.11th, 1986, 800 F.2d 1577, 1579–1580. Carley Capital Group v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., D.C.Ga.1998, 27 F.Supp.2d 1324. The prospect of recovery is irrelevant. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. U.S., D.C.Fla.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 1346. Tevini v. CHC International, Inc., D.C.Fla.1996, 946 F.Supp. 985.

D.C. Circuit ACLU Foundation of Southern California v. Barr, C.A.1991, 952 F.2d 457, 472, 293 U.S.App.D.C. 101, citing Wright & Miller. Marshall v. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2008). U.S. ex rel. Harris v. Bernad, D.C.D.C.2003, 275 F.Supp.2d 1.

See also Olvera v. Blitt & Gaines, P.C., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 887372.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Martin v. Mears, S.Ct.Alaska 1979, 602 P.2d 421, 429 n. 21, citing Wright & Miller. Senay v. Meehan, 1977, 364 N.E.2d 1085, 5 Mass.App. 854, citing Wright & Miller. 53 Case determined on proof Saeger v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., C.A.9th, 2004, 94 Fed.Appx. 544 (not to be cited per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3). Burstein v. Retirement Account Plan for Employees of Allegheny Health Educ. & Research Foundation, C.A.3d, 2003, 334 F.3d 365. Desiano v. Warner-Lambert Co., C.A.2d, 2003, 326 F.3d 339. Garbini v. Protection One, Inc., C.A.9th, 2002, 49 Fed.Appx. 169 (not selected for publication in Federal Reporter; not to be cited per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3). Bonham v. District of Columbia Library Admin., C.A.1993, 989 F.2d 1242, 300 U.S.App.D.C. 370. Rule 12(b)(6) is not a tool for testing the truth of allegations or for determining whether a plaintiff has evidence to back up those allegations. ACLU Foundation of Southern California v. Barr, C.A.1991, 952 F.2d 457, 293 U.S.App.D.C. 101. Miller v. Glanz, C.A.10th, 1991, 948 F.2d 1562, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 1993, 989 F.2d 507 (court's role is not to examine evidence, but rather to determine whether complaint alone is legally sufficient to state claim for relief). The office of a motion to dismiss is merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, and not to assay the weight of the evidence that might be offered in support. Geisler v. Petrocelli, C.A.2d, 1980, 616 F.2d 636. Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., C.A.2d, 1976, 551 F.2d 887. Wooten v. Shook, C.A.4th, 1975, 527 F.2d 976. Carter v. Barry, C.A.2d, 1972, 468 F.2d 821. Sass v. District of Columbia, C.A.1963, 316 F.2d 366, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 365. Arthur H. Richland Co. v. Harper, C.A.5th, 1962, 302 F.2d 324, 326. Carss v. Outboard Marine Corp., C.A.5th, 1958, 252 F.2d 690. Stanaland v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., C.A.5th, 1951, 192 F.2d 432. Preston v. Seterus, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 743, 749 (N.D. Tex. 2013) ("[D]enial 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."). “The strength of plaintiffs' claims is not at issue in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and [the court] therefore will not address those matters.” Sanderson v. Nipe, D.C.S.D.2007, 2007 WL 675488, *2. Spencer v. Town of Chapel Hill, D.C.N.C.2003, 290 F.Supp.2d 655. Gottesman v. J.H. Batten, Inc., D.C.N.C.2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 604. Jones v. Nassau County Sheriff Dep't, D.C.N.Y.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 322. Copeland v. Home & Community Health Servs., D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 144. Longmoor v. Nilsen, D.C.Conn.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 132. Nuss v. Central Iowa Binding Corp., D.C.Iowa 2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 1187. Margiotta v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 857. Averbach v. Vnescheconombank, D.C.Cal.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 945. Feigl v. Ecolab, Inc., D.C.Ill.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 846. Bair v. Shippensburg Univ., D.C.Pa.2003, 280 F.Supp.2d 357. Fedders Corp. v. Elite Classics, D.C.Ill.2003, 279 F.Supp.2d 965. Financial Trust Co., Inc. v. Citibank N.A., D.C.Virgin Islands 2003, 268 F.Supp.2d 561. Foley v. Marquez, D.C.Cal.2003, 2003 WL 22288160. Highground, Inc. v. Cetacean Networks, Inc., D.C.N.H.2003, 2003 WL 21228459. Hall v. New England Bus. Servs., Inc., D.C.N.H.2003, 2003 WL 2004375. Kato v. Ishihara, D.C.N.Y.2002, 239 F.Supp.2d 359, affirmed C.A.2d, 2004, 360 F.3d 106. FDIC v. Pelletreau & Pelletreau, D.C.N.Y.1997, 965 F.Supp. 381. Hili v. Sciarotta, D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 177, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 210. Quinones v. Howard, D.C.N.Y.1996, 948 F.Supp. 251. ABC Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 635. Fry v. McCall, D.C.N.Y.1996, 945 F.Supp. 655. Wallace v. Conroy, D.C.N.Y.1996, 945 F.Supp. 628. Turner & Boisseau, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., D.C.Kan.1996, 944 F.Supp. 842 (proper question is whether plaintiff is entitled to offer proof).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Zigman v. Giacobbe, D.C.N.Y.1996, 944 F.Supp. 147. Hernandez v. Cunningham, D.C.N.Y.1996, 914 F.Supp. 72. Cohen v. Litt, D.C.N.Y.1995, 906 F.Supp. 957. Nowosad v. English, D.C.N.Y.1995, 903 F.Supp. 377. In re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation, D.C.Pa.1993, 837 F.Supp. 104, affirmed C.A.3d, 1994, 39 F.3d 61 (court need not determine whether plaintiff will prevail, but whether plaintiff can prove facts that will allow it to prevail). City of Heath, Ohio v. Ashland Oil, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1993, 834 F.Supp. 971. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. v. Cybo Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1993, 833 F.Supp. 189. Thomas v. New York City, D.C.N.Y.1993, 814 F.Supp. 1139, citing Wright & Miller. Lindsey v. Admiral Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1992, 804 F.Supp. 47. The strength of the complaint's allegations is not a factor for the court to consider when ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but rather, the office of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is solely to determine the legal feasibility of the complaint. Lasky v. American Broadcasting Cos., D.C.N.Y.1985, 606 F.Supp. 934. J. Baranello & Sons v. Hausmann Indus., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1980, 86 F.R.D. 151. Eye Encounter, Inc. v. Contour Art, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1979, 81 F.R.D. 683. No matter how unlikely it seems that the plaintiff will prove entitlement to relief, federal policy favors disposition on the proof rather than on the pleadings. Sixth Camden Corp. v. Township of Evesham, County of Burlington, D.C.N.J.1976, 420 F.Supp. 709, 720, citing Wright & Miller. U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, D.C.N.Y.1973, 367 F.Supp. 107. Asher v. Reliance Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1970, 308 F.Supp. 847. Pointer v. American Oil Co., D.C.Ind.1968, 295 F.Supp. 573. Goldstein v. North Jersey Trust Co., D.C.N.Y.1966, 39 F.R.D. 363. U.S. for Use & Benefit of Moran Towing Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., D.C.R.I.1962, 204 F.Supp. 353. R.I.T.A. Chemical Corp. v. Malmstrom Chem. Corp., D.C.Ill.1962, 200 F.Supp. 954.

See also McBryde v. Amoco Oil Co., Ct.App.D.C.1979, 404 A.2d 200, 203, citing Wright & Miller.

Compare Cochran v. Quest Software, Inc., C.A.1st, 2003, 328 F.3d 1 (standards applicable at summary judgment stage are far more demanding than standards at Rule 12(b)(6) stage).

But see Dismissal of the action is appropriate when the allegations contained in the plaintiff's complaint are beyond credulity. Dickinson v. French, D.C.Ala.1976, 416 F.Supp. 429. 53.1 Presumptions In re Xcel Energy, Inc., Secs., Derivative, & ERISA Litigation, D.C.Minn.2004, 312 F.Supp.2d 1165. 53.2 Moench case 62 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1115, 116 S. Ct. 917, 133 L. Ed. 2d 847 (1996). 53.3 Sixth Circuit case Kuper v. Iovenko, 66 F.3d 1447, 1459-1460 (6th Cir. 1995). 53.4 Fifth Circuit case Kopp v. Klein, 722 F.3d 327, 339 (5th Cir. 2013). 53.5 Quotation 722 F.3d at 339. 54 Novel or “extreme” theory

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Metts v. Murphy, C.A.1st, 2004, 363 F.3d 8 (in case dealing with major variant from precedent, plaintiff should have chance to develop evidence before merits are resolved and motion to dismiss is inappropriate). Baker v. Cuomo, C.A.2d, 1995, 58 F.3d 814, citing Wright & Miller. Electrical Constr. & Maintenance Co. v. Maeda Pac. Corp., C.A.9th, 1985, 764 F.2d 619, 623, quoting Wright & Miller. “It is perhaps ironic that the more extreme or even far-fetched is the asserted theory of liability, the more important it is that the conceptual legal theories be explored and assayed in the light of actual facts, not a pleader's supposition.” Shull v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 1963, 313 F.2d 445, 447 (Brown, J.). In light of the commercial importance of this case, the district court concluded that resolution of the novel legal questions presented should await the development of a full factual record. Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., D.C.Cal.2005, 2005 WL 832398. Reed v. Monahan's Landscape Co., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 422686 (since issue in case has not been subject of any holding, motion to dismiss denied so that court of appeals can address issue on fully developed factual record). Greenier v. Pace, Local No. 1188, D.C.Me.2002, 201 F.Supp.2d 172, quoting Wright & Miller (claim for deliberate acquiescence to discrimination under Title VII or ADA). Sentara Virginia Beach Gen. Hosp. v. LeBeau, D.C.Va.2002, 182 F.Supp.2d 518, quoting Wright & Miller. Varney v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Mass.2000, 118 F.Supp.2d 63, quoting Wright & Miller. Wajda v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Mass.2000, 103 F.Supp.2d 29, quoting Wright & Miller. Jackson v. Nicoletti, D.C.Pa.1994, 875 F.Supp. 1107, quoting Wright & Miller. Otterbacher v. Northwestern Univ., D.C.Ill.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1256. Thomas v. New York City, D.C.N.Y.1993, 814 F.Supp. 1139, citing Wright & Miller. Morgan v. American Family Life Assur. Co., D.C.Va.1983, 559 F.Supp. 477, 483, citing Wright & Miller. Sherman v. St. Barnabas Hosp., D.C.N.Y.1982, 535 F.Supp. 564, 572, citing Wright & Miller. Dart Drug Corp. v. Corning Glass Works, D.C.Md.1979, 480 F.Supp. 1091, 1099 n. 10, citing Wright & Miller.

See also Atkins v. Industrial Telecommunications Ass'n, Inc., D.C.App.1995, 660 A.2d 885, citing Wright & Miller. Roberts v. Meeks, S.Ct.Ala.1981, 397 So.2d 111, 114, citing Wright & Miller. Lavoie v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., S.Ct.Ala.1979, 374 So.2d 310, 311, citing Wright & Miller. Capazzoli v. Holzwasser, 1986, 490 N.E.2d 420, 425, 397 Mass. 158, citing Wright & Miller. Bell v. Mazza, 1985, 474 N.E.2d 1111, 1115, 394 Mass. 176, citing Wright & Miller. M. Aschheim Co. v. Turkanis, 1983, 458 N.E.2d 743, 744, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 968, citing Wright & Miller. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 1983, 444 N.E.2d 1301, 1302, 15 Mass.App.Ct. 934, citing Wright & Miller. Hobrla v. Glass, 1985, 372 N.W.2d 630, 637, 143 Mich.App. 616, quoting Wright & Miller. Watling, Lerchen & Co. v. Ormond, 1978, 272 N.W.2d 614, 617, 86 Mich.App. 238, quoting Wright & Miller. Crowther v. Ross Chem. & Mfg. Co., 1972, 202 N.W.2d 577, 580, 42 Mich.App. 426, quoting Wright & Miller.

But see Lieberman v. A & W Restaurants, Inc., D.C.Minn.2003, 2003 WL 21252008 (although recognizing importance of allowing new legal theories to be explored, court dismissed claim, stating “however, even creative and inventive legal theories must comport with Rule 12 standards”), citing Wright & Miller. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., D.C.Cal.2002, 194 F.Supp.2d 1040, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded on other grounds C.A.9th, 2003, 349 F.3d 1191 (court in diversity jurisdiction applying forum state substantive law).

But compare In one case, although applying the same standard as for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings despite the fact that the claim was a matter of first impression. Mueller v. Gallina, D.C.Mich.2004, 311 F.Supp.2d 606. 55 Pro se plaintiffs

Supreme Court Erickson v. Pardus, 2007, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (overturning dismissal of pro se complaint).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

First Circuit Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., C.A.1st, 1994, 26 F.3d 254. Goldblatt v. Geiger, 867 F. Supp. 2d 201, 208 (D.N.H. 2012). Vasquez v. Bailey, 2010 WL 2802482 (D.R.I. 2010). Lariviere v. Bank of N.Y. as Trustee, 2010 WL 2399583, *3 (D. Me. 2010). Complaints drafted by pro se plaintiffs will be held to less stringent standards than those made by lawyers, but “[e]ven pro se litigants must do more than make mere conclusory statements regarding constitutional claims.” Norton v. Cross Border Initiative, D.C.N.H.2007, 2007 WL 1657387, *3 (not for publication), quoting Brown v. Zavaras, C.A.10th, 1995, 63 F.3d 967, 972. Travers-Sheik v. Habit Management, Inc., D.C.Mass.2006, 2006 WL 3775957. Rivera Borrero v. Rivera Correa, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 122. Tobin v. University of Maine Sys., D.C.Me.1999, 59 F.Supp.2d 87. Dominique v. Weld, D.C.Mass.1995, 880 F.Supp. 928, affirmed C.A.1st, 1996, 73 F.3d 1156. Pierce v. Runyon, D.C.Mass.1994, 857 F.Supp. 129.

Second Circuit McGarry v. Pallito, 687 F.3d 505 (2d Cir. 2012). Ahlers v. Rabinowitz, 684 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 466, 184 L. Ed. 2d 261 (2012). Zuckman v. Department of Treasury, 448 Fed. Appx. 160 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways, 662 F.3d 593, 596 (2d Cir. 2011) ("[A] pro se complaint is entitled to a particularly liberal reading."). Okoh v. Sullivan, 441 Fed. Appx. 813, 814 (2d Cir. 2011). Baptista v. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 427 Fed. Appx. 39 (2d Cir. 2011). Bennett v. City of New York, 425 Fed. Appx. 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (liberal construction given to pro se complaints especially appropriate when plaintiff uses boilerplate complaint provided by court). Mohammad v. New York State Higher Educ. Services Corp., 422 Fed. Appx. 61 (2d Cir. 2011). Kevilly v. New York, 410 Fed. Appx. 371, 374 (2d Cir. 2010). Kitchen v. Phipps Houses Group of Cos., 380 Fed. Appx. 99, 100 (2d Cir. 2010). "While pro se complaints must contain sufficient factual allegations to meet the plausibility standard, we read them with 'special solicitude' and interpret them 'to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’” Roman v. Donelli, 2009 WL 3109882, *1 (2d Cir. 2009). Doriss v. City of New Haven, 276 Fed. Appx. 36 (2d Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1036, 129 S.Ct. 604, 172 L.Ed.2d 463 (2008). Gourdine v. Cabrini Medical Center, C.A.2d, 2005, 128 Fed.Appx. 780. Lerman v. Board of Elections in City of New York, C.A.2d, 2000, 232 F.3d 135, certiorari denied 121 S.Ct. 2520, 533 U.S. 915, 150 L.Ed.2d 692. Tarshis v. Riese Organization, C.A.2d, 2000, 211 F.3d 30. Cruz v. Gomez, C.A.2d, 2000, 202 F.3d 593. Flaherty v. Lang, C.A.2d, 1999, 199 F.3d 607 (reluctance to dismiss applies with greater force when complaint is submitted pro se). Hahn v. Star Bank, C.A.6th, 1999, 190 F.3d 708, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 1423, 529 U.S. 1020, 146 L.Ed.2d 314 (pro se complaint held to less stringent standard). Posr v. Court Officer Shield No. 207, C.A.2d, 1999, 180 F.3d 409. Gomez v. USAA Federal Savs. Bank, C.A.2d, 1999, 171 F.3d 794 (pro se party should be given leave to replead at least one time when it appears from complaint that there may be valid claim). Vital v. Interfaith Medical Center, C.A.2d, 1999, 168 F.3d 615, on remand D.C.N.Y.2001, 2001 WL 901140. Toms v. Pizzo, C.A.2d, 1998, 172 F.3d 38, decision at 1998 WL 964199. Chance v. Armstrong, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 698, appeal after remand C.A.2d, 1998, 159 F.3d 1345. DeCarlo v. Fry, C.A.2d, 1998, 141 F.3d 56. Boddie v. Schnieder, C.A.2d, 1997, 105 F.3d 857. Simmons v. Abruzzo, C.A.2d, 1995, 49 F.3d 83, on remand D.C.N.Y.1996, 1996 WL 79321. Glendora v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., C.A.2d, 1995, 45 F.3d 36. Hernandez v. Coughlin, C.A.2d, 1994, 18 F.3d 133, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 117, 513 U.S. 836, 130 L.Ed.2d 63 (greater deference for pro se and civil rights plaintiffs).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Greater caution is needed for pro se and civil rights plaintiffs. Sykes v. James, C.A.2d, 1993, 13 F.3d 515, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 2749, 512 U.S. 1240, 129 L.Ed.2d 867. Ferran v. Town of Nassau, C.A.2d, 1993, 11 F.3d 21, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 572, 513 U.S. 1014, 130 L.Ed.2d 489, rehearing denied 115 S.Ct. 925, 513 U.S. 1121, 130 L.Ed.2d 804. Moran v. Pallito, 2010 WL 5648722 (D. Vt. 2010). Fowlkes v. Parker, 2010 WL 5490739 (N.D. N.Y. 2010). Derisme v. Hunt Leibert Jacobson, PC, 2010 WL 4683916, *1 (D. Conn. 2010) (“Even after Twombly, however, the Court must construe the pleadings of pro se litigants liberally, because '[i]mplicit in the right to self-representation is an obligation on the part of the court to make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training.'"), quoting Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). Chylinski v. Martin Rosol's Inc., 2010 WL 2794198, *2 (D. Conn. 2010). Cruz v. Reilly, 2009 WL 2567990 (E.D. N.Y. 2009). Watts v. Services for the Underserved, D.C.N.Y.2007, 2007 WL 1651852. Hernandez v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.2004, 312 F.Supp.2d 537. Hudson Valley Black Press v. IRS, D.C.N.Y.2004, 307 F.Supp.2d 543, affirmed C.A.2d, 2005, 409 F.3d 106 (Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted despite liberal construction for pro se plaintiff). Daniels v. Alvarado, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 502561. Jones v. Nassau County Sheriff Dep't, D.C.N.Y.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 322. DeRay v. Larson, D.C.Conn.2003, 283 F.Supp.2d 706. Ainbinder v. Potter, D.C.N.Y.2003, 282 F.Supp.2d 180. Graham v. Perez, D.C.N.Y.2000, 121 F.Supp.2d 317. Lugo v. Senkowski, D.C.N.Y.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 111. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 454. Bruker v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 92 F.Supp.2d 257. Commodari v. Long Island Univ., D.C.N.Y.2000, 89 F.Supp.2d 353. Mendlow v. Seven Locks Facility, D.C.Conn.2000, 86 F.Supp.2d 55. Herbil Holding Co. v. Brook, D.C.N.Y.2000, 84 F.Supp.2d 369. Schaefer v. Erie County Dep't of Social Servs., D.C.N.Y.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 114. Webb v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.2000, 197 F.R.D. 98. Watson v. Dominican College, D.C.N.Y.1999, 75 F.Supp.2d 222. Vega v. State Univ. of New York Bd. of Trustees, D.C.N.Y.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 324. Tufano v. One Toms Point Lane Corp., D.C.N.Y.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 119, affirmed C.A.2d, 2000, 229 F.3d 1136. Hill v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.1999, 63 F.Supp.2d 254. Hughes v. IRS, D.C.N.Y.1999, 62 F.Supp.2d 796 (although pro se complaint is construed liberally, bare allegations are not enough to survive motion to dismiss). Gyadu v. Frankl, D.C.Conn.1999, 62 F.Supp.2d 590 (even pro se complaint to be dismissed if dispositive defense appears in complaint). Dockery v. Tucker, D.C.N.Y.1998, 73 F.Supp.2d 224. Dove v. Fordham Univ., D.C.N.Y.1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 330, affirmed C.A.2d, 2000, 210 F.3d 354. Walsh v. Eastman Kodak Co., D.C.N.Y.1999, 53 F.Supp.2d 569. Reisner v. Stoller, D.C.N.Y.1999, 51 F.Supp.2d 430. Jenkins v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., D.C.N.Y.1999, 46 F.Supp.2d 271. Although pro se plaintiffs are to be held to a less stringent standard, they still must comply with relevant substantive and procedural law. Warren v. Fischl, D.C.N.Y.1999, 33 F.Supp.2d 171. Rene v. Citibank N.A., D.C.N.Y.1999, 32 F.Supp.2d 539. Toms v. Pizzo, D.C.N.Y.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 178. Rodriguez v. McGinnis, D.C.N.Y.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 244. Davis v. Goode, D.C.N.Y.1998, 995 F.Supp. 82. Barcher v. New York Univ. School of Law, D.C.N.Y.1998, 993 F.Supp. 177, affirmed C.A.2d, 1999, 172 F.3d 37. Proctor v. Vadlamudi, D.C.N.Y.1998, 992 F.Supp. 156 (pro se plaintiffs and plaintiffs complaining of civil rights violations).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Kampfer v. Scullin, D.C.N.Y.1997, 989 F.Supp. 194. “Although a federal court must construe a pro se plaintiff's inartful pleading liberally, … this does not mean that a pro se plaintiff can completely disregard the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Anonymous v. Kaye, D.C.N.Y.1997, 987 F.Supp. 131, 137 (McAvoy, C.J.). Casaburro v. Giuliani, D.C.N.Y.1997, 986 F.Supp. 176. Jones v. Albany County Civil Serv. Comm'n, D.C.N.Y.1997, 985 F.Supp. 280. Jemzura v. Public Serv. Comm'n, D.C.N.Y.1997, 971 F.Supp. 702. Narvarte v. Chase Manhattan Bank, D.C.N.Y.1997, 969 F.Supp. 10. Hili v. Sciarotta, D.C.N.Y.1997, 955 F.Supp. 177, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 140 F.3d 210. Gleave v. Graham, D.C.N.Y.1997, 954 F.Supp. 599, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 918. Ramirez v. Brooklyn Aids Task Force, D.C.N.Y.1997, 175 F.R.D. 423, affirmed C.A.2d, 1998, 164 F.3d 619. Daniels v. City of Binghamton, D.C.N.Y.1996, 947 F.Supp. 590. Wallace v. Conroy, D.C.N.Y.1996, 945 F.Supp. 628. Kraemer v. Elmira Auto Paint Supplies, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1995, 903 F.Supp. 315. Hunt v. Budd, D.C.N.Y.1995, 895 F.Supp. 35. Gelb v. Board of Elections in City of New York, D.C.N.Y.1995, 888 F.Supp. 509. Pappas v. Passias, D.C.N.Y.1995, 887 F.Supp. 465. Guice-Mills v. Brown, D.C.N.Y.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1427. Mathon v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 986. Craft v. McNulty, D.C.N.Y.1995, 875 F.Supp. 121 (pro se complaints must be more liberally interpreted; pro se complaint dismissed for lack of standing). Strong v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, D.C.N.Y.1994, 872 F.Supp. 1160 (pro se litigants should be given wide latitude). Julian v. New York City Transit Authority, D.C.N.Y.1994, 857 F.Supp. 242. Waltier v. New York Police Dep't, D.C.N.Y.1994, 856 F.Supp. 196. Levy v. Lerner, D.C.N.Y.1994, 853 F.Supp. 636. Respass v. New York City Police Dep't, D.C.N.Y.1994, 852 F.Supp. 173. Hall v. Ruggeri, D.C.N.Y.1994, 841 F.Supp. 484. Marsden v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, D.C.N.Y.1994, 856 F.Supp. 832.

Third Circuit Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Management, 641 F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir. 2011). Zurawski v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, 441 Fed. Appx. 133 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Winslow v. Prison Health Services, 406 Fed. Appx. 671, 674 (3d Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)). Brookhart v. Rohr, 385 Fed. Appx. 67 (3d Cir. 2010). Washam v. Stesis, 321 Fed. Appx. 104 (3d Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Third Circuit Rule 28.3(a)) (prosecutorial and judicial immunity). Schneller v. Fox Subacute at Clara Burke, 2008 WL 1801091 (3d Cir. 2008). Mack v. Yost, 2013 WL 5774024, *3 (W.D. Pa. 2013) (prisoner pro se complaint), citing U. S. ex rel. Walker v. Fayette County, Pa., 599 F.2d 573, 575 (3d Cir. 1979). King v. Doe, 2011 WL 2669221 (D. Del. 2011), subsequent determination, 2011 WL 4351797 (D. Del. 2011). Pumphrey v. Smith, 2010 WL 4983675 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Chambers v. Hathaway, 2010 WL 2804516, *2 (W.D. Pa. 2010), aff'd, 2011 WL 9811 (3d Cir. 2011) ("If the court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which the litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with pleading requirements."). Boggi v. Medical Review and Accrediting Council, 39 Nat'l Disability Law Rep. P 256, 2009 WL 2951022 (E.D. Pa. 2009). Jones v. Williams, D.C.Del.2007, 2007 WL 1723674 (pro se plaintiff's amended complaint bringing § 1983 claim dismissed by judge applying Rule 12(b)(6) standards). Lentz v. Vaughn, D.C.Pa.2004, 2004 WL 556692. Cunningham v. Becker, D.C.Del.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 369. McGrath v. Johnson, D.C.Pa.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 499.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Robinson v. Ridge, D.C.Pa.1997, 996 F.Supp. 447 (judgment on pleadings treated as motion to dismiss for failure to state claim). Turner-Adeniji v. Accountants on Call, D.C.N.J.1995, 892 F.Supp. 645. Arons v. Donovan, D.C.N.J.1995, 882 F.Supp. 379. Johnson v. New Jersey, D.C.N.J.1994, 869 F.Supp. 289. Pittman v. Correctional Healthcare Solutions, Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 868 F.Supp. 105. Bieros v. Nicola, D.C.Pa.1994, 860 F.Supp. 226. Bieros v. Nicola, D.C.Pa.1994, 851 F.Supp. 683. Trinsey v. Mitchell, D.C.Pa.1994, 851 F.Supp. 167. Hunt v. U.S. Air Force, D.C.Pa.1994, 848 F.Supp. 1190. Simmons v. Community Serv. Providers, Inc., D.C.Pa.1994, 847 F.Supp. 351. Jones v. Hinton, D.C.Pa.1994, 847 F.Supp. 41. Brown v. Peoples Sec. Ins., D.C.Pa.1994, 158 F.R.D. 350 (before dismissing pro se complaint, court must inform plaintiff with notice of deficiencies so he can amend effectively).

Fourth Circuit Spencer v. Earley, 278 Fed. Appx. 254 (4th Cir. 2008). Adler v. Anchor Funding Services, LLC, 2011 WL 1843226 (W.D. N.C. 2011) (court will construe pro se pleadings liberally, but plaintiff still must allege facts sufficient to state all elements of claim). Taylor v. Ozmint, 2011 WL 286133, *2 (D.S.C. 2011) ("[I]f the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so; however, a district court may not rewrite a complaint to include claims that were never presented."). Burnley v. Norwood, 2010 WL 3063779, *5 (E.D. Va. 2010) ("Though incorporating the Twombly and Iqbal pleading standards, the Court is mindful that a pro se plaintiff's complaint is to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney."). Gardner v. Hawks, 2010 WL 2990108, *2 (W.D. Va. 2010) ("Although the court liberally construes pro se complaints, the court does not act as the inmate's advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint.") (internal citations omitted). Wood v. Wood, 2010 WL 2813760, *3 (S.D. W. Va. 2010). Adams v. Montgomery College, 2010 WL 2813346 (D. Md. 2010). Young Bok Song v. Welch, 2010 WL 2813305 (E.D. N.C. 2010). Smith v. Com. of Virginia, 2009 WL 2175759, *2 (E.D. Va. 2009), aff'd, 353 Fed. Appx. 790 (4th Cir. 2009) ("The Iqbal/Twombly standard applies to pro se litigants as well as represented parties, with the caveat that, as always, pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed."). Robinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, D.C.W.Va.2007, 2007 WL 692048 (court dismissed complaint even though it liberally construes pro se civil rights complaints). Taylor v. Barnett, D.C.Va.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 483. Peck v. Merletti, D.C.Va.1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 599. Ragins v. Gilmore, D.C.Va.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 566 (dismissal of pro se civil rights complaint because overbroad is improper). Willis v. MCI Telecommunications, D.C.N.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 673, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 161 F.3d 5. Sculthorpe v. Virginia Retirement Sys., D.C.Va.1997, 952 F.Supp. 307. Lugo v. INS, D.C.Va.1997, 950 F.Supp. 743. Counts v. Newhart, D.C.Va.1996, 951 F.Supp. 579, affirmed C.A.4th, 1997, 116 F.3d 1473. Treadwell v. Murray, D.C.Va.1995, 878 F.Supp. 49.

Fifth Circuit Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). Adams v. Bank of America, 475 Fed. Appx. 526 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Muhammed v. Lone Star College System, 460 Fed. Appx. 341, 342 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011). Lowery v. Capital One Mortg., 429 Fed. Appx. 377 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4). Amanduron v. American Airlines, 416 Fed. Appx. 421, 423 (5th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Pena v. U.S., C.A.5th, 1998, 157 F.3d 984 (dismissals of pro se complaints for failure to state claim are disfavored and court should grant pro se party every reasonable opportunity to amend). Peppers v. Graves, 2011 WL 1775736 (M.D. La. 2011). Even when accounting for a plaintiff's pro se status, not even the most liberal construction of a complaint that consists of conclusory statements without supporting facts can survive a motion to dismiss. Myers v. Kaufman County, 2010 WL 5480651 (N.D. Tex. 2010). Lowe v. American Eurocopter, LLC, 24 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 40, 2010 WL 5232523 (N.D. Miss. 2010). Jones v. First Bank and Trust, 2010 WL 2836150, *3 (E.D. La. 2010) ("Complaints drafted by pro se litigants are not held to the standard of complaints drafted by a professional attorney, but legal conclusions are not sufficient to prevent a motion to dismiss."). Ivy v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (FSA), 2010 WL 2559885, *4 (N.D. Miss. 2010) ("Despite the liberality with which the Court construes a pro se plaintiff's pleadings, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions dressed as factual conclusions will not circumvent a motion to dismiss."). Peoples v. Correctional Medical Services, 2008 WL 2403724 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (mem. op.). Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., D.C.Tex.1997, 982 F.Supp. 1247.

Sixth Circuit Bridge v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 2012). Davis v. Prison Health Services, 679 F.3d 433, 437 (6th Cir. 2012). Frengler v. General Motors, 482 Fed. Appx. 975, 977 (6th Cir. 2012) ("[Plaintiff's] amended complaint consists of eighty-one pages of medical bills, medical records, and workers' compensation proceeding records, without any suggestion of a cause of action. Even a pro se pleading must provide the opposing party with notice of the relief sought, and it is not within the purview of the district court to conjure up claims never presented."). Agramonte v. Shartle, 2012 WL 3104506, *3 (6th Cir. 2012) (Moore, J., dissenting) ("Given the more lenient pleading standard afforded pro se litigants, however, I believe that a few of the plaintiffs' claims should have been permitted to move forward."). Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed. Appx. 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) ("The court will consider documents filed after the complaint as part of the pleadings.") (internal quotation marks omitted) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). Montgomery v. Huntington Bank & Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc., C.A.6th, 2003, 346 F.3d 693. Herron v. Harrison, C.A.6th, 2000, 203 F.3d 410. Jourdan v. Jabe, C.A.6th, 1991, 951 F.2d 108. Berry v. Main Street Bank, 2013 WL 5651440, *3 (E.D. Mich. 2013) ("The leniency with which courts construe pro se plaintiffs' complaints, however, does not abrogate the basic pleading requirements designed to ensure that courts do "not have to guess at the nature of the claim asserted. * * * Pro se plaintiffs still must provide more than bare assertions of legal conclusions to survive a motion to dismiss."), citing Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Harris v. Smith, 2011 WL 2413490 (N.D. Ohio 2011). Although the pleading standard for a pro se plaintiff is less stringent than for plaintiffs whose pleadings are drafted by lawyers, that lenience has a limit: "'[T]o survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory.'" Baker v. County of Missaukee, 2011 WL 1670953, *2 (W.D. Mich. 2011), quoting Bishop v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 520 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2008). Henton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 111362 (E.D. Tenn. 2011) (pro se pleading will be construed more liberally than pleading drafted by lawyers but still must be comprehensible and adhere to basic pleading essentials). Shoucair v. Williams, 2010 WL 5015348, *3 (E.D. Mich. 2010) ("[T]he Court must still read plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently and accept plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible."). Nelson v. Shelton, 2010 WL 2803956, *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2010) ("A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is reviewed under the standard that the Court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint, resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, and construe the complaint liberally in favor of the pro se plaintiff."). El v. I.R.S., 2008-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P 50379, 101 A.F.T.R.2d 2008-2503, 2008 WL 2338621 (E.D. Mich. 2008). Aaron v. Bob Evans Restaurant, D.C.Ohio 2007, 477 F.Supp.2d 853 (discrimination claim fails because plaintiff did not identify protected class within Title VII and claim does not provide basis affording relief). Zolman v. IRS, D.C.Mich.1999, 87 F.Supp.2d 763. Ashiegbu v. Purviance, D.C.Ohio 1998, 76 F.Supp.2d 824, affirmed C.A.6th, 1999, 194 F.3d 1311. Anderson v. Office of Attorney Gen., Dep't of Justice, D.C.Mich.1995, 890 F.Supp. 648 (dismissing pro se complaint). Ropoleski v. Rairigh, D.C.Mich.1995, 886 F.Supp. 1356.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Middleton v. McGinnis, D.C.Mich.1994, 860 F.Supp. 391. Canales v. Gabry, D.C.Mich.1994, 844 F.Supp. 1167. Strout v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, D.C.Mich.1994, 842 F.Supp. 948, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 40 F.3d 136.

Seventh Circuit Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010). White v. Monohan, 326 Fed. Appx. 385 (7th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Seven Circuit Rule 53) (pro se plaintiff's complaint construed more liberally with all inferences in his favor). Henderson v. Sheahan, C.A.7th, 1999, 196 F.3d 839, certiorari denied 120 S.Ct. 2691, 530 U.S. 1244, 147 L.Ed.2d 962 (court can dismiss pro se complaint for failure to state claim only if it appears that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of claim that would entitle him to relief). Mallett v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, C.A.7th, 1997, 130 F.3d 1245, appeal after remand C.A.7th, 2000, 248 F.3d 1158. Curtis v. Bembenek, C.A.7th, 1995, 48 F.3d 281. Baxter by Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., C.A.7th, 1994, 26 F.3d 728. Swofford v. Mandrell, C.A.7th, 1992, 969 F.2d 547. Quarles v. Merrillville Community School Corp., 2010 WL 4904466, *2 (N.D. Ind. 2010). Shepard v. Mikulich, 2010 WL 2719107 (N.D. Ind. 2010) ("The Court will review the pro se Plaintiff's Complaint more liberally than it would one that was drafted by a trained attorney."). James v. Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, 2009 WL 2567910 (S.D. Ill. 2009). Perry v. Scaible, 2008 WL 2324641 (E.D. Wis. 2008). Elizzar v. Meyers, D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 539986. Morgan v. Centers for New Horizons, Inc., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 524441. Reed v. McBride, D.C.Ind.2000, 96 F.Supp.2d 845. Craig v. Cohn, D.C.Ind.2000, 80 F.Supp.2d 944. Moore v. Speybroeck, D.C.Ind.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 850. Cleaves v. City of Chicago, D.C.Ill.1999, 68 F.Supp.2d 963. Johnson v. Collins, D.C.Ill.1999, 58 F.Supp.2d 890, vacated on other grounds C.A.7th, 2001, 5 Fed.Appx. 479 (pro se complaint not required to identify correct legal theory). Lewis v. Cook County Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ill.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 1073 (courts must insure pro se complaint given fair and meaningful consideration). Jones v. Detella, D.C.Ill.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 824. Waters v. Brown, D.C.Ind.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 654, affirmed C.A.7th, 1999, 175 F.3d 1022. Zimmerman v. Hoard, D.C.Ind.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 633. Jackson v. DeTella, D.C.Ill.1998, 998 F.Supp. 901. Freeman v. Godinez, D.C.Ill.1998, 996 F.Supp. 822 (considering allegations outside of pro se plaintiff's complaint). McLaughlin v. Cook County Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ill.1998, 993 F.Supp. 661. Naguib v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 1082 (pro se litigants should be given every opportunity to state cognizable claim, but courts need not permit unlimited amendments). Copeland v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., D.C.Ill.1997, 984 F.Supp. 1182. Evans v. Allen, D.C.Ill.1997, 981 F.Supp. 1102. Thomas v. Chicago Housing Authority, D.C.Ill.1997, 981 F.Supp. 558. Oswalt v. Godinez, D.C.Ill.1995, 894 F.Supp. 1181. Robinson v. Illinois State Correctional Center (Stateville) Warden, D.C.Ill.1995, 890 F.Supp. 715. Simmons v. Honrath, D.C.Wis.1995, 883 F.Supp. 371. Wilson v. Cook County Bd. of Comm'rs, D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1163. Landfair v. Sheahan, D.C.Ill.1995, 878 F.Supp. 1106. Taylor v. Anderson, D.C.Ill.1994, 868 F.Supp. 1024. Marozsan v. U.S., D.C.Ind.1994, 849 F.Supp. 617, 633, affirmed C.A.7th, 1996, 90 F.3d 1284.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Eighth Circuit Smith v. St. Bernards Regional Medical Center, C.A.8th, 1994, 19 F.3d 1254. Kramer v. America's Wholesale Lenders, 2011 WL 577390 (E.D. Mo. 2011). Callaghan v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2010 WL 4973731 (E.D. Ark. 2010). Hollowell v. Hosto, 2010 WL 1416519, *2 (E.D. Ark. 2010), order aff'd as modified, 389 Fed. Appx. 583 (8th Cir. 2010) ("Although pro se complaints are to be liberally construed, 'they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.'"), quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). DePugh v. Clemens, D.C.Mo.1997, 966 F.Supp. 898, affirmed C.A.8th, 1997, 129 F.3d 121. The complaint was dismissed for violation of Rule 8(a)(2). It was incomprehensible and plaintiff who had completed two years of law school had capacity to plead correctly. Thomson v. Olson, D.C.N.D.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1267, affirmed C.A.8th, 1995, 56 F.3d 69.

