Also known as: FRCP 12(b)(6) · Rule 12(b)(6) · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) · 12(b)(6) · failure to state a claim
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural defense raised by pre-answer motion that challenges whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to support a claim for relief under applicable law. The motion tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading on its face without regard to extrinsic evidence.
Empro sued Ball-Co after Ball-Co negotiated with a third party despite a letter of intent that Empro claimed created an exclusive obligation. The complaint recited the letter's terms and the subsequent negotiations but supplied no facts showing the letter created a binding commitment independent of a later definitive agreement. The court granted Ball-Co's motion because the pleaded facts did not support an enforceable obligation.
Shareholders sued Tellabs alleging corporate officers knowingly misled investors about product demand. The complaint detailed internal reports showing declining orders but contained no facts linking those reports to the officers' state of mind at the time of public statements. The court granted the motion because the pleaded facts did not support a strong inference of scienter.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Gibson sued his union alleging breach of the duty of fair representation after the union failed to pursue grievances. The complaint stated only that the union had not processed the claims and that members had suffered harm. The court denied the motion because the allegations gave fair notice of the claim even without detailed factual elaboration.
Semtek sued Lockheed in federal court after an earlier state-court dismissal. The complaint recited the prior judgment but alleged no facts showing the dismissal was not on the merits under the applicable state rule. The court granted the motion because the pleaded facts established preclusion as a matter of law.
Investors sued National Australian Bank alleging misleading statements made abroad that affected U.S. securities prices. The complaint described the statements and price drops but alleged no facts showing the conduct occurred in the United States. The court granted the motion because the pleaded facts failed to establish domestic application of the statute.
Green sued Santa Fe Industries after a short-form merger that cashed out minority shares. The complaint alleged the price was unfair but supplied no facts showing the transaction lacked a legitimate corporate purpose. The court granted the motion because the pleaded facts did not state a claim under the governing fiduciary standard.
The defense may be raised in a pleading, by motion under Rule 12(c), or at trial. It is not waived by failure to assert it in a pre-answer motion.
Supporting sources
No. Parallel conduct alone is consistent with independent action and does not support a plausible inference of agreement without additional nonconclusory facts tending to exclude lawful explanations.
Supporting sources
The court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but disregards legal conclusions and formulaic recitals. The complaint must contain enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face.
Supporting sources
No. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is among the pretrial matters a magistrate judge may not finally determine without de novo review by a district judge.
Supporting sources
…was being used for an improper purpose. This is so because both decisions involved a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim wherein it was alleged in each complaint, and thus assumed as true for the purpose of the motion, that there was no purpose for the merger other than to eliminate the minority shareholders.…