Why “Quick Dismissals” are Rare in Civil Litigation
“Shouldn’t the court outright dismiss the case?” “There’s no way the court will agree with them, right?” “We can get this dismissed quickly, right?” Lawyers hear these types of questions all the time. Only in rare situations, like where a claim is clearly not recognized under Washington law or the claim is clearly barred by the applicable statute of limitations, is the answer anywhere close to a “you have a good shot of getting this lawsuit dismissed.” The reason it is so hard to get a claim dismissed at the outset of a case is due to how courts analyze motions to dismiss. This article explains why quick dismissals on the merits are so rare in civil litigation.
After a complaint is filed and served, the Civil Rules provide defendants with several options, including filing an answer or filing a motion. One authorized motion before filing an answer is a motion brought under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) (often referred to as a “12(b)(6) motion”) – a motion to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Another option for defendants who are seeking a quick dismissal is to answer the complaint and then file a motion brought under Civil Rule 12(c) – a motion “for judgment on the pleadings.” Both 12(b)(6) motions and 12(c) motions essentially request the same thing: that the court conclude as a matter of law that the plaintiff can’t win, and therefore the lawsuit must be dismissed.
The reason it is so hard to succeed on a motion to dismiss brought under either Civil Rule 12(b)(6) or Civil Rule 12(c) is the standard courts use to evaluate whether a plaintiff’s claim is subject to dismissal. Courts must accept the facts alleged in the complaint and any reasonable inferences therefrom as true. For a court to grant a motion to dismiss, the court must conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would justify recovery. Even beyond the allegations raised in a complaint, any hypothetical situation conceivably raised by the complaint that would support recovery can defeat a motion to dismiss. Simply stated, to prevail on a motion to dismiss, the court must conclude that there is no conceivable way the plaintiff will ever be able to prove sufficient facts to support their claims. That is a very high standard to meet, especially when the plaintiff’s factual allegations—no matter how far-fetched they may be—must be taken as true.
Once they know the legal standard, some may be inclined to suggest providing the court with evidence refuting the plaintiff’s claims in support of a motion to dismiss. The only problem with doing so is the impact of providing evidence outside the pleadings. Once a defendant draws the court’s attention to evidence outside the pleadings, and the court considers such evidence, a motion to dismiss is automatically converted to a motion for summary judgment. In turn, both the defendant and the plaintiff will be allowed to present evidence outside the pleadings, and the plaintiff will be able to at least argue that discovery is necessary before the court rules on the converted motion for summary judgment. At the early stage of a case, it is unlikely for a court to grant summary judgment. Therefore, offering evidence outside the pleadings along with a motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) or Civil Rule 12(c) often does not lead to a dismissal on the merits at the outset of a case.
As frustrating as it may be for some litigants, obtaining a quick dismissal of a lawsuit is easier said than done. Hiring reputable counsel and developing both a cost-effective and legally sound plan of action is usually imperative. The lawyers at Beresford Booth have great experience advising clients who are facing, or are already in, litigation. Please do not hesitate to contact Beresford Booth at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone at (425) 776-4100.