Skip to main content

Just What Can You Consider on a 12(b)(6) Motion Nowadays?

We all know that attacking jurisdiction under 12(b)(1) is a new tactic to bring in the kitchen sink when confronting a newly-filed complaint, but just how far can you go with extrinsic documents under a traditional 12(b)(6) analysis?

Turns out pretty darn far:
For purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) review, which applies to conduct alleged to have occurred on or after March 23, 2010, a court generally may not look beyond the pleadings. See Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs., M.D.’s, P.A., 104 F.3d 1256, 1266 n.11 (11th Cir. 1997). The pleadings include any information attached to a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); Crenshaw v. Lister, 556 F.3d 1283, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). We have explained, however, that a district court may consider an extrinsic document even on Rule 12(b)(6) review if it is (1) central to the plaintiff’s claim, and (2) its authenticity is not challenged. SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2010). In addition, a district court may consider judicially noticed documents. Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999).

Here, the district court considered documents that were attached to Mr. Osheroff’s amended complaint and were part of the pleadings. The court also took judicial notice of the complete list of documents in the defendants’ unopposed motion for judicial notice, including five Miami Herald articles, two advertisements in the Miami Herald, the transcript of a hearing in another case involving a defendant clinic in state court, and the Special Master’s Report in that case.4 None of these documents was improperly considered for the purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Ads and a transcript from state court?

Just what exactly would have been considered improper for the district judge to consider?

This feels like a bad trend.


  1. It's worth noting that the request to judicially notice those documents was unopposed. And even though footnote four says that the documents were properly considered anyway, the court does note that you can consider the documents only for what they state, not for the truth of what they state (the court gives this caveat in regard to the articles, but I believe it applies equally to court documents).

  2. From the opinion it seems they made more than a few mistakes below.

  3. The public disclosure bar in the False Claims Act is unique. Here those documents were able to be considered at least partly because their truthfulness was irrelevant, or put another way, the documents were entirely consistent with material facts that were alleged in the complaint.
    I think this is unlikely to have a major effect in non False Claims Act cases, and in any event should not allow a defendant to submit extraneous documents in order to refute allegations of the complaint any more than they are permitted to do so in limited circumstances already.

  4. I agree and it would have been better had the Court said that.

  5. The doctrine is not novel and is also not dangerous, if the court applies it properly, i.e., not accepting the other documents for the truth, authenticity uncontested, central to the allegations.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.