Also known as: dismissal for failure to state a claim · dismissed for failure to state a claim · dismissing for failure to state a claim · 12(b)(6) · failure to state a claim · Rule 12(b)(6) motion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A pretrial motion by which a defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it fails to allege facts supporting a plausible claim for relief.
Daniel Diaz sued Dakota Industries in federal court for legal malpractice after losing a contract dispute. The complaint stated only that counsel mishandled the case without describing any missed deadlines, erroneous filings, or lost opportunities. Dakota Industries moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion because the complaint supplied no facts permitting a reasonable inference of breach or resulting harm.
Dylan Duffy sued Dominic Drake in federal court after a brief encounter in the forum state. Drake moved to dismiss before answering, asserting that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim because it contained only conclusory assertions of liability with no supporting facts about any duty or breach. The court granted the motion, noting that even a transient defendant may test the complaint's sufficiency at the pleading stage.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Diane Dawson sued Dillon Energy seeking attorney fees after the company changed a challenged policy. The complaint alleged only that the lawsuit prompted the change and contained no facts showing an enforceable right to fees under any statute. Dillon Energy moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion because the bare catalyst theory supplied no plausible basis for relief.
Devon Drake sued Diamond Manufacturing alleging discriminatory termination. The complaint recited only that the discharge was unlawful and offered no facts about similarly situated employees or the decision-maker's statements. Diamond Manufacturing moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion because the threadbare allegations did not permit a plausible inference of liability.
Darius Dixon sued Duffy Construction for breach of an oral agreement to build a warehouse. The complaint identified the parties, stated the agreement existed, and alleged nonperformance without quoting terms or detailing the breach. Duffy Construction moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion because the short and plain statement gave fair notice of the claim.
Dakota Industries sued Tellabs executives alleging securities fraud based on optimistic statements later contradicted by internal reports. The complaint detailed the reports and the executives' knowledge but left competing inferences about scienter unresolved. The defendants moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion because the facts permitted a strong inference of fraudulent intent.
A defendant may raise the defense by pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or in a responsive pleading. The defense is preserved and may also be raised later by motion for judgment on the pleadings or at trial.
Supporting sources
The complaint must contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Labels, conclusions, and formulaic recitals of elements do not suffice.
Supporting sources
A 12(b)(6) motion tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and assumes the facts alleged are true. Summary judgment requires the movant to show no genuine dispute of material fact after discovery and consideration of evidence outside the pleadings.
Supporting sources
No. Unlike personal jurisdiction or venue, failure to state a claim is not waived by omission from an initial motion and may be raised at any time before trial or even at trial under Rule 12(h)(2).
Supporting sources
…claimed deprivation of the right to vote in municipal elections. The District Court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This Court unanimously reversed. This Court's answer to the argument that States enjoyed unrestricted control over…