Ninth Circuit Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2013). Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Johnson v. Lucent Technologies Inc., 653 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2011). Hebbe v. Pliler, 611 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2010), opinion amended and superseded, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Because Iqbal incorporated the Twombly pleading standard and Twombly did not alter courts' treatment of pro se filings, we continue to construe pro se filings liberally. This is particularly important where, as in the instant case, a petitioner is a pro se prisoner litigant in a civil rights matter."). Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library, 2011 WL 4499043 (D. Mont. 2011). Wendt v. Director of Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 2011 WL 1559830 (D. Guam 2011). Ellis v. GMAC Mortg., Inc., 2011 WL 1086530 (D. Or. 2011). Zepeda v. Tate, 2010 WL 4977596 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Cotton v. Cate, 2010 WL 2867099 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (First and Fourteenth Amendments). Balthazor v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2010 WL 2836956 (D. Ariz. 2010). Clark v. Sypolt, 2010 WL 2803084 (E.D. Wash. 2010). Engebretson v. Mahoney, 2010 WL 2683202, *2 (D. Mont. 2010). Dauven v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 2010 WL 2640119, *3 (D. Or. 2010) ("In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding pro se, courts construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Thus, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.") (internal citations omitted). Carter v. Paynter, 2010 WL 430706, *1 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ("On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all of the material allegations in plaintiff's complaint as true and liberally construe those facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as a pro se litigant."). Anderson v. Fishback, 2009 WL 2423327 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Hawkins v. San Mateo County Law Library, D.C.Cal.2007, 2007 WL 1795749, citing Erickson v. Pardus, 2007, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081. Beusgens v. Galloway, D.C.Ore.2007, 2007 WL 1674097 (court dismissed pro se complaint despite liberal review without leave to amend). Swenson v. Bush, D.C.Idaho 2007, 2007 WL 1662363 (pro se plaintiff's incoherent complaint was construed liberally but nevertheless was found inadequate; therefore, plaintiff was allowed time to file written response on why complaint should not be dismissed). Consiglio v. Woodford, D.C.Cal.2007, 2007 WL 1655496. Moore v. U.S., D.C.Cal.2000, 193 F.R.D. 647 (before district court can dismiss complaint of pro se litigant, it must provide notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend complaint effectively). Pesci v. IRS, D.C.Nev.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 1189, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 225 F.3d 663. Simson v. U.S., D.C.Ore.1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 1193. Bailey v. IRS, D.C.Ariz.1999, 188 F.R.D. 346, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 893.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Ricotta v. California, D.C.Cal.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 961, affirmed C.A.9th, 1999, 173 F.3d 861 (court must construe pleadings liberally but may not supply essential elements of claim that were not initially pled; vague and conclusory allegations of civil rights violations are not sufficient). Diaz v. Carlson, D.C.Cal.1997, 5 F.Supp.2d 809, affirmed C.A.9th, 1998, 142 F.3d 443. Brian v. Gugin, D.C.Idaho 1994, 853 F.Supp. 358. Collins v. Palczewski, D.C.Nev.1993, 841 F.Supp. 333.

Tenth Circuit Childs v. Miller, 713 F.3d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 2013). Kenney v. AG Equipment Co., 462 Fed. Appx. 841, 841 n.1 (10th Cir. 2012). Watkins v. Craft, 455 Fed. Appx. 853, 854 (10th Cir. 2012) ("Because Mr. Watkins is proceeding pro se, this court reviews the record and construes his pleadings liberally."). Harrison v. Morton, 2012 WL 3104880, *2 (10th Cir. 2012). Jallali v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Educ., 437 Fed. Appx. 862 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Mendia v. City of Wellington, 432 Fed. Appx. 796 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see 10th Circuit Rule 36.3). McGinnis v. Freudenthal, 426 Fed. Appx. 625 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Marshall v. Morton, 421 Fed. Appx. 832 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 2012 WL 33454 (U.S. 2012) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Fournerat v. Wisconsin Law Review, 420 Fed. Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 290, 181 L. Ed. 2d 175 (2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Kenney v. Swift Trans. Inc., 410 Fed. Appx. 143, 144 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Rocha v. CCCF Admin., 408 Fed. Appx. 141, 143 (10th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3067, 180 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2011) (pro se plaintiff's materials entitled to solicitous construction) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Matthews v. LaBarge, Inc., 407 Fed. Appx. 277, 280 (10th Cir. 2011) (pro se pleadings construed liberally) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Hill v. City of Oklahoma City, 2011 WL 4059198 (10th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3). Gee v. Pacheco, 624 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2010), opinion amended and superseded, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) ("To be sure, a pro se prisoner may fail to plead his allegations with the skill necessary to state a plausible claim even when the facts would support one. But ordinarily the dismissal of a pro se claim under Rule 12(b)(6) should be without prejudice * * *.)" Wideman v. Garcia, 382 Fed. Appx. 741, 742 (10th Cir. 2010). Edge v. Payne, 342 Fed. Appx. 395 (10th Cir. 2009). Castaldo v. Denver Public Schools, 276 Fed. Appx. 839 (10th Cir. 2008). Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep't, C.A.10th, 1999, 195 F.3d 553, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 2001, 13 Fed.Appx. 767. Malekzadeh v. Heideman Law Group P.C., C.A.10th, 1999, 185 F.3d 874, opinion at 1999 WL 436443. Smith v. Kitchen, C.A.10th, 1997, 156 F.3d 1025. Brown v. Zavaras, C.A.10th, 1995, 63 F.3d 967, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 1996, 95 F.3d 1161 (pro se plaintiffs must do more than assert mere conclusions). Janke v. Price, C.A.10th, 1994, 43 F.3d 1390, appeal after remand C.A.10th, 1997, 124 F.3d 216. A pro se complaint will be construed more liberally than pleadings drafted by lawyers, but there are limits to that lenience: "A court may not assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that have not been alleged, or that a defendant has violated laws in ways that a plaintiff has not alleged." Hastings v. Barbee, 2011 WL 2610132, *2 (D. Colo. 2011). Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 1457950 (D. Kan. 2011), aff'd, 436 Fed. Appx. 835 (10th Cir. 2011). Campbell v. Milyard, 2010 WL 3023360, *3 (D. Colo. 2010) ("Where the Court 'can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so,' regardless of the [pro se] plaintiff's confusion of legal theories or unfamiliarity with pleading requirements."), quoting Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). White v. Ockey, C.A.10th, 2007, 2007 WL 1600483 (not selected for publication; for citation rules see Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3) (dismissing pro se complaint). Frank v. Bush, 2010 WL 1408405, *3 (D. Kan. 2010), aff'd, 391 Fed. Appx. 745 (10th Cir. 2010). Lindsey v. Bowlin, 557 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (D. Kan. 2008). Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kansas, D.C.Kan.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 1239. Overton v. U.S., D.C.N.M.1999, 74 F.Supp.2d 1034, affirmed C.A.10th, 2000, 202 F.3d 282.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Banks v. Rubin, D.C.Colo.1999, 72 F.Supp.2d 1198. Marrie v. Nickels, D.C.Kan.1999, 70 F.Supp.2d 1252. Smith v. Plati, D.C.Colo.1999, 56 F.Supp.2d 1195, affirmed C.A.10th, 2001, 258 F.3d 1167 (if court reasonably can construe pro se complaint as stating claim, it should do so). Van Deelen v. City of Eudora, Kansas, D.C.Kan.1999, 53 F.Supp.2d 1223 (court should allow pro se plaintiff reasonable opportunity to amend complaint but should not assume role of advocate). Walton v. Shanelec, D.C.Kan.1998, 19 F.Supp.2d 1209 (dismissing complaint). Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 996 F.Supp. 1299 (if pro se plaintiff's complaint reasonably can be read to state claim upon which plaintiff could prevail, court should deny motion to dismiss despite plaintiff's failure to cite proper authority, confusion of various legal theories, or unfamiliarity with pleading requirements). Dickerson v. Leavitt Rentals, D.C.Kan.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1242, affirmed C.A.10th, 1998, 153 F.3d 726. Moll v. Carter, D.C.Kan.1998, 179 F.R.D. 609 (court should dismiss pro se claims that are supported only by vague and conclusory allegations). Roemer v. Security Bancshares, Inc., D.C.Kan.1997, 978 F.Supp. 988. De Young v. Kansas, D.C.Kan.1995, 890 F.Supp. 949, affirmed C.A.10th, 1995, 69 F.3d 547. Dees v. Vendel, D.C.Kan.1994, 856 F.Supp. 1531. George v. HEK America, Inc., D.C.Colo.1994, 157 F.R.D. 489. Goss v. Sullivan, D.C.Wyo.1993, 839 F.Supp. 1532.

Eleventh Circuit Tennyson v. ASCAP, 477 Fed. Appx. 608 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (for citation rules see Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1). McCauley v. Georgia, 466 Fed. Appx. 832, 835 (11th Cir. 2012). Kendall v. Thaxton Road LLC, 443 Fed. Appx. 388 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Serpentfoot v. Rome City Com'n, 426 Fed. Appx. 884 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Martinez v. Ashtin Leasing, Inc., 417 Fed. Appx. 883, 884 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Ausar-El ex rel. Small, Jr. v. BAC (Bank of America) Home Loans Servicing LP, 2011 WL 4375971 (11th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Porter v. Duval County School Bd., 406 Fed. Appx. 460, 462 (11th Cir. 2010) (pleadings for pro se plaintiffs should be construed liberally but court should not rewrite otherwise deficient pleading to sustain action) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Carvel v. Godley, 404 Fed. Appx. 359, 361 (11th Cir. 2010) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Jemison v. Mitchell, 380 Fed. Appx. 904 (11th Cir. 2010) (allowing pro se plaintiff leave to amend his complaint). Peart v. Shippie, 345 Fed. Appx. 384 (11th Cir. 2009). Sarver v. Jackson, 344 Fed. Appx. 526 (11th Cir. 2009). Bell v. Florida Highway Patrol, 325 Fed. Appx. 758 (11th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2). Hindman v. Healy, 278 Fed. Appx. 893 (11th Cir. 2008). GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Florida, C.A.11th, 1998, 132 F.3d 1359 (courts should show leniency to pro se litigants but should not serve as de facto counsel or rewrite otherwise deficient pleadings). Ford v. Central Loan Admin., 2011 WL 4702912 (S.D. Ala. 2011) (pro se pleadings are entitled to deferential review). Hennington v. Bank of America, 2010 WL 5860296 (N.D. Ga. 2010). Crim v. Manalich, 2010 WL 2757223, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2010) ("The Court may consider documents which are central to plaintiff's claim whose authenticity is not challenged, whether the document is physically attached to the complaint or not, without converting the motion into one for summary judgment."). Holland v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 2010 WL 2732047, *3 (M.D. Ga. 2010) ("The Court affords a pro se plaintiff wide latitude when construing his pleadings and papers. Even so, a pro se litigant is not exempt from complying with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.") (internal citations omitted). Muhammad v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 2010 WL 2712250, *3 (S.D. Ala. 2010). Washington v. Department of Children & Families, D.C.Fla.2007, 2007 WL 1625799. Gibbs v. Republic Tobacco, L.P., D.C.Fla.2000, 119 F.Supp.2d 1288. Harris v. Bush, D.C.Fla.2000, 106 F.Supp.2d 1272. Otworth v. The Florida Bar, D.C.Fla.1999, 71 F.Supp.2d 1209.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Raber v. Osprey Alaska, Inc., D.C.Fla.1999, 187 F.R.D. 675. McCain v. Scott, D.C.Ga.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1365. DiGiro v. Pall Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1471. Although the pleadings of a pro se litigant should be construed liberally, the pro se litigant still must meet the minimal pleading standards. Mayoral-Amy v. BHI Corporation, D.C.Fla.1998, 180 F.R.D. 456. Wright v. Butts, D.C.Ala.1996, 953 F.Supp. 1352. Olson v. Loy, D.C.Ga.1996, 951 F.Supp. 225. Medina v. Minerva, D.C.Fla.1995, 907 F.Supp. 379. Gangloff v. Poccia, D.C.Fla.1995, 888 F.Supp. 1549. Parisie v. Morris, D.C.Ga.1995, 873 F.Supp. 1560. McFarland v. Folsom, D.C.Ala.1994, 854 F.Supp. 862. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1994, 155 F.R.D. 215. Clark v. Sierra, D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1179. Eidson v. Arenas, D.C.Fla.1993, 837 F.Supp. 1158. Woodbury v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., D.C.Fla.1993, 152 F.R.D. 229.

D.C. Circuit Although a pro se complaint is read less stringently than a complaint prepared by lawyers, it still must plead factual matter that leads to an inference of misconduct above the merely possible. Jones v. Horne, 634 F.3d 588, 596 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Razzoli v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, C.A.2000, 230 F.3d 371, 343 U.S.App.D.C. 357. Henthorn v. Department of Navy, C.A.1994, 29 F.3d 682, 308 U.S.App.D.C. 36. Budik v. Howard University Hospital, 2013 WL 5423103, *3 (D.D.C. 2013). Morrow v. U.S., 723 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2010). Stoyanov v. Winter, 643 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2009). Keith v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., D.C.D.C.2003, 284 F.Supp.2d 31. Croskey v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, D.C.D.C.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 8, affirmed C.A.D.C.1999, 1999 WL 58614. Pro se complaints are held to a less exacting scrutiny than pleadings drafted by attorneys, but they must present claims upon which relief may be granted. Slaby v. Fairbridge, D.C.D.C.1998, 3 F.Supp.2d 22. Nicastro v. Clinton, D.C.D.C.1995, 882 F.Supp. 1128.

Federal Circuit Pieczenik v. Bayer Corp., 474 Fed. Appx. 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 438, 184 L. Ed. 2d 289 (2012) ("In general, pro se litigants are held to a lesser standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers when determining whether a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.").

See also Pro se complaints are treated more leniently by the courts on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The standard in the Seventh Circuit for relatively straightforward, pro se pleadings is that they "can be dismissed for failure to state a claim only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Nikolic v. St. Catherine Hosp., 2011 WL 4537911, *3 (N.D. Ind. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845-846 (7th Cir. 1999). Massey v. Fischer, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 1908220 (court should consider all of pro se plaintiff's papers and construe them liberally). Vol. 5, §§ 1215 n.11 and 1217 n.12 (for further description of pro se pleading standards).

Compare "Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints * * * it does not act as the inmate's advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint." Starks v. Abbasi, 2009 WL 2959747, *1 (E.D. Va. 2009). 56 Civil rights claims Tarshis v. Riese Organization, C.A.2d, 2000, 211 F.3d 30.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Perry v. McGinnis, C.A.6th, 2000, 209 F.3d 597 (court of appeals will scrutinize with special care any dismissal of complaint filed under civil rights statute). Cruz v. Gomez, C.A.2d, 2000, 202 F.3d 593. Flaherty v. Lang, C.A.2d, 1999, 199 F.3d 607 (reluctance to dismiss applies with greater force when plaintiff alleges civil rights violations). Vital v. Interfaith Medical Center, C.A.2d, 1999, 168 F.3d 615, on remand D.C.N.Y.2001, 2001 WL 901140. Chance v. Armstrong, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 698, appeal after remand C.A.2d, 1998, 159 F.3d 1345. Irish Lesbian & Gay Organization v. Giuliani, C.A.2d, 1998, 143 F.3d 638. Rauen v. City of Miami, D.C.Fla.2007, 2007 WL 686609. Lilienthal v. City of Suffolk, D.C.Va.2003, 275 F.Supp.2d 684 (when motion to dismiss tests sufficiency of civil rights complaint, court must be especially solicitous of wrongs alleged). Mansoor v. County of Albemarle, D.C.Va.2000, 124 F.Supp.2d 367. Lugo v. Senkowski, D.C.N.Y.2000, 114 F.Supp.2d 111. Ericson v. City of Meriden, D.C.Conn.2000, 113 F.Supp.2d 276, affirmed C.A.2d, 2002, 55 Fed.Appx. 11. Bendel v. Westchester County Health Care Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 112 F.Supp.2d 324. People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, D.C.N.Y.2000, 108 F.Supp.2d 275. Taylor v. Barnett, D.C.Va.2000, 105 F.Supp.2d 483. Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., D.C.N.Y.2000, 97 F.Supp.2d 454. Rivera Borrero v. Rivera Correa, D.C.Puerto Rico 2000, 93 F.Supp.2d 122. Schaefer v. Erie County Dep't of Social Servs., D.C.N.Y.2000, 82 F.Supp.2d 114. Webb v. Goord, D.C.N.Y.2000, 197 F.R.D. 98. McGrath v. Johnson, D.C.Pa.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 499. Fernandez v. City of Poughkeepsie, New York, D.C.N.Y.1999, 67 F.Supp.2d 222. Brown v. Stone, D.C.N.Y.1999, 66 F.Supp.2d 412. Bailey v. IRS, D.C.Ariz.1999, 188 F.R.D. 346, affirmed C.A.9th, 2000, 232 F.3d 893. Dockery v. Tucker, D.C.N.Y.1998, 73 F.Supp.2d 224. Ricotta v. California, D.C.Cal.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 961, affirmed C.A.9th, 1999, 173 F.3d 861 (court must construe pleadings liberally but may not supply essential elements of claim that were not initially pled; vague and conclusory allegations of civil rights violations are not sufficient). Alba v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ., D.C.Conn.1998, 999 F.Supp. 687. Bender v. Suburban Hosp., D.C.Md.1998, 998 F.Supp. 631, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 159 F.3d 186. Alston v. Virginia High School League, Inc., D.C.Va.1997, 176 F.R.D. 220.

But see Adams v. Franklin, D.C.Ala.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 1255 (Eleventh Circuit tightens pleading requirements in civil rights cases that implicate qualified immunity). Taylor v. Alabama, D.C.Ala.2000, 95 F.Supp.2d 1297 (Eleventh Circuit imposes tightened pleading requirements for fraud, and court should be guided by these requirements when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Pollack v. Nash, D.C.N.Y.1999, 58 F.Supp.2d 294 (§ 1983 claims held to heightened pleading standard).

See generally Vol. 5, § 1230 contains an extended discussion of the protections that civil rights claims receive under Rule 12(b)(6) as well as the attempts made by some courts to impose heightened scrutiny on such claims and their reaction to the Supreme Court's rejection of these practices in the Swierkiewicz case.

See also Metts v. Murphy, C.A.1st, 2004, 363 F.3d 8 (most cases brought under Section 2 of Voting Rights Act resolved by summary judgment or trial, not by motion to dismiss). 57 Summary judgment Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 2002, 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 152 L.Ed.2d 1.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

The district court should give the plaintiff the full protection a federal court claim should receive at least until it can see what the real facts are; if, after the full development of the facts, the plaintiff obviously is not entitled to relief, the claim may be washed out on summary judgment, by motion for directed verdict, or by j.n.o.v. Reeves v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, C.A.5th, 1976, 532 F.2d 491. In reversing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Judge Brown stated that “the Trial Court failed to require the parties to exploit the marvelous tools now available by summary judgment or otherwise to demonstrate whether the facts, as distinguished from what the lawyers said the facts would be, would bear out a claim and if so to what extent.” Barber v. Motor Vessel “Blue Cat,” C.A.5th, 1967, 372 F.2d 626, 629. Shull v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 1963, 313 F.2d 445. Citizens for Honesty & Integrity in Regional Planning v. County of San Diego, D.C.Cal.2003, 258 F.Supp.2d 1132 (question of whether federal spending law preempted local wetlands regulations was better handled in context of summary judgment rather than motion to dismiss). Navarro v. FDIC, D.C.Ill.2003, 254 F.Supp.2d 1013 (notice pleading relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputes and to dispose of unmeritorious claims). See vol. 10A, §§ 2711 to 2729 and vol. 10B, §§ 2730 to 2742 for further discussion of summary judgment.

See also Prier v. Steed, D.C.Kan.2004, 2004 WL 624971. McKenna v. City of Homewood, 1975, 324 So.2d 770, 772, 295 Ala. 128, quoting Wright & Miller. Trabits v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile, 1975, 323 So.2d 353, 358, 295 Ala. 85, quoting Wright & Miller.

But see Gray v. Petoseed Co., D.C.S.C.1996, 985 F.Supp. 625, affirmed C.A.4th, 1997, 129 F.3d 1259. 58 Insuperable bar to relief Simon v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 732 F.3d 259, 280 (3d Cir. 2013). When the district court had to go beyond the complaint to determine if the plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies, such a defense did not appear on the face of the complaint and thus a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was improper. Kim v. U.S., 632 F.3d 713, 719 (D.C. Cir. 2011). B & H Medical, L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 2008) (plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing). Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Information Systems & Networks Corp., 523 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2008) (if cause of action under state law is premised on existence of employee benefit plan so that in order to prevail, plaintiff must plead, and court must find, that ERISA plan exists, ERISA preemption will apply). Benzman v. Whitman, 523 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008) (CERCLA citizen-suit provision did not authorize judicial review of agency action). Amadasu v. The Christ Hosp., 514 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2008) (§ 1985 claims barred by "intracorporate conspiracy" doctrine, which states that if two defendants are from same collective entity, no conspiracy is possible). Windsor v. Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc., 279 Fed. Appx. 9 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (firefighters cannot sue for injuries sustained in line of duty). Public Util. Dist. Number 1 of Grays Harbor County Washington v. Idacorp, Inc., C.A.9th, 2004, 379 F.3d 641 (claims preempted). Ontario Public Serv. Employees Union Pension Trust Fund v. Nortel Networks Corp., C.A.2d, 2004, 369 F.3d 27 (plaintiffs lacked standing). Denny's, Inc. v. Cake, C.A.4th, 2004, 364 F.3d 521, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 344, 543 U.S. 940, 160 L.Ed.2d 249 (Anti-Injunction Act bars suit). Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., C.A.11th, 2004, 363 F.3d 1183 (state claims preempted by federal statute). Thompson v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, C.A.7th, 2002, 300 F.3d 750. Thomas v. Publishers Clearing House, Inc., C.A.6th, 2002, 29 Fed.Appx. 319, quoting Wright & Miller. Schmedding v. Tnemec Co., C.A.8th, 1999, 187 F.3d 862. Doe v. Hartz, C.A.8th, 1998, 134 F.3d 1339. Duffy v. Landberg, C.A.8th, 1998, 133 F.3d 1120, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 62, 525 U.S. 821, 142 L.Ed.2d 49. Frey v. City of Herculaneum, Missouri, C.A.8th, 1994, 37 F.3d 1290, vacated on other grounds and superseded on denial of rehearing C.A.8th, 1995, 44 F.3d 667.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Sidney S. Arst Co. v. Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund, C.A.7th, 1994, 25 F.3d 417. Alexander v. Peffer, C.A.8th, 1993, 993 F.2d 1348. Ring v. First Interstate Mortgage, Inc., C.A.8th, 1993, 984 F.2d 924. Lister v. Stark, C.A.7th, 1989, 890 F.2d 941 (preemption is bar). Aldahonda-Rivera v. Parke Davis & Co., C.A.1st, 1989, 882 F.2d 590. Palmer v. Tracor, Inc., C.A.8th, 1988, 856 F.2d 1131. Baxley-DeLamar Monuments, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass'n, C.A.8th, 1988, 843 F.2d 1154, appeal after remand C.A.8th, 1991, 938 F.2d 846. U.S. v. Uvalde Consol. Independent School Dist., C.A.5th, 1980, 625 F.2d 547, 549 n. 1, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 2341, 451 U.S. 1002, 68 L.Ed.2d 858. Thomas W. Garland, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, C.A.8th, 1979, 596 F.2d 784, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct. 208, 444 U.S. 899, 62 L.Ed.2d 135. Battle v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 1974, 493 F.2d 39, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 784, 419 U.S. 1110, 42 L.Ed.2d 807. TV Signal Co. of Aberdeen v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., C.A.8th, 1972, 462 F.2d 1256. Harman v. Valley Nat. Bank, C.A.9th, 1964, 339 F.2d 564. Corsican Productions v. Pitchess, C.A.9th, 1964, 338 F.2d 441. Reitz v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 954 F. Supp. 2d 870, 875-876 (E.D. Mo. 2013). Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 2d 493, 502 (S.D. N.Y. 2013). Vilma v. Goodell, 917 F. Supp. 2d 591, 594 (E.D. La. 2013) ("If the factual allegations are insufficient to rise above the speculative level, or if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there is an insuperable bar to relief, the claim must be dismissed."). Champion Pro Consulting Group, Inc. v. Impact Sports Football, LLC, 2013 WL 5461829, *4 (M.D. N.C. 2013). Scianneaux v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., 2013 WL 4417455, *2 (E.D. La. 2013). King v. Doe, 2011 WL 2669221 (D. Del. 2011), subsequent determination, 2011 WL 4351797 (D. Del. 2011) (affirmative defense will be considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion only if it presents insuperable bar to recovery). Simmons v. United Mortg. and Loan Inv., LLC, 2008 WL 2277488 (W.D. N.C. 2008) (defendants exempted from liability by statute). Jacoboni v. KPMG LLP, D.C.Fla.2004, 314 F.Supp.2d 1172, WL 882041 (PSLRA bars plaintiffs RICO claim). Peterson v. Brownlee, D.C.Kan.2004, 314 F.Supp.2d 1150 (Congress has forbidden awards of punitive damages against government). Joyner v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.2004, 313 F.Supp.2d 495 (Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act preempts employee's false imprisonment and emotional distress claims). Medvey v. Oxford Health Plans, D.C.Conn.2004, 313 F.Supp.2d 94 (common law civil conspiracy claim preempted by various statutes). Essex Ins. Co. v. Tyler, D.C.Colo.2004, 309 F.Supp.2d 1270 (malpractice claim requires attorney-client relationship). Berriochoa Lopez v. U.S., D.C.D.C.2004, 309 F.Supp.2d 22 (statute bars suits for NAFTA violations). Owen ex rel. Estate of O'Donnell v. U.S., D.C.Pa.2004, 307 F.Supp.2d 661 (decedent's negligence action does not survive decedent's death, unless brought under Wrongful Death and Survival Act). Kollman v. Hewitt Associates, LLC, D.C.Pa.2004, 2004 WL 1211961. DirecTV v. Hinton, D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 856555 (statute provides no private cause of action). DirecTV v. Rajkovac, D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 856465 (statute provides no private cause of action). Smith v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Kan.2004, 2004 WL 838063. Fedee v. Castle Acquisition, Inc., D.C.Virgin Islands 2004, 2004 WL 828219 (state law claims preempted by federal law). Scholl v. Rogers Ready Mix, D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 793552 (plaintiff's state law claims preempted by Labor Management Relations Act). McConnell v. MAMSI Life & Health Ins. Co., D.C.Pa.2004, 2004 WL 792767 (plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by ERISA). New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Canali Reins. Co., D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 769775 (arbitration clause in agreement necessitated Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal). Alvarez v. Hi-Temp, Inc., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 603489 (state law claims preempted). Hobson v. Kemper Nat. Servs. Integrated Disability Management, D.C.Ind.2004, 2004 WL 578398, citing Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., D.C.Ind.2001, 161 F.Supp.2d 948, 950–951, quoting Wright & Miller. Morgan v. Centers for New Horizons, Inc., D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 524441 (plaintiff cannot assert claims not raised in EEOC complaint).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Clyne v. Correctional Medical Servs., D.C.Del.2004, 2004 WL 502215 (respondeat superior is inapplicable to § 1983 actions) VanHorn v. Nebraska State Racing Comm'n, D.C.Neb.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 1151, citing Wright & Miller. Graves v. Tubb, D.C.Miss.2003, 281 F.Supp.2d 886. Davis v. DCB Financial Corp., D.C.Ohio 2003, 259 F.Supp.2d 664. Rule 12(b)(6) screens out “cases where a complaint states a claim based upon a wrong for which there is clearly no remedy, or a claim which the plaintiff is without right or power to assert and for which no relief could possibly be granted.” Daniels v. Baritz, D.C.Pa.2003, 2003 WL 21027238 (Kelly, J.), quoting Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Arcadian Corp., C.A.3d, 1999,189 F.3d 305. Woodall v. AES Corporation, D.C.Ind.2002, 2002 WL 1461718, quoting Wright & Miller. Savage v. Hatcher, D.C.Ohio 2002, 2002 WL 484986. Iowa Health Sys. v. Trinity Health Corp., D.C.Iowa 2001, 177 F.Supp.2d 897. Edwards v. Physician's Credit Bureau, D.C.Ohio 2001, 2001 WL 1678783 (unpublished). Sheehan v. Ryan, D.C.La.2000, 111 F.Supp.2d 792. Gibson v. American Bankers Ins. Co., D.C.Ky.2000, 91 F.Supp.2d 1037, affirmed C.A.6th, 2002, 289 F.3d 943. Doe v. Hartz, D.C.Iowa 1999, 52 F.Supp.2d 1027. Korte v. Allstate Ins. Co., D.C.Tex.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 647. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., D.C.Ohio 1999, 35 F.Supp.2d 597 (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal appropriate only when no law supports allegations, facts do not state claim, or insurmountable bar to relief appears on face of complaint). Lewis v. Cook County Dep't of Corrections, D.C.Ill.1998, 28 F.Supp.2d 1073 (if plaintiff pleads particulars inconsistent with claim, dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate). Roberts v. Board of Educ., D.C.Ill.1998, 25 F.Supp.2d 866. Dethmers Mfg. Co. v. Automatic Equip. Mfg. Co., D.C.Iowa 1998, 23 F.Supp.2d 974 (Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted only when allegations on face of complaint show some insuperable bar to relief). Texas Carpenters Health Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., D.C.Tex.1998, 21 F.Supp.2d 664, citing Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.5th, 2000, 199 F.3d 788. Grove v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Iowa 1998, 14 F.Supp.2d 1101. Frith v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Tex.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 734. Eirschele by & through Eirschele v. Craven County Bd. of Educ., D.C.N.C.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 655. Force v. ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., D.C.Minn.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 843. U.S. ex rel. Zissler v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, D.C.Minn.1998, 992 F.Supp. 1097, reversed on other grounds C.A.8th, 1998, 154 F.3d 870. Berridge v. Heiser, D.C.Ohio 1997, 993 F.Supp. 1136. Doan v. INS, D.C.Mo.1997, 990 F.Supp. 744, affirmed C.A.8th, 1998, 160 F.3d 508. Terra Indus., Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Iowa 1997, 990 F.Supp. 679. Leiberkneckt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., D.C.Iowa 1997, 980 F.Supp. 300. Browning v. Vecellio & Grogan, Inc., D.C.Va.1996, 945 F.Supp. 930. In re Ticketmaster Corp. Antitrust Litigation, D.C.Mo.1996, 929 F.Supp. 1272, affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.8th, 1998, 140 F.3d 1166. Kelleher v. Aerospace Community Credit Union, D.C.Mo.1996, 927 F.Supp. 361. Moore v. Kamikawa, D.C.Haw.1995, 940 F.Supp. 260, affirmed C.A.9th, 1996, 82 F.3d 423. FTC v. Freeman Hosp., D.C.Mo.1995, 914 F.Supp. 331. Powell v. Tordoff, D.C.Iowa 1995, 911 F.Supp. 1184. Gabrynowicz v. Heitkamp, D.C.N.D.1995, 904 F.Supp. 1061 (nonjusticiability is bar). Dahl v. Kanawha Inv. Holding Co., D.C.Iowa 1995, 161 F.R.D. 673. Mathis v. American Group Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mo.1994, 873 F.Supp. 1348. Thomson v. Olson, D.C.N.D.1994, 866 F.Supp. 1267, affirmed C.A.8th, 1995, 56 F.3d 69. Ellen S. v. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners, D.C.Fla.1994, 859 F.Supp. 1489, citing Wright & Miller. Gen-Probe Inc. v. Center for Neurologic Study, D.C.Cal.1993, 853 F.Supp. 1215. Russell v. City of Overland Police Dep't, D.C.Mo.1993, 838 F.Supp. 1350. Hilliard v. Shell Western E & P, Inc., D.C.Mich.1993, 836 F.Supp. 1365, reversed on other grounds C.A.6th, 1998, 149 F.3d 1183.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Janopoulos v. Harvey L. Walner & Associates, Ltd., D.C.Ill.1993, 835 F.Supp. 459, 460. Gersten v. Rundle, D.C.Fla.1993, 833 F.Supp. 906, citing Wright & Miller. Gruben v. Famous-Barr Co., D.C.Mo.1993, 823 F.Supp. 664. Maritrend, Inc. v. Galveston Wharves, D.C.Tex.1993, 152 F.R.D. 543. Coplin & Associates, Inc. v. U.S., D.C.Mich.1992, 814 F.Supp. 643, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 27 F.3d 566. Wiltgen v. U.S., D.C.Iowa 1992, 813 F.Supp. 1387. Tobey v. NLRB, D.C.D.C.1992, 807 F.Supp. 798, 799 n. 2, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed C.A.1994, 40 F.3d 469, 309 U.S.App.D.C. 213. Ronwin v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., D.C.Neb.1992, 807 F.Supp. 87, affirmed C.A.8th, 1993, 996 F.2d 1221. Mousseaux v. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, D.C.S.D.1992, 806 F.Supp. 1433, affirmed in part, remanded in part on other grounds C.A.8th, 1994, 28 F.3d 786. Travis v. Frank, D.C.Mo.1992, 804 F.Supp. 1160. Holland v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, D.C.D.C.1992, 794 F.Supp. 420, 422, quoting Wright & Miller. Franklin Asaph L.P. v. FDIC, D.C.D.C.1992, 794 F.Supp. 402, 404, quoting Wright & Miller. Geir v. Educational Serv. Unit No. 16, D.C.Neb.1992, 144 F.R.D. 680 (Peister, M.J.). Sixel v. Transportation Communications, D.C.Minn.1989, 708 F.Supp. 240 (face of complaint must show “insurmountable obstacle to relief”). Rodriguez Hernandez v. Almodovar, D.C.Puerto Rico 1986, 631 F.Supp. 960, 961, quoting Wright & Miller. Altemose Constr. Co. v. Atlantic, Cape May & Parts of Burlington, Ocean & Cumberland Counties Bldg. Trades Council, D.C.N.J.1980, 493 F.Supp. 1181. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Mitchell Buick-Pontiac & Equip. Co., D.C.Miss.1979, 479 F.Supp. 345. School Dist. of Kansas City, Missouri v. Missouri, D.C.Mo.1978, 460 F.Supp. 421. Sarkees v. Wright & Kremers, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1977, 433 F.Supp. 705. Brubrad Co. v. U.S. Postal Serv., D.C.N.Y.1975, 404 F.Supp. 691, affirmed without opinion C.A.2d, 1976, 538 F.2d 308, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 99, 429 U.S. 834, 50 L.Ed.2d 99. Harsh v. CPC International, Inc., D.C.Tex.1975, 395 F.Supp. 578. Mastandrea v. Gurrentz Int'l Corp., D.C.Pa.1974, 65 F.R.D. 52, 55, quoting Wright & Miller. Jacksonville Newspaper Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union No. 57 v. Florida Publishing Co., D.C.Fla.1972, 340 F.Supp. 993, affirmed on other grounds C.A.5th, 1972, 468 F.2d 824, certiorari denied 93 S.Ct. 1531, 411 U.S. 906, 36 L.Ed.2d 196. American Dairy Queen Corp. v. Augustyn, D.C.Ill.1967, 278 F.Supp. 717. Camero v. Kostos, D.C.N.J.1966, 253 F.Supp. 331. Smith v. Vincent, D.C.Fla.1952, 109 F.Supp. 451, affirmed on other grounds C.A.5th, 1953, 204 F.2d 945. In re Patterson, 59 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 1706, 2008 WL 2276961 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2008) (lack of standing). In re Bridge Information Sys., Inc., Bkrtcy.D.C.Mo.2003, 293 B.R. 479. In re Hollis & Co., Bkrtcy.D.C.Ark.1988, 86 B.R. 152.

See also United Wisconsin Life Ins. Co. v. Kreiner & Peters Co., D.C.Ohio 2004, 306 F.Supp.2d 743 (Rule 12(b)(6) motion denied because ERISA does not bar claims). McCay v. Big Town, Inc., 1975, 307 So.2d 695, 697, 293 Ala. 582, quoting Wright & Miller. Sousa v. Albino, 1978, 388 A.2d 804, 120 R.I. 461, citing Wright & Miller. Goldstein v. Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Nat. Bank, 1972, 296 A.2d 112, 115, 110 R.I. 580, citing Wright & Miller. Cutler v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Wash.1994, 881 P.2d 216, 124 Wn.2d 749, quoting Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 2634, 515 U.S. 1169, 132 L.Ed.2d 873. 59 Clearly show no claim Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. U.S., 728 F.3d 1348, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Rouse v. Stacy, 478 Fed. Appx. 945, 959 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 836, 184 L.Ed.2d 652 (2013) (McKeague, J., dissenting) ("Here, if Rouse proved his case exactly as he presented it, he would be foreclosed from recovery, and we are under no obligation to save his complaint by contradicting his allegations."), citing NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co., 507 F.3d 442, 458 (6th Cir. 2007).

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

The plaintiff "can unwittingly plead himself out of court by asserting facts that preclude relief." White v. Monohan, 326 Fed. Appx. 385, 386 (7th Cir. 2009) (for citation rules see Seven Circuit Rule 53). Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff pled herself out of court by including facts in her complaint that undermined her claims). Pugh v. Tribune Co., 521 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff can plead herself out of court by alleging facts that show there is no viable claim). Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 458, 172 L.Ed.2d 377 (2008). C.R. ex rel. Reilly v. Boy Scouts of America, Troop 223, 280 Fed. Appx. 669 (9th Cir. 2008). Insomnia Inc. v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, 278 Fed. Appx. 609 (6th Cir. 2008). Vincent v. City Colleges of Chicago, C.A.7th, 2007, 485 F.3d 919 (Easterbrook, J.). MM&S Financial, Inc. v. National Ass'n of Secs. Dealers, Inc., C.A.8th, 2004, 364 F.3d 908 (no private right of action exists against self-regulatory organization). A party defending a sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) must show that “ ‘[t]he allegations contained in the complaint, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are patently meritless and beyond all hope of redemption.’ ” Chute v. Walker, C.A.1st, 2002, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (Lynch, J.), quoting Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. U.S., C.A.1st, 2001, 257 F.3d 31, 37. Bennett v. Schmidt, C.A.7th, 1998, 153 F.3d 516, on remand D.C.Ill.2000, 2000 WL 1161073 (litigants may plead themselves out of court by alleging facts that establish defendants' entitlement to prevail). Kelley v. Crosfield Catalysts, C.A.7th, 1998, 135 F.3d 1202. Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., C.A.3d, 1997, 132 F.3d 902. Easton v. Sundram, C.A.2d, 1991, 947 F.2d 1011, certiorari denied 112 S.Ct. 1943, 504 U.S. 911, 118 L.Ed.2d 548 (claim of First Amendment retaliation failed at outset because complaint showed that plaintiff had not engaged in protected conduct). Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley, C.A.9th, 1989, 864 F.2d 1475, 1478, quoting Wright & Miller. American Nurses' Ass'n v. Illinois, C.A.7th, 1986, 783 F.2d 716, 724, citing Wright & Miller. Western Reserve Oil & Gas Co. v. New, C.A.9th, 1985, 765 F.2d 1428, certiorari denied 106 S.Ct. 795, 474 U.S. 1056, 88 L.Ed.2d 773. Russell v. Landrieu, C.A.9th, 1980, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039, citing Wright & Miller. Thomas W. Garland, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, C.A.8th, 1979, 596 F.2d 784, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct. 208, 444 U.S. 899, 62 L.Ed.2d 135. Richardson v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Health, C.A.3d, 1977, 561 F.2d 489. Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., C.A.2d, 1976, 551 F.2d 887. Kennedy v. Meacham, C.A.10th, 1976, 540 F.2d 1057. Bruce v. Wade, C.A.5th, 1976, 537 F.2d 850. Egelston v. State Univ. College at Geneseo, C.A.2d, 1976, 535 F.2d 752. Sessions v. Chrysler Corp., C.A.9th, 1975, 517 F.2d 759. Perdue v. Supreme Ct. of the U.S., C.A.9th, 1971, 439 F.2d 806, 807. When the insurance policy exhibited with the complaint indicated that the plaintiff was not covered for the injury in issue, a judgment of dismissal was entered following the granting of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Tenopir v. State Farm Mut. Co., C.A.9th, 1968, 403 F.2d 533. Dorsey v. State Farm Ins. Co., C.A.5th, 1961, 294 F.2d 678. Williams v. Doyle, D.C.Wis.2007, 494 F.Supp.2d 1019. Walker v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, D.C.Ill.2007, 491 F.Supp.2d 781 (facts included in complaint can undermine claims, which means plaintiff has pled herself out of court). Members v. Parke, D.C.Ind.2007, 2007 WL 1724899. Tamayo v. Hamer, D.C.Ill.2007, 2007 WL 1576528. Bishop v. PCS Administration (USA), Inc., D.C.Ill.2006, 2006 WL 1460032. DirecTV, Inc. v. Wright, D.C.Ga.2004, 350 F.Supp.2d 1048 (statute did not provide private right of action). DIRECTV v. Smith, Inc., D.C.Ohio 2004, 2004 WL 1247665 (relevant statute contained no private right of action). DirecTV v. Kamba, D.C.Ill.2004, 2004 WL 1125890 (statute provided no private right of action). VanHorn v. Nebraska State Racing Comm'n, D.C.Neb.2004, 304 F.Supp.2d 1151, citing Wright & Miller. Davis v. Potter, D.C.Ill.2004, 301 F.Supp.2d 850.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Shapo v. O'Shaughnessy, D.C.Ill.2002, 246 F.Supp.2d 935. Hopkins v. Women's Div., Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries, D.C.D.C.2002, 238 F.Supp.2d 174, quoting Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., C.A.2000, 216 F.3d.1111, 342 U.S.App.D.C. 268. Woodall v. AES Corporation, D.C.Ind.2002, 2002 WL 1461718, quoting Wright & Miller. Kissimmee River Valley Sportsmans Ass'n v. City of Lakeland, D.C.Fla.1999, 60 F.Supp.2d 1289, affirmed C.A.11th, 2001, 250 F.3d 1324 (when no plausible construction of statute creates cause). “[I]n the event of a factual discrepancy between the pleading and the attached exhibit, the exhibit controls.” Sunquest Information Sys., Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., D.C.Pa.1999, 40 F.Supp.2d 644, 649 (Smith, J.). Pegasus Holdings v. Veterinary Centers of America, Inc., D.C.Cal.1998, 38 F.Supp.2d 1158 (dismissal appropriate when complaint forms no cognizable legal theory). Digiro v. Pall Aeropower Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 19 F.Supp.2d 1304. Lange v. Showbiz Pizza Time, Inc., D.C.Kan.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 1150. Corporate Health Ins., Inc. v. Texas Dep't of Ins., D.C.Tex.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 597, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.5th, 2000, 215 F.3d 526. Cytyc Corp. v. Neuromedical Sys., Inc., D.C.N.Y.1998, 12 F.Supp.2d 296 (court may dismiss defamation claim if statements are not actionable as matter of law). When, on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations of the complaint will support the cause of action, dismissal of the complaint is appropriate. Stapleton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., D.C.Fla.1998, 11 F.Supp.2d 1344. Harris v. District Bd. of Trustees of Polk Community College, D.C.Fla.1998, 9 F.Supp.2d 1319. Henniger v. Pinellas County, D.C.Fla.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 1334. Madsen v. Park City, D.C.Ill.1998, 6 F.Supp.2d 938. Nautica Int'l, Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P., D.C.Fla.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 1333. A plaintiff may plead himself out of court. Love v. City of Chicago Bd. of Educ., D.C.Ill.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 611. Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 423, summary judgment granted in part, denied in part on other grounds D.C.Miss.2001, 2001 WL 1543890. Braden v. Piggly Wiggly, D.C.Ala.1998, 4 F.Supp.2d 1357. Bryant v. New Jersey Dep't of Transportation, D.C.N.J.1998, 1 F.Supp.2d 426. Allison v. Brooktree Corp., D.C.Cal.1998, 999 F.Supp. 1342. Wasserman v. Three Seasons Ass'n No. 1, Inc., D.C.Fla.1998, 998 F.Supp. 1445. If a plaintiff chooses to plead particulars, and they show that he has no claim, then he is out of luck. Bender v. Suburban Hosp., D.C.Md.1998, 998 F.Supp. 631, affirmed C.A.4th, 1998, 159 F.3d 186. Dismissal is appropriate when, on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations of the complaint will support the cause of action. Farabee v. Rider, D.C.Fla.1998, 995 F.Supp. 1398. When, on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations of a complaint will support the cause of action, dismissal of the complaint is appropriate. DiGiro v. Pall Corp., D.C.Fla.1998, 993 F.Supp. 1471. Miller v. Stonehenge/FasaTexas, JDC, L.P., D.C.Tex.1998, 993 F.Supp. 461 (dismissal is proper when even most sympathetic reading of pleadings uncovers no theory and no facts that would subject defendants to liability). Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue of law. This streamlines litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and factfinding. Mruz v. Caring, Inc., D.C.N.J.1998, 991 F.Supp. 701. Adamczyk v. Lever Bros. Co., Div. of Conopco, D.C.Ill.1997, 991 F.Supp. 931. In re FAC Realty Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.C.1997, 990 F.Supp. 416. U.S. v. One (1) 1980 Cessna 441 Conquest II Aircraft, D.C.Fla.1997, 989 F.Supp. 1465. Ramage v. Forbes Int'l Inc., D.C.Cal.1997, 987 F.Supp. 810. Andrea L. by Judith B. v. Children & Youth Servs. of Lawrence County, D.C.Pa.1997, 987 F.Supp. 418. Naguib v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, D.C.Ill.1997, 986 F.Supp. 1082. Chumbley v. Gashinski, D.C.Fla.1997, 983 F.Supp. 1406. Florida College of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., D.C.Fla.1997, 982 F.Supp. 862. Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Florida, D.C.Fla.1997, 980 F.Supp. 1455. Toole v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., D.C.Ala.1997, 980 F.Supp. 419. Betancourt v. Marine Cargo Management, D.C.Fla.1996, 930 F.Supp. 606, 608, quoting Wright & Miller.

