![]() Of the applicable statute of limitations. It is clear in the first instance that Killoran's complaint was filed after the expiration Significant in this case is the principle that "udgment on the pleadings may beĮntered if the plaintiff fails to present sufficient facts in the complaint to support the Pleaded by the nonmoving party must be accepted as true, and contravening assertionsīy the moving party are to be taken as false. Welch, supra at 354. ![]() ![]() In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion, "all factual allegations argues that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which reliefĬan be granted.'" Jarosz, supra at 529, quoting J.W Smith & H.B. "A defendant's rule 12 (c) motion is 'actually a motion 526, 530 (2002), a Rule 12(c) motionĬhallenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint. "Akin" to a Ruleġ2 (b) (6) motion, Jarosz v. ![]() Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund, 456 Mass. We review the allowance of a Rule 12(c) motion de novo. Thus, in this case, the defendants' Rule 12 (b) (6) motion toĭismiss, filed after their answer to Killoran's complaint, could have been properlyĬonsidered as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. See, e.g., Patel v.Ĭontemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. That guidance overwhelmingly supports permitting a trial judge to construeĪn untimely Rule 12(b) (6) motion as one under Rule 12(c). P., Rule 12(b), we may look for guidance to cases interpreting the cognateįederal rule. P., Ruleġ2 (b) (6), is based directly on its Federal counterpart, Reporters' Notes to Mass. 75, 76 (Rule 12 (b) (2) motion filed after answer 5, 7 (Rule 12 (b) (5) motion filed after answer may be treated as Rule 12(c) motion) Schottenstein Bernstein Capital Group, Inc., 2006 Mass. Massachusetts precedent for treating an untimely Rule 12 (b) (6) motion to dismissĪs a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, there is case law support forĬonsidering untimely motions under other Rule 12 (b) subsections under Rule 12 (c). Pleadings are closed, and may do so by filing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on Aĭefendant retains the right to raise the defense of failure to state a claim after the The solution to this procedural problem is that the defendants' dismissal motionĬould have been properly treated by the trial court as one pursuant to Rule 12 (c). P., Rule 12(b) (noting that Rule 12 (b) (6)ĭefense "shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted). The defendants' Rule 12 (b) (6) motion was untimely because it was submitted after That the statute of limitations has run prior to the date the action was commenced.)Īn initial procedural problem neither addressed nor argued by either party is that lies against a complaint which shows on its face Motion is far less important than its substance.") Babco Indus., Inc. Identified their request as one for dismissal under Rule 12(b) (6). P., Rule 12 (b) (5), 12(b)(6),ġ2 (b) (9), and 12 (b) (10), the substance of both their motion and supporting memorandum The dismissal motion was allowed, and Killoran hasġ. The complaint as barred by the statute of limitations and not within the saving After filing their answer, the defendants moved to dismiss ![]() Killoran ("Killoran"), commenced this tortĪction on Jto recover for injuries allegedly sustained in an automobileĪccident on January 29, 2004. Statute of limitations "Savings" statute.īRENNAN, P.J. 86 ApAppellate Division Western District Court Below: District Court, Worcester Division Present: Brennan, P.J., Gardner & Noonan, JJ. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |