DTCI: The business end of Trial Rule 12(B)(6)

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Huettner Huettner

By Samantha A. Huettner

A dispositive motion is either a beacon of legal efficiency or a disfavored procedural shortcut that prematurely ends a perfectly good claim, depending on a party’s status as movant or nonmovant.

Young lawyers who find themselves and their pleadings on the wrong end of a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion should consider the following:

What is a 12(B)(6) motion? Rule 12(B)(6) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure allows a court to dismiss a case for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Generally, there are two types of pleadings vulnerable to a 12(B)(6) motion: those that are legally deficient and fail to set forth all of the essential elements of a cause of action as a matter of law; or those that are factually deficient, with facts that make it clear that the claim is barred (for example, an injury case where the date of the accident shows that the applicable statute of limitations time-bars the claim). Attorneys faced with a 12(B)(6) motion should consider into which of these two categories their pleading falls, if any, in formulating a response.

What rules guide the court’s decision? A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(B)(6) tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency; that is, whether the allegations establish any set of circumstances under which a plaintiff would be entitled to relief. A court will accept as true the facts alleged, should consider the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and should draw every reasonable inference in the plaintiff’s favor. This legal framework creates an advantage for attorneys responding to a 12(B)(6) motion.

What happens if the court dismisses the case? If the court dismisses your case for failure to state a claim under 12(B)(6), you may amend your pleading once as of right within 10 days after service of notice of the court’s order sustaining the motion and thereafter with the court’s permission. T.R. 12(B)(8). Attorneys considering this route should first take a hard look at the facts and theories underlying the claim. The law is clear that a court may award fees against a party who files an amended complaint that suffers from the same deficiencies as the first if it finds that the amended complaint is “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.” I.C. § 34-1-32-1.

Should you ever voluntarily dismiss a case? Perhaps. If careful reflection and review of the law shows that the 12(B)(6) motion has merit and is likely to succeed, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice may be appropriate. Initiating an action will less often be considered frivolous, unreasonable or groundless than continuing to litigate the same action. Indiana is a notice-pleading state, which means that a case’s commencement may be justified on relatively insubstantial grounds, and “thorough representation will sometimes require a lawyer to proceed against some parties solely for the purpose of investigation through pretrial discovery.” Tipton v Roerig, a Div. of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, 581 N.E.2d 1279, 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). Courts do expect attorneys to quickly determine the propriety of continuing the case and to dismiss promptly claims found to be frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. Depending on the strength of the 12(B)(6) motion and the attorney’s reassessment of the applicable facts, law and pleadings, making the hard decision to voluntarily dismiss the case may be in the best interest of both lawyer and litigant.•

Ms. Huettner is an associate in the Bloomington office of Clendening Johnson & Bohrer and a member of the Young Lawyers Section of DTCI. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!