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

Freeman v. Fairman, D.C.Ill.1996, 916 F.Supp. 786. Canon v. Clark, D.C.Fla.1995, 883 F.Supp. 718, quoting Wright & Miller. Honduras Aircraft Registry Ltd. v. Government of Honduras, D.C.Fla.1995, 883 F.Supp. 685, quoting Wright & Miller, affirmed in part and vacated in part on other grounds C.A.11th, 1997, 129 F.3d 543. Houston v. Mile High Adventist Academy, D.C.Colo.1994, 872 F.Supp. 829. Cromer v. Lounsbury Chiropractic Offices, Inc., D.C.W.Va.1994, 866 F.Supp. 960, citing Wright & Miller. Haltman v. Aura Sys., Inc., D.C.Cal.1993, 844 F.Supp. 544. City of Heath, Ohio v. Ashland Oil, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1993, 834 F.Supp. 971. DiPietro-Kay Corp. v. Interactive Benefits Corp., D.C.Conn.1993, 825 F.Supp. 459. Bartley v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, D.C.Tex.1992, 824 F.Supp. 624. Negron Rivera v. Diaz, D.C.Puerto Rico 1988, 679 F.Supp. 161, 163, citing Wright & Miller. Rodriguez Otero v. Riefkohl, D.C.Puerto Rico 1987, 667 F.Supp. 58, 62, quoting Wright & Miller. High v. McLean Financial Corp., D.C.D.C.1987, 659 F.Supp. 1561, 1564, citing Wright & Miller. Swarovski America Ltd. v. Silver Deer Ltd., D.C.Colo.1982, 537 F.Supp. 1201. Smith v. Woodstock, D.C.Ill.1981, 521 F.Supp. 1263, 1264, citing Wright & Miller. Dorsten v. Lapeer County Gen. Hosp., D.C.Mich.1981, 521 F.Supp. 944, 947, citing Wright & Miller. Lakeside Community Hosp. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, D.C.Nev.1978, 461 F.Supp. 1150, 1153, quoting Wright & Miller. Automobile Club of New York, Inc. v. Cox, D.C.N.Y.1978, 444 F.Supp. 174, affirmed on the merits C.A.2d, 1979, 592 F.2d 658. American Medicorp, Inc. v. Humana, Inc., D.C.Pa.1977, 445 F.Supp. 573. Lavin v. Data Sys. Analysts, Inc., D.C.Pa.1977, 443 F.Supp. 104, affirmed without opinion C.A.3d, 1978, 578 F.2d 1374. Strozier v. General Motors Corp., D.C.Ga.1977, 442 F.Supp. 475. Classon v. Shopko Stores, Inc., D.C.Wis.1977, 435 F.Supp. 1186. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc., D.C.Iowa 1977, 430 F.Supp. 1234, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds C.A.8th, 1978, 578 F.2d 1256. When it was admitted by a pro se plaintiff in his third action against the banks of the area that the theory of the complaint was not different from that of his complaints in the first and second actions against the area banks, he could not be allowed to litigate the claim a third time. Raitport v. Chemical Bank, D.C.N.Y.1977, 74 F.R.D. 128. When the defendant is merely named in the caption of the complaint but is nowhere claimed to have caused the plaintiff injury, the complaint against him must be dismissed. Child v. Beame, D.C.N.Y.1976, 417 F.Supp. 1023. Although a court may entertain doubt as to the plaintiff's ability to prove his allegations, it may not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim when it cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff's burden is impossible to meet. Lorber v. Beebe, D.C.N.Y.1975, 407 F.Supp. 279, amended on other grounds D.C.N.Y.1976, 1976 WL 768. Sandusky Land, Ltd. v. Uniplan Groups, Inc., D.C.Ohio 1975, 400 F.Supp. 440. Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio 1975, 395 F.Supp. 1344. Before granting a motion to dismiss, the court must be convinced to a certainty that the plaintiffs are entitled to no relief under any state of facts that could be proved in support of their claim. Young v. Harder, D.C.Kan.1973, 361 F.Supp. 64. U.S. v. Bookbinder, D.C.Pa.1971, 330 F.Supp. 1125, citing Wright & Miller. Stambler v. Dillon, D.C.N.Y.1969, 302 F.Supp. 1250. The court concluded that the provisions of a lease attached to the complaint prevented the plaintiff from stating a claim and granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Pointer v. American Oil Co., D.C.Ind.1968, 295 F.Supp. 573. Riverhouse Publishing Co. v. Porter, D.C.R.I.1968, 287 F.Supp. 1. A complaint alleging unlawful repossession of an automobile was dismissed since the facts alleged showed that the plaintiff was delinquent in the installment payments and that repossession involved no breach of the peace. Bing v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., D.C.S.C.1965, 237 F.Supp. 911.

See also Lavoie v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., S.Ct.Ala.1979, 374 So.2d 310, 311, citing Wright & Miller. Weil & Associates v. Urban Renewal Agency of Wichita, 1971, 479 P.2d 875, 883, 206 Kan. 405, citing Wright & Miller. Fabrizio v. City of Quincy, 1980, 404 N.E.2d 675, 676, 9 Mass.App.Ct. 733, quoting Wright & Miller. 60 State Farm case

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

C.A.5th, 1961, 294 F.2d 676. 61 Negligence action Smith v. Vincent, D.C.Fla.1952, 109 F.Supp. 451, affirmed on other grounds C.A.5th, 1953, 204 F.2d 945. 62 Affirmative defense Jones v. Bock, 2007, 127 S.Ct. 910, 549 U.S. 199, 166 L.Ed.2d 798, citing Wright & Miller. Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 901 (9th Cir. 2013), citing Wright & Miller. Simmons v. Sabine River Authority Louisiana, 732 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir. 2013) (federal preemption). Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 726 F.3d 717, 726 (5th Cir. 2013) (claim may be subject to Rule 12(b)(6) motion properly where complaint itself establishes applicability of affirmative defense), citing Fisher v. Halliburton, 667 F.3d 602, 608-609 (5th Cir. 2012). Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., 719 F.3d 498, 509 (6th Cir. 2013) ("loss causation," which refers to causal connection between defendant's material misrepresentation or omission and plaintiff's loss, is affirmative defense to claims under § 11 of Securities Act of 1933). Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 717 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2013) (statute of limitations is affirmative defense). Independent Trust Corp. v. Stewart Information Services Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 935 (7th Cir. 2012) ("[W]hen a plaintiff's complaint nonetheless sets out all of the elements of an affirmative defense, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate."). Cole v. Secretary Dept. of Corrections, 451 Fed. Appx. 827, 828 (11th Cir. 2011) ("Rule 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal when an affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint * * *."). Yarnell v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 3624933, *4 (6th Cir. 2011) (for citation rules see Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g)). The notice requirement of the D.C. Whistleblower Act granted the defendant an affirmative defense that resulted with a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Winder v. Erste, 566 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Martin v. Snyder, C.A.7th, 2003, 329 F.3d 919 (qualified immunity of state correctional officials). Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc., C.A.10th, 1999, 186 F.3d 1301, citing Wright & Miller. Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, C.A.2d, 1998, 152 F.3d 67, citing Wright & Miller, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 868, 525 U.S. 1103, 142 L.Ed.2d 770. ALA, Incorporated v. CCAIR, Incorporated, C.A.3d, 1994, 29 F.3d 855, citing Wright & Miller. Kansa Reins. Co., Ltd. v. Congressional Mortgage Corp. of Texas, C.A.5th, 1994, 20 F.3d 1362. Davis v. Grusemeyer, C.A.3d, 1993, 996 F.2d 617. Fortner v. Thomas, C.A.11th, 1993, 983 F.2d 1024. Brown v. Crawford County, Georgia, C.A.11th, 1992, 960 F.2d 1002 (absolute immunity of government officials engaged in legislative activity). Trevino v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., C.A.7th, 1990, 916 F.2d 1230, 1234, citing Wright & Miller. Tele-Communications of Key West, Inc. v. U.S., C.A.1985, 757 F.2d 1330, 244 U.S.App.D.C. 335. Miller v. Shell Oil Co., C.A.10th, 1965, 345 F.2d 891. Williams v. Murdoch, C.A.3d, 1964, 330 F.2d 745. A defense of privilege raised on the face of the complaint required its dismissal. Wallingford v. Zenith Radio Corp., C.A.7th, 1962, 310 F.2d 693. Although Rule 8(c) requires affirmative defenses to be pleaded, there is general agreement that the defense of limitations or laches may be asserted by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim provided that the complaint shows affirmatively that the claim is barred. Herron v. Herron, C.A.5th, 1958, 255 F.2d 589. Ginsburg v. Black, C.A.7th, 1951, 192 F.2d 823, certiorari denied 72 S.Ct. 770, 343 U.S. 934, 96 L.Ed. 1342. The defense of res judicata usually should be pleaded, but when all the relevant facts are shown by the court's own records, an answer is not required and the defense may be raised by a motion to dismiss. W.E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc., C.A.2d, 1951, 186 F.2d 236. Butcher v. United Elec. Coal Co., C.A.7th, 1949, 174 F.2d 1003. Franklin v. City of Slidell, 936 F. Supp. 2d 691, 716-718 (E.D. La. 2013) (declined to dismiss complaint under Americans with Disabilities Act on account of business-necessity exception). Image Masters, Inc. v. Chase Home Finance, 489 B.R. 375, 391 (E.D. Pa. 2013) ("[A] complaint 'may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when an affirmative defense * * * appears on its face.' * * * When facts or matters outside of the complaint are necessary

§ 1357Motions to Dismiss—Practice Under Rule 12(b)(6), 5B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ....

to establish the affirmative defense, however, raising it under Rule 12(b)(6) is usually not permitted."), quoting Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2001); citing Worldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc., 343 F.3d 651, 657 (3d Cir. 2003). Mills-Craddock v. Gates, 2012 WL 3594634, *2 (E.D. N.C. 2012), citing Wright & Miller. Frees v. Duby, 2010 WL 4923535, *1 n.1 (W.D. Mich. 2010), citing Wright & Miller. Ambulatory Infusion Therapy Specialists, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., D.C.Tex.2006, 2006 WL 2521411, citing Wright & Miller. Adams v. Crystal City Marriott Hotel, D.C.N.Y.2004, 2004 WL 744489, quoting Wright & Miller. In re Merrill Lynch & Co. Research Reports Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2003, 289 F.Supp.2d 429. In re Estate of Molina-Velez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., D.C.Puerto Rico 2003, 286 F.Supp.2d 185. In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Secs. Litigation, D.C.N.Y.2003, 2003 WL 21036085 (preemption by Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act). Ingram v. Rencor Controls, Inc., D.C.Me.2002, 217 F.Supp.2d 141. Hutchison v. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., D.C.Tex.2002, 205 F.Supp.2d 629. Gray v. Metts, D.C.Md.2002, 203 F.Supp.2d 426, citing Wright & Miller. Swedish Civil Aviation Admin. v. Project Management Enterprises, Inc., D.C.Md.2002, 190 F.Supp.2d 785, citing Wright & Miller. The individual defendants' affirmative defenses of absolute and qualified immunity were raised on, and thus reviewable on, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. T.S. Haulers, Inc. v. Town of Riverhead, D.C.N.Y.2002, 190 F.Supp.2d 455, citing Wright & Miller. “Although a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) invites an inquiry into the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not an analysis of potential defenses to the claims set forth therein, dismissal nevertheless is appropriate when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious affirmative defense.” Eniola v. Leasecomm Corp., D.C.Md.2002, 2002 WL 1822411, 4, citing Wright & Miller (Chasanow, J.). U.S. ex rel. Coppock v. Northrop Grumman Corp., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1796979. Although a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal ordinarily is determined by whether the facts alleged in the complaint give rise to a cause of action, a claim also may be dismissed if a successful affirmative defense appears clearly on the face of the pleadings. Taylor v. Maple Ave. Economic Dev. Corp., D.C.Tex.2002, 2002 WL 1758189. CSR Limited v. Federal Ins. Co., D.C.N.J.1998, 40 F.Supp.2d 559. Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, Inc., D.C.Miss.1998, 5 F.Supp.2d 423, summary judgment granted in part, denied in part on other grounds D.C.Miss.2001, 2001 WL 1543890. Hoopla Sports & Entertainment, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., D.C.Ill.1996, 947 F.Supp. 347. Torrie by & through Torrie v. Cwayna, D.C.Mich.1994, 841 F.Supp. 1434. Three Crown Ltd. Partnership v. Caxton Corp., D.C.N.Y.1993, 817 F.Supp. 1033. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. LeDuc, D.C.Cal.1992, 814 F.Supp. 832, citing Wright & Miller. Coplin & Associates, Inc. v. U.S., D.C.Mich.1992, 814 F.Supp. 643, affirmed C.A.6th, 1994, 27 F.3d 566. Morton v. City of Little Rock, D.C.Ark.1989, 728 F.Supp. 543 (immunity), affirmed C.A.8th, 1991, 934 F.2d 180. Banks v. City of Forest Park, D.C.Ohio 1984, 599 F.Supp. 465, 468, citing Wright & Miller, appeal dismissed without opinion C.A.6th, 1984, 754 F.2d 372. Davenport v. Deseret Pharmaceutical Co., D.C.Va.1971, 321 F.Supp. 659. Schaefer v. U.S., D.C.Mo.1968, 288 F.Supp. 93. Hemingway v. Shull, D.C.S.C.1968, 286 F.Supp. 243 (statute of limitations). Murphy v. Dyer, D.C.Colo.1966, 260 F.Supp. 822. Camero v. Kostos, D.C.N.J.1966, 253 F.Supp. 331. Gaito v. Strauss, D.C.Pa.1966, 249 F.Supp. 923, affirmed C.A.3d, 1966, 368 F.2d 787, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 1173, 386 U.S. 977, 18 L.Ed.2d 139. Lippmann v. Hydro-Space Technology, Inc., D.C.N.J.1964, 235 F.Supp. 860. Delman v. Federal Prods. Corp., D.C.R.I.1955, 136 F.Supp. 241 (statute of limitations). Foote v. Public Housing Comm'r of U.S., D.C.Mich.1952, 107 F.Supp. 270 (statute of limitations). Bradley v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., D.C.N.Y.1946, 6 F.R.D. 37, affirmed on other grounds C.A.2d, 1947, 159 F.2d 39 (illegality). Hoover v. Lacey, D.C.D.C.1943, 80 F.Supp. 691. Kahn v. Cecelia Co., D.C.N.Y.1941, 40 F.Supp. 878 (statute of frauds).