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. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  2. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here:

  3. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  4. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  5. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia