Page 223 - California Stormwater Workshop Handouts

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. All Star Auto..., 860 F.Supp.2d 1144...
75 ERC 1628
Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when the
District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may either
attack the sufficiency of the
pleadings to establish federal
jurisdiction, or allege an actual lack
of jurisdiction which exists despite
the formal sufficiency of the
complaint. Because challenges to
standing implicate a federal court’s
subject matter jurisdiction under
Article III of the United States
Constitution, they are properly
raised in a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(1).
Meaunrit v. ConAgra Foods Inc., 2010 WL 2867393, *3
(N.D.Cal. July 20, 2010) (internal citations omitted).
When a defendant brings a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the
plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction. See Rattlesnake Coalition v. United States
Envtl. Protection Agency, 509 F.3d 1095, 1102, FN. 1
(9th Cir.2007).
There are two permissible jurisdictional attacks under
Rule 12(b)(1): a facial attack, where the court’s inquiry is 15(a). “Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to
limited to the allegations in the complaint; or a factual
attack, which permits the court to look beyond the
complaint at affidavits or other evidence. Savage v.
Glendale Union High School, 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n. 2
(9th Cir.2003). “In a facial attack, the challenger asserts
that the allegations contained in a complaint are
insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction,
whereas in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the
truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would
otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Li v. Chertoff, 482
F.Supp.2d 1172, 1175 (S.D.Cal.2007) (internal citations
omitted).
If the moving party asserts a facial challenge, the court
must assume that the factual allegations asserted in the
complaint are true and construe those allegations in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at 1175, citing
Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136,
1139 (9th Cir.2003). If the moving party asserts a factual
attack, the court may resolve the factual disputes, looking
beyond the complaint to matters of public record, without
presuming the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegations.
White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.2000).
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2. Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal
A party may move to dismiss an action for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In considering a
motion to dismiss, the court *1148 must accept the
allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90
(1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer,
468 U.S. 183, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984);
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31
L.Ed.2d 263 (1972). Assertions that are mere “legal
conclusions,” however, are not entitled to the assumption
of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). To survive a motion to dismiss, a
plaintiff needs to plead “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Dismissal is appropriate where the
plaintiff fails to state a claim supportable by a cognizable
legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1990).
[1] Upon granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, the court has discretion to allow leave to amend the
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
amend is not appropriate unless it is clear ... that the
complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence
Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th
Cir.2003).
3. Judicial Notice
[2] [3] Generally, the court may not consider material
beyond the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. There are two exceptions: when
material is attached to the complaint or relied on by the
complaint, or when the court takes judicial notice of
matters of public record, provided the facts are not subject
to reasonable dispute. Sherman v. Stryker Corp., 2009
WL 2241664 at *2 (C.D.Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) (internal
citations omitted). Courts may consider extrinsic evidence
when “plaintiff’s claim depends on the contents of a
document, the defendant attaches the document to its
motion to dismiss, and the parties do not dispute the
authenticity of the document....” Knievel v. ESPN, 393
F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir.2005). Further, as discussed
above, the court may consider extrinsic evidence when
deciding factual challenges to jurisdiction under